The deadline was initially set for 2008 but has faced numerous delays:
The Department of Homeland Security said Monday it's again pushing back the enforcement of Real ID requirements for state driver's licenses and ID cards. The latest delay moves states' compliance deadline to May 7th, 2025.
Passed by Congress in 2005 as a response to the Sept. 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Real ID Act requires stricter documentation for boarding flights and entering federal or nuclear facilities. For example, to get a Real ID-compliant driver's license or state ID card, you need to provide paperwork for your name, date of birth, address, Social Security card and birth certificate.
The DHS says the requirements increase state IDs' reliability and accuracy. Officials can quickly see whether a card is Real ID-compliant by looking for the gold star in the upper right-hand corner.
When the bill passed, states initially had a 2008 compliance deadline. But after some states and US territories refused to play ball, the cutoff faced delay after delay. Despite the ever-shifting deadlines, 13 states rolled out support in 2012. The list grew in the following years as reluctant states faced the prospect of having their residents blocked from flights. But the COVID-19 pandemic led to even more kicking of the can, and today's cutoff point pushes it back from May 2023 to May 2025.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 07, @03:38PM (7 children)
Illegal aliens flooding the country don't have to prove who they are. But, citizens have to be documented from cradle to grave. Imagine that!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, @09:45PM (6 children)
Here's a few facts that you seem to overlook. Every. Single. Time. Not an accident methinks.
There are so many asylum seekers with outstanding cases because our systems are inadequate [borderreport.com] to handle their cases in a timely manner. That's not an R thing or a D thing, it's a resource thing. Let's give these folks the resources they need to handle these cases and be done with it.
At least then, maybe you'll move on to some other stupid "issue" that makes you feel good attacking those center-right folks from the Democratic party. A boy can dream, can't he? But I won't hold my breath.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-migrants-us-asylum-process-legal-limbo/ [cbsnews.com]
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-ice-offices-lines-delays-migrants-check-ins [foxnews.com]
https://www.fox8live.com/2022/01/11/thousands-wait-line-check-ins-new-orleans-ice-office/ [fox8live.com]
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-york-city-asylum-seekers-case-backlog/ [cbsnews.com]
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 08, @12:05AM (5 children)
Asylum seekers? Huh - they want to leave their corrupt countries, with corrupt governments, and crime infested cities. Instead of working to make things better, they want to come here, where things are already better. Uhhhh - they have no loyalty to their birth nations, what kind of loyalty do you expect them to have for the US?
It ain't our job to provide "asylum" for every individual in the world who wants a better standard of living. And, THAT is precisely what most of the "asylum seekers" really are.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @01:18AM (4 children)
You have just described the fundamental core of what the US was built upon. That the US was the shining beacon on the hill was exactly because people from around the world wanted to escape a bad situation and/or to live a better standard of living. The complete opposite of that ideal is about as unamerican as you can get. Think for a moment what it means to uproot your whole life, or the lives of your family, to leave your country of birth and travel thousands of miles to set up somewhere else. These are highly motivated and hard working people. Can you imagine walking the length of Mexico to get to the US? Why would you not want someone that motivated to come? They sure as hell aren't coming for the cheap and effective healthcare.
Just think about any major company or industry ever set up in the US, from the tech companies of today back through the industrialists of the 19th century, and I guarantee you a very large chunk of them were started by first-generation immigrants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @04:14AM
+1 insightful (no mod points today, I guess like every other 'lentil)
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 08, @02:03PM (2 children)
What nonsense. The US was built out of adventurism and conquest, largely used as a penal colony, and always fueled by greed. Euros came here hoping to find gold, and when and where gold was found, that gold was stolen from the natives. Immigrants were almost never welcomed, but when they arrived, they were exploited to the fullest extent.
Unless you are posting from some alternate reality, you are terribly misinformed about immigration to the US.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @11:38PM (1 child)
That's European colonialism. The history of the 19th and 20th centuries immigrants are exactly as described above. Middle and lower class people looking for a better life.
Indeed true, even today, but doesn't refute the point above. Most immigrants come in and only have the bottom of the barrel jobs available, whether that is laying railroad track or picking vegetables. And like today, are viewed as outsiders and subhuman, "bad hombres" if you will, and often held up as bogeymen by political parties to scare people for political purposes. But now we need to build walls to keep them from doing all those jobs that "real Americans" refuse to do. The present immigration policies are a mess and need to be fixed, but one party has realized that if they actually do fix it, that would remove a big scare issue to use for election purposes. They messed up and lost abortion as an issue, so they want to hold on to this one even tighter, otherwise they might have to actually run on real policy ideas (and they officially don't stand for ANYTHING [brookings.edu])!
