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.
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...
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.
> 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.
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.”
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.
If you want to quickly prove citizenship, a passport is what you need.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
jjgreen•1h ago
317070•1h ago
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.
semiquaver•1h ago
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah
jjgreen•1h ago