> When asked to comment on Lavoie's declaration, a DHS spokesperson said in a statement to Reason: "The INA requires aliens and non-citizens in the US to carry immigration documents. Real IDs are not immigration documents—they make identification harder to forge, thwarting criminals and terrorists."
>But of course, Venegas is a U.S. citizen, so he is not required to carry non-existent immigration documents.
Reading between the lines here: citizens who happen to be personae non gratae can be detained indefinitely as soon as they fail to produce immigration documents.
These documents are allowed to not exist if someone is a citizen. Alas, if there is no reliable way to prove one's citizenship, then nobody really needs to be treated like a citizen and everyone can be detained at will.
And this last point, given the current US political context, seems to be why Real ID is being undermined right now.
In another article, I read a US citizen being detained despite showing a copy in his phone: https://archive.is/0WXZR
Edit: actually I'm not sure if he got the chance to show the copy, that info seems ambiguous:
> The federal agents who detained Mubashir refused his repeated attempts to show them a copy of his passport on his phone or provide his name and date of birth to prove his citizenship, he said. Instead, they insisted he allow them to take a photo of him to make the verification, according to Mubashir.
At the outset the article rather bizarrely casts the subject circumstances as a matter of government incompetence in its design and execution of an identification standard as opposed to the reality it then reports on which is DHS tripping over itself to justify unlawful detention of US citizens without cause.
Yes, this article is junk. The motivating story in it is an actual REAL ID and a genuine US citizen; no evidence is presented that the REAL ID is actually unreliable for its purpose other than the claims of an agency that’s bungling its own illegal operations.
DHS doesn't issue REAL IDs. They've delegated that ability to the States. Many states are actively defying Federal law, so how can they be trusted to comply with the REAL ID requirements?
As mentioned in the article; 'Lavoie's declaration says that the agents "needed to further verify his U.S. citizenship because each state has its own REAL ID compliance laws, which may provide for the issuance of a REAL ID to an alien and therefore based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship."'
So the bottom line is that a state-issued REAL ID is only useful for confirming citizenship if the state that issued it complies with the DHS requirements. If the REAL ID was issued by California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, or Washington, then it's pretty much worthless.
Note that Alabama is not in the list above, so the plaintiff's REAL ID should have been enough to immediately validate his status as a US citizen. Instead, he was detained for a short period without just cause. The case for false arrest would actually be stronger if he had not produced his REAL ID, because the burden of proof is on the government and not on him.
Can you explain what you mean by “defying Federal law”? I just checked the NY DMV, and they require proof of citizenship and/or lawful status for a REAL ID. I don’t know about other states, but I would be surprised if any state were to try to issue REAL-specific IDs without complying, given that they can always issue non-REAL IDs anyways.
In what way do those states not match DHS requirements? I had to produce proof of legal status (citizenship doc/passport), proof of social security, and proof of residency in person in order to get my Real ID in Oregon.
I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use this as justification for a national ID, even though (to my knowledge) that would require amending the Constitution (or just ignoring it).
yes. you get it. They want a national id system that is weak enough that they can arbitrarily deny or revoke based on appearance or demeanor.
Most US citizens couldn't prove they are citizens, at least without a fingers-crossed records search IF they can remember the county they were born in. Stats say only around 10% of americans could easily put their hands on their birth certificate. Almost no one can produce one at a checkpoint if demanded, and its rare for people to even have one in their possession at home.
A passport proves citizenship, but its absence doesn't disprove it.
Voting cards and social security cards aren't identification. State issued cards like drivers licenses, state ID cards or even realID cards do not prove federal citizenship (although they do prove identity).
Right up until it becomes clear that they will only be issued to ubermenschen, who are identified by capricious processes meant to both obscure corruption and instill fear due to their apparent randomness.
As the article says, the Real ID is very much a version of national ID compatible with the US’s strong tradition of federalism. Immigration authorities don’t want a reliable form of identification, they want to detain lots of people, because Stephen Miller gave them a target of 3,000 arrests a day.
The US Supreme Court can just invent a new interpretation of anything in our system as they already created a new presidential superpower out of nothing (presidential immunity). They can just say we're now interpreting a clear 250 year old clause as meaning whatever new thing that is desirable for our current overlords.
