6 ms·

At the outset the article rather bizarrely casts the subject circumstances as a matter of government incompetence in its design and execution of an identificati

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.

ranger_danger 9mo ago
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).
- Wowfunhappy 9mo ago
  Why would a national ID require a constitutional amendment?
  - semiquaver 9mo ago
    It would not, although a requirement to carry and provide it to authorities on demand may require a change to the fourth amendment.
    - Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
        >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.
        Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
        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.
        skeeter2020 9mo ago
        >> 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.
        b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
        sure; the problem is ignoring precedence though, not judicial interpretation, which is a deliberate part of the process.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - engineer_22 9mo ago
    10th amendment - issuing IDs is a power already claimed by the states
    - Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
      The Supreme Court can fix that right up anytime they want.
      - engineer_22 9mo ago
        What?? The Supreme Court doesn't write the Constitution.
        Alive-in-2025 8mo ago
        In the new world, the Supreme Court can change basically any policy or old decision and make up things not in the Constitution. One example is Trump's immunity that they created out of whole cloth and that was nowhere to be found. At the same time they invented a reason why Trump's attempted rebellion against the US did not violate the constitutional amendment that was designed to keep someone like that from running for president
  - ranger_danger 9mo ago
    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." https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resources/jurimetrics/2024-winter/implementing-government-backed-digital-identity-united-states/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resour...
  - doctorpangloss 9mo ago
    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.
- dylan604 9mo ago
  Which would be hilarious as it was the right that opposed just such a national id when proposed during the Clinton administration
- SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
  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.
- JKCalhoun 9mo ago
  I like the idea of a Real, Real ID.
  - enlightens 9mo ago
    real_real_ID_v2_final__USE_THIS_ONE.pdf
  - saltcured 9mo ago
    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.
- boredatoms 9mo ago
  We already have a national ID - its the passport
  - wrs 9mo ago
    Citizens can be denied a passport for various reasons (22 CFR 51.60).
    - rose-knuckle17 9mo ago
      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). Sources: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_Unit...
      - Scubabear68 9mo ago
        I think you misread your cited article. It does not say only around 10% could easily out their hands on a birth certificate. It says “9% don’t have proof of citizenship readily available” while traveling. It properly indicates nearly every US citizen has their birth certificate. Of course you are right, basically no one carries their birth certificate around. Which is probably countered by the fact that birth certificates are pretty easily falsifiable because there is no standardization of them.
- wrs 9mo ago
  The last thing they want is a reliable ID. It would make arbitrary detentions even less justifiable.
woodruffw 9mo ago
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.
- anonymousiam 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - y-c-o-m-b 9mo ago
    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.
    - metadope 9mo ago
      My guess is that these are states where someone (a mayor, a governor) spoke out in opposition to recent escalations in immigration enforcement, or declared themselves sanctuaries, or simply voted the wrong way in recent elections. Whatever the criteria, it's political and tribal and emotional and not real. As an aside, any Freudians out there like me who have an urge to explore a new analysis and interpretation of America's real id?
  - woodruffw 9mo ago
    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.
    - twosdai 9mo ago
      There's gotta be some Midwest or southern state that absolutely doesn't care.
b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
that would be Reason's ideological slip showing.

ranger_danger 9mo ago

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).

Wowfunhappy 9mo ago
Why would a national ID require a constitutional amendment?
- semiquaver 9mo ago
  It would not, although a requirement to carry and provide it to authorities on demand may require a change to the fourth amendment.
  - Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
      >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.
      - Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
        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.
      - skeeter2020 9mo ago
        >> 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.
        b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
        sure; the problem is ignoring precedence though, not judicial interpretation, which is a deliberate part of the process.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- engineer_22 9mo ago
  10th amendment - issuing IDs is a power already claimed by the states
  - Alive-in-2025 9mo ago
    The Supreme Court can fix that right up anytime they want.
    - engineer_22 9mo ago
      What?? The Supreme Court doesn't write the Constitution.
      - Alive-in-2025 8mo ago
        In the new world, the Supreme Court can change basically any policy or old decision and make up things not in the Constitution. One example is Trump's immunity that they created out of whole cloth and that was nowhere to be found. At the same time they invented a reason why Trump's attempted rebellion against the US did not violate the constitutional amendment that was designed to keep someone like that from running for president
- ranger_danger 9mo ago
  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." https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resources/jurimetrics/2024-winter/implementing-government-backed-digital-identity-united-states/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resour...
- doctorpangloss 9mo ago
  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.
dylan604 9mo ago
Which would be hilarious as it was the right that opposed just such a national id when proposed during the Clinton administration
SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
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.
JKCalhoun 9mo ago
I like the idea of a Real, Real ID.
- enlightens 9mo ago
  real_real_ID_v2_final__USE_THIS_ONE.pdf
- saltcured 9mo ago
  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.
boredatoms 9mo ago
We already have a national ID - its the passport
- wrs 9mo ago
  Citizens can be denied a passport for various reasons (22 CFR 51.60).
  - rose-knuckle17 9mo ago
    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). Sources: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_Unit...
    - Scubabear68 9mo ago
      I think you misread your cited article. It does not say only around 10% could easily out their hands on a birth certificate. It says “9% don’t have proof of citizenship readily available” while traveling. It properly indicates nearly every US citizen has their birth certificate. Of course you are right, basically no one carries their birth certificate around. Which is probably countered by the fact that birth certificates are pretty easily falsifiable because there is no standardization of them.
wrs 9mo ago
The last thing they want is a reliable ID. It would make arbitrary detentions even less justifiable.

woodruffw 9mo ago

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.

anonymousiam 9mo ago
[flagged]
- y-c-o-m-b 9mo ago
  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.
  - metadope 9mo ago
    My guess is that these are states where someone (a mayor, a governor) spoke out in opposition to recent escalations in immigration enforcement, or declared themselves sanctuaries, or simply voted the wrong way in recent elections. Whatever the criteria, it's political and tribal and emotional and not real. As an aside, any Freudians out there like me who have an urge to explore a new analysis and interpretation of America's real id?
- woodruffw 9mo ago
  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.
  - twosdai 9mo ago
    There's gotta be some Midwest or southern state that absolutely doesn't care.

b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago

that would be Reason's ideological slip showing.