>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.
> 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.
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...
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.
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.
