Birth certificates don't contain biometrics [edit: I guess some hospitals include a newborn's footprints] and may not contain address in some states; the address is also never updated (nor is the name in case of name changes). They also aren't issued by the national government and are kept in databases at the state level -- sometimes on paper.

I don't believe there are any national standards for what data a birth certificate must contain.

> There's no rational reason of being proud of not having a national ID, when you have mandatory birth registrations and birth certificates.

Some of the Anglosphere's pride in not having national ID should probably be eroded by the standardization of other forms of ID and the movement toward requiring them for more things by regulation (e.g., air travel, banking, some forms of train travel, and proof of age to enter regulated venues that serve alcohol).

However, the lack of national ID should in principle make it harder for the state to routinely easily identify us in public, or to institute movement controls, or to require people to be identified for more kinds of transactions. Possibly all of these things are tending to fail over time in different ways, which may end up making the lack of national ID increasingly symbolic.

At the same time, I do think there are jurisdictions where mandatory national IDs have made it easier for both state and commercial entities to switch some kinds of transactions and interactions from anonymous by default to strongly identified by default. Since we've seen someone else in this thread argue that identifying people for air travel and mobile communications services are desirable benefits of national ID, I'll count that as a point against national ID from my point of view.

A birth certificate isn't required in the US for every single transaction you make.