We don't have a constitution any more, we just have interpretations and they change.
>> US law has always relied on interpretation and precedent,
Isn't the key here that an interpretation sets the precedent, and then we don't get continual "reinterpretation"? That's what seems to be happening these days.
There used to be a fig leaf of truth to the idea that the supreme court would interpret things and it would generally stick. That has changed with today's court reinterpreting many settled legal ideas, one obvious one being the recent "kava augh stop" turning America into a "show your papers please" country. It didn't used to be this way.
It's debatable as to whether it's technically required or not, but "the Tenth Amendment, establishes that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved for the states or the people. This means states have the authority to create and enforce their own laws as long as they do not conflict with federal laws."
here's what we have: a way to identify every almost every American by their face, identify almost every American by their name and birthdate, identify every American invasively (like via a blood draw), lots of documents at the national level that we can compel people to have for various activities that are practically required for living. we don't, narrowly, have a document, that you can force everyone to have, in a very peculiar interaction, where someone can be like, "you're going to jail unless you produce this document," and you're not driving, you're not crossing a border, you're not etc. etc.
so do we need a constitutional amendment? i guess if enough people perceive that we do.
This feels strange and biased, and I’m not sure it belongs on HN.
The only context in which DHS claims Real ID is “unreliable” appears to be during mass detentions. That framing reads less like a genuine critique of Real ID and more like a convenient justification: “Sorry, we detained you because you look Mexican. Your Real ID isn’t sufficient.”
The author then shifts blame onto Real ID itself, rather than on DHS agents who are choosing to ignore it.
The US government is kidnapping the poor and vulnerable off the street. This is extreme inhumanity. This is awful and shows the failure of our legal system of government as well as a huge moral failure.
It is absolutely much more than something that affects just those poor others that we shouldn't talk about on hacker news or some people will have their feelings hurt.
This does guarantee that I'm a US citizen. Only about 5 border states have these as of now. I can cross the border with it in a car, boat, or in foot with one, but not a plane. It's indicated by a flag on your dl. These licenses are confusing and are poorly named. Then there are also passport cards.
This is a mess of confusing different documents that I bet most US law enforcement doesn't understand.
The actual point is, as a citizen, I’m not required to carry any form of ID just to go about my daily business. This is not supposed to be a “papers please” country.
I agree we are not supposed to be a "papers please" country but we are now with Justice kavanaugh's recent ruling, now called the kavanaugh stop. We lost that freedom until or unless the supreme court has a new interpretation to fix this.
On a recent episode of the slate legal podcast they said the SC was trying to figure out a way to reverse this without admitting mistake. My cynical take is kavanaugh thought this would only apply to immigrants, not "real Americans " like him.
I can't speak to any original purpose of the act, but Real IDs in practice have never guaranteed a person currently has legal status. It is not even enough on its own to demonstrate the ability to legally work (see form I-9).
If you want to quickly prove citizenship, a passport is what you need.
> If you want to quickly prove citizenship, a passport is what you need.
Yes, but there's no general requirement for a US citizen to have a passport, let alone carry it while in the US. Or really to carry any identification unless operating a motor vehicle on public roads, transiting an airport, or purchasing controlled substances like sudafed, etc.
The burden should be on DHS to disprove citizenship.
didn't DHS make a proclamation a few months ago stating that no form of identification is sufficient to prevent detention from an ICE agent. the information displayed using a DHS app on their phone is the only proof of citizenship
I mean i literally was forced to get a real ID since i was in the US for more than 10 days (you can't drive on a foreign license longer than that in California and they hand out real ID licenses now).
It's no trouble to get a real ID licence as a non-US citizen. They literally have a process for this.
This article seems mind boggingly stupid. They are trying to create drama out of something that isn't there.
> I mean i literally was forced to get a real ID since i was in the US for more than 10 days (you can't drive on a foreign license longer than that in California and they hand out real ID licenses now).