The millions of people who were processed through Ellis Island weren't there looking for the gold of El Dorado, they were there for the reasons stated above.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 09, @12:49AM
No, the subhumans are those people in Washington, and elsewhere, who make it easy for "immigrants" to get here, then keep them in limbo, with no working immigration system, and no balls to send them home.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07, @03:39PM (3 children)
AFAIK, a US Passport also satisfies all the requirements to get on a plane (in USA). My state does offer (for an additional fee) a drivers license with Real ID, but since I already have a passport why should I bother?
The above was true some years ago when I looked into this security theater deal, has anything changed?
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday December 07, @04:31PM
This is still the case. I fly with my passport.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday December 07, @05:08PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @07:47AM
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday December 07, @03:40PM
The published rules for Real ID requirements are here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-01-29/html/08-140.htm [govinfo.gov]
They don't have RFID, but they do have a PDF417 2D Barcode on them that encodes a subset of the information.
An interesting thing about how our laws work. Congress passed the REAL ID act that created the bureaucracy for this, funded it, and gave requirements. Those requirements were translated by the org into the rules above, modified per comments, and then finalized to publish as above.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday December 07, @05:05PM (3 children)
This seems more or less standard over here in Europe. Nobody here even raises an eyebrow. Or I really just have to give them my date of birth and the few extra id numbers as all those other things are already linked to it. I guess we just got used to it, or this is how it's been for as long as I can remember. So is the issue the fee or that dem govnment folks be stealin all ya freedoms?
(Score: 4, Informative) by EvilSS on Wednesday December 07, @05:12PM
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday December 07, @06:49PM (1 child)
That's because Europe is multiple countries and the US is one country. Historically, the US has been against "papers please" inside the country (assuming you weren't caught trying to sneak into the country).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 08, @05:25AM
Actually, there is nothing illegal about crossing into the US without any papers. One just has to say that she is an American citizen and be honest about it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday December 07, @06:40PM (5 children)
Why don't they issue the US government driver license and be done with it?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Sjolfr on Wednesday December 07, @08:07PM (3 children)
Because driving privliges are a state jurisdiction and not a federal juristdiction. All the power that the federal government has is specifically listed in the constitution. Those specific powers not given to the federal government are allocated to the state and then to each individual.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 08, @05:21AM (2 children)
I was not talking about driving privileges, but simply about an id that verifies certain things such as said privilege based on whatever evidence government believes is sufficient.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @07:40AM
> an id that verifies certain things...
That would be a US Passport. Applying for one requires certain proofs of identity (and some money) and is often done through a local post office (which is a Federal agency, not state). Lasts for 10 years before it needs renewal (including a new photo).
(Score: 2) by Sjolfr on Thursday December 08, @10:49PM
A more generalized ID from our federal government does exist but they are empoloyment level type IDs and specialized credentials that regular citizens don't have access to. Military IDs would fall in to that category as well. All of these are voluntary in nature and are specific as to what access they grant the bearer.
The larger question is why don't we have national IDs? It's the same answer as before, I think, because the federal government is not empowered to do that. States can refuse federal initiatives like that unless they are codified in to the constitution. Those powers are for the individual states to decide on for themselves.
The federal government does not have any authority outside of that which the constitution does not specifically give it. The constitution is designed to limit federal government and reserve powers for each state to handle.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday December 08, @03:34PM
Like the passport? It doesn't let you drive (rules are defined state by state) but it does act as ID.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday December 08, @01:01AM
The thing I wonder about, given the propensity of many politicians to use names that are so aspirational and unrealistic that the reality can actually be the opposite, you know, like the PROTECT IP Act, is how Real is this proof of identity? Last time I renewed my driver's license, I had to go through some security theater to "prove" I was me, as they were rolling out the new gold star versions. Showed up with my passport and other documents that everyone knew damned well the state already had, so why were they demanding I produce them? Whatever I didn't have, I would've had to go to the state anyway to get a copy. Was that just an exercise in distraction from whatever more reliable methods they were using?
One of the most absurd demands I know of was my father's employer suddenly demanding proof that my mother was married to him. Wanted to know if she qualified to be on his health insurance. At that point, they'd been married over 40 years, and he'd been employed there even longer, and _now_ they want "proof" after such a long time? And, the burden is on him, he has to do the legwork? WTF? The records of the state where they'd been living for the past 25 years-- because that employer had moved his job-- weren't good enough "proof", no, they had to purchase at their own expense an official copy of the record from the state where they married. It was pretty easy to guess the reason for this demand was the employer hoping not everyone could jump through a hoop made as high as they could make it, thus giving them an excuse to cut some health insurance expenses.