>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.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-citizen-arrested-by-ice_n_...
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.
The goal isn't to be reasonable or helpful.
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?
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...
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.
"Nearly every" is a bit of a stretch, given that black americans were still denied access to hospitals during childbirth in some states/counties as recently as the 1960s (or later). Children born via midwives often never ultimately get a birth certificate.
The sixties were over 50 years ago, I know as I am a child of the sixties :-)
Given how necessary driving is to living in nearly all of America, and that a with certificate is the primary point of ID to get one, there is a very strong motivation to get a birth certificate.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resour...
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.
so do we need a constitutional amendment? i guess if enough people perceive that we do.
> There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
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.
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.”
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.
You are not required to carry ID when transiting an airport for domestic flights.
It will be difficult and annoying but you can fly domestically without ID.
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.
You got your REAL ID because you were legally allowed to be here. They wouldn't have issued it otherwise. DHS approved your REAL ID so they have no reason to assume that if you a have a valid one you're not allowed to be here
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.
>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
It seems like you believe that if somebody had been long enough in a state to obtain a state id then their status in the country is legal forever. In the few states where I've got id it took about a month to get an id - you need to lease some housing and get two bills. But even if it took 50 years to get a state id it would not change anything - a state id is not a proof of legal status in the country. Immigration officers can detain people on reasonable suspicion, which is the same standard that is needed for a traffic stop.
I guess I believe that we should remove the discretion that you believe the officers have...
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.