If you intend to reside in California, you need a California license within 10 days of establishing residency (assuming you drive); but if you're just visiting for a month, I think you can use your out of state or foreign license. If you've got some authoritative reference that states a temporary visitor (less than 6-month) to California needs a CA license, I'd like to see that...
> ...when our Fourth Amendment rights are eroded, there is no evidence or piece of plastic that will suffice to overcome an officer's "reasonable suspicion" once the government decides you're a target.
This is the real issue here. The government is choosing to act in bad faith, and no legislated law can prevent this if the courts fail to enforce the law.
If someone is here long enough to obtain a state id, there's no reason to detain them on suspicion of their status having expired, so an unexpired id should be enough to end the encounter.
If they are suspected of some other crime, detain them for that, fine. But no masked goons accosting people because they claim they suspected their immigration status.
This seems to be the key point- I just checked my state issued electronic id and it has no connection with citizenship data so it would be useless in establishing citizenship-you still need a birth certificate or similar.
That's beside the point. This is about citizenship, which, once granted, doesn't become forfeit that easily. A fact that one would presume to be prominently stated on an ID document.
As far as I'm aware, that's really only in California, and even then isn't as big of an issue as it's made out to be.
In CA, as an LPR you can get a REAL ID, but its expiry is not the default of the REAL ID (like not "5/10 years from issuance of the underlying document like a driver's license" but is "if your LPR expires 2 years from now, then your REAL ID driver's licence also expires two years from now"). So it's only really an accurate statement if there's subsequent status changes to pre-empt the LPR status.
In WA, as I am, as an LPR I cannot get a REAL ID. WA will only issue to citizens.
I don't want to minimize what this guy went through, but it's important to emphasize that DHS did check within the hour whether he was a US citizen and did release him when they confirmed he was. Most citizens still have no realistic risk of being unpersoned, and it's important that people know that so that they feel comfortable being outspoken against the administration. (If ICE shows up in my neighborhood, for example, I would have a duty to be mean to them rather than hiding in fear.)
of course. they want to determine citizenship arbitrarily on a case by case basis, usually judged on-the-spot based on skin color and whether they think you attend an evangelical (made up faith) church.
I had "DHL" and was wondering who let them organise ID in the USA. Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible.
Department of Homeland Security makes a lot more sense, but as a non-American, is not an acronym I am familiar with.
As a continental European, I do find the ick Anglo countries have with ID weird. Especially if you throw ICE and immigrants into the mix, the whole thing seems designed for collateral damage.
Interesting -- I'm a Brit and have that ick, I can't really understand people who don't: that agents of the state can demand "papers please" fills me with foreboding, particularly given recent European history. That in the UK you can reply "no thanks" and walk away is one of few things I like about the place.
>But of course, Venegas is a U.S. citizen, so he is not required to carry non-existent immigration documents.
Reading between the lines here: citizens who happen to be personae non gratae can be detained indefinitely as soon as they fail to produce immigration documents.
These documents are allowed to not exist if someone is a citizen. Alas, if there is no reliable way to prove one's citizenship, then nobody really needs to be treated like a citizen and everyone can be detained at will.
And this last point, given the current US political context, seems to be why Real ID is being undermined right now.
Edit: actually I'm not sure if he got the chance to show the copy, that info seems ambiguous:
> The federal agents who detained Mubashir refused his repeated attempts to show them a copy of his passport on his phone or provide his name and date of birth to prove his citizenship, he said. Instead, they insisted he allow them to take a photo of him to make the verification, according to Mubashir.
DHS doesn't issue REAL IDs. They've delegated that ability to the States. Many states are actively defying Federal law, so how can they be trusted to comply with the REAL ID requirements?
As mentioned in the article; 'Lavoie's declaration says that the agents "needed to further verify his U.S. citizenship because each state has its own REAL ID compliance laws, which may provide for the issuance of a REAL ID to an alien and therefore based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship."'
So the bottom line is that a state-issued REAL ID is only useful for confirming citizenship if the state that issued it complies with the DHS requirements. If the REAL ID was issued by California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, or Washington, then it's pretty much worthless.
