> 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.
I would hope that they have access to a tool to look up the passport by number and confirm that the details match the copy and the photo appears to look like the person.
They do, but it can and will be ignored, based on events to date. The goal is to create ambiguity to enable a power imbalance enabling working outside of the legal framework to accomplish target outcomes. It turns an objective boolean evaluation (“is_citizen”) into a subjective one (“is_preferred_and_compliant”).
You might even hope that such a system would be able to work off of their name and some other memorable, identifiable information like address, origin country, date of birth, and would display their papers with photo-identification available, but alas...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Sorry, citizens being detained in handcuffs for hours on suspicion of not being a citizen, simply for being Latino, despite carrying a federally-approved ID, is in fact drama.
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
> ...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.
The US does not have "legal after being a certain time in the country by any means" laws like some other countries. It's the opposite: the longer you are in the country illegally, the more penalty you accrue. There had been one-off amnesties when people were indeed given legal status for being in the country illegally long enough, but there were only two of those: in 1929 and 1986.
>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.
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.
> 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.
I have made multiple photocopies of my US passport (naturalized) that I have put in my wallet, backpacks, etc.
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.
That won’t help you if they decide that they don’t like you.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-citizen-arrested-by-ice_n_...
I wouldn’t expect them to accept photocopies of a passport
I would hope that they have access to a tool to look up the passport by number and confirm that the details match the copy and the photo appears to look like the person.
They do, but it can and will be ignored, based on events to date. The goal is to create ambiguity to enable a power imbalance enabling working outside of the legal framework to accomplish target outcomes. It turns an objective boolean evaluation (“is_citizen”) into a subjective one (“is_preferred_and_compliant”).
You might even hope that such a system would be able to work off of their name and some other memorable, identifiable information like address, origin country, date of birth, and would display their papers with photo-identification available, but alas...
The goal isn't to be reasonable or helpful.
You can get a card version of your passport that is the same size as your driver’s license. There’s no need to photocopy your actual passport book
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.
that would be Reason's ideological slip showing.
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).
The last thing they want is a reliable ID. It would make arbitrary detentions even less justifiable.
We already have a national ID - its the passport
Citizens can be denied a passport for various reasons (22 CFR 51.60).
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/mill...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_Unit...
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.
Which would be hilarious as it was the right that opposed just such a national id when proposed during the Clinton administration
I like the idea of a Real, Real ID.
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.
real_real_ID_v2_final__USE_THIS_ONE.pdf
Why would a national ID require a constitutional amendment?
It would not, although a requirement to carry and provide it to authorities on demand may require a change to the fourth amendment.
10th amendment - issuing IDs is a power already claimed by the states
The Supreme Court can fix that right up anytime they want.
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/resour...
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.
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.
How convenient, if the whole system is so badly constructed, that you can pick and choose when something is valid or not:
> 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 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.
This discussion is missing the existence of the other type of real ids only for verified us citizens called "enhanced drivers licence", or edl https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they.
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...
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.
"... transiting an airport ..."
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.
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
404 media covered this and the app itself turned out to be pretty janky when it came to identifying actual legal status correctly
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...
Indeed a resident non-citizen who's required to get a licence in 10 days. A very common thing in the valley.
Which is why this article is going at the wrong point. Real ID is meant for citizen and non-citizen alike.
But not for people who don't have legal permanent residence
Sorry, citizens being detained in handcuffs for hours on suspicion of not being a citizen, simply for being Latino, despite carrying a federally-approved ID, is in fact drama.
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
> ...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.
REAL ID's are issued to non citizens with lawful status at time of issuance. Their presence in the country can subsequently become unlawful.
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.
The US does not have "legal after being a certain time in the country by any means" laws like some other countries. It's the opposite: the longer you are in the country illegally, the more penalty you accrue. There had been one-off amnesties when people were indeed given legal status for being in the country illegally long enough, but there were only two of those: in 1929 and 1986.
Which has little to do with the procedure we should require when an enforcement officer is presented with a valid state issued id.
I responded to this:
>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.
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.
It seems too easy for the government to turn people into unpersons.
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.)
And then detained him a second time, don't forget
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.
Not exactly what I wanted to read on the first day of 2026, but honestly not surprised. Welcome to the year of 'More Of The Same'.
I swear I read that as "DHH says ..." before reading the article
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.
> Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah
Is anyone really surprised by this ? It is not like we did not see this coming, the only surprise is it took this long.