Note that Alabama is not in the list above, so the plaintiff's REAL ID should have been enough to immediately validate his status as a US citizen. Instead, he was detained for a short period without just cause. The case for false arrest would actually be stronger if he had not produced his REAL ID, because the burden of proof is on the government and not on him.
Most US citizens couldn't prove they are citizens, at least without a fingers-crossed records search IF they can remember the county they were born in. Stats say only around 10% of americans could easily put their hands on their birth certificate. Almost no one can produce one at a checkpoint if demanded, and its rare for people to even have one in their possession at home.
A passport proves citizenship, but its absence doesn't disprove it.
Voting cards and social security cards aren't identification. State issued cards like drivers licenses, state ID cards or even realID cards do not prove federal citizenship (although they do prove identity).
Sources: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_Unit...
We don't have a constitution any more, we just have interpretations and they change.
US law has always relied on interpretation and precedent, it's built on English Common Law.
Isn't the key here that an interpretation sets the precedent, and then we don't get continual "reinterpretation"? That's what seems to be happening these days.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resour...
so do we need a constitutional amendment? i guess if enough people perceive that we do.
The only context in which DHS claims Real ID is “unreliable” appears to be during mass detentions. That framing reads less like a genuine critique of Real ID and more like a convenient justification: “Sorry, we detained you because you look Mexican. Your Real ID isn’t sufficient.”
The author then shifts blame onto Real ID itself, rather than on DHS agents who are choosing to ignore it.
The US government is kidnapping the poor and vulnerable off the street. This is extreme inhumanity. This is awful and shows the failure of our legal system of government as well as a huge moral failure.
It is absolutely much more than something that affects just those poor others that we shouldn't talk about on hacker news or some people will have their feelings hurt.
I feel like you’re telling me, “the article says A but you should claim it says B, C, and D and we should discuss those instead.”
> There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
This does guarantee that I'm a US citizen. Only about 5 border states have these as of now. I can cross the border with it in a car, boat, or in foot with one, but not a plane. It's indicated by a flag on your dl. These licenses are confusing and are poorly named. Then there are also passport cards.
This is a mess of confusing different documents that I bet most US law enforcement doesn't understand.
There are numerous reports of people arrested by ice who even have us passports on them, such as https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-citizen-arrested-by-ice...
On a recent episode of the slate legal podcast they said the SC was trying to figure out a way to reverse this without admitting mistake. My cynical take is kavanaugh thought this would only apply to immigrants, not "real Americans " like him.
If you want to quickly prove citizenship, a passport is what you need.
Yes, but there's no general requirement for a US citizen to have a passport, let alone carry it while in the US. Or really to carry any identification unless operating a motor vehicle on public roads, transiting an airport, or purchasing controlled substances like sudafed, etc.
The burden should be on DHS to disprove citizenship.
It's no trouble to get a real ID licence as a non-US citizen. They literally have a process for this.
This article seems mind boggingly stupid. They are trying to create drama out of something that isn't there.
If you intend to reside in California, you need a California license within 10 days of establishing residency (assuming you drive); but if you're just visiting for a month, I think you can use your out of state or foreign license. If you've got some authoritative reference that states a temporary visitor (less than 6-month) to California needs a CA license, I'd like to see that...
Which is why this article is going at the wrong point. Real ID is meant for citizen and non-citizen alike.
This is the real issue here. The government is choosing to act in bad faith, and no legislated law can prevent this if the courts fail to enforce the law.
If they are suspected of some other crime, detain them for that, fine. But no masked goons accosting people because they claim they suspected their immigration status.
In CA, as an LPR you can get a REAL ID, but its expiry is not the default of the REAL ID (like not "5/10 years from issuance of the underlying document like a driver's license" but is "if your LPR expires 2 years from now, then your REAL ID driver's licence also expires two years from now"). So it's only really an accurate statement if there's subsequent status changes to pre-empt the LPR status.
In WA, as I am, as an LPR I cannot get a REAL ID. WA will only issue to citizens.
Department of Homeland Security makes a lot more sense, but as a non-American, is not an acronym I am familiar with.
As a continental European, I do find the ick Anglo countries have with ID weird. Especially if you throw ICE and immigrants into the mix, the whole thing seems designed for collateral damage.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah