3 ms·

Isn't a state driver's license considered a basic photo ID? There's no reason not to accept one.

moate 7y ago
Some states have still not gotten with the times and converted to "Real ID" security in their driver's licenses. Because they're easier to fake, they're not always accepted but YMMV.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  That's one spin on it, but more fear-mongered. The more accurate one is that elements of the Federal Government are "unhappy" that some States will issue a Drivers License based on understanding of road laws and practical skills, and not based on demonstration of legal residence or citizenship. Washington, for example, is one. You pass your test, written, practical, pay your fee. They don't ask about your citizenship. So the Federal Government says "Well, we won't allow your DLs to be used federally (or for flying), then".
  - vinay427 7y ago
    Well, this requirement makes sense from a federal perspective, and the ridiculous saga that ensued over getting states to comply (including the seemingly incompetent ones, looking at you California...) points to the "problem" of not having a federal universally accessible ID, including for proof of residence and/or citizenship. If the federal government wants to have an ID that displays legal residence, then they can either entrust the states to do so or issue one themselves, which seems even less politically viable.
    - moate 7y ago
      I genuinely wonder how much xenophobic fear-mongering you would have to drum up in order to get the "Don't Tread On Me" camp to agree to mandatory federal ID. I think you're right, it's much easier to just slip it in on the state level with Licenses. Also, do you think California was being actually inept or just willfully ignorant based on their demographics? I live in NJ and I know we were also one of the laggards. Shocker, we also have a very large immigrant population, and have a AG that issued orders not to assist ICE. Seems like it's probably easier to play coy and just drag your feet on this one. Or it could just be good ol fashioned government bureaucracy and ineptitude.

Some states have still not gotten with the times and converted to "Real ID" security in their driver's licenses. Because they're easier to fake, they're not always accepted but YMMV.

FireBeyond 7y ago
That's one spin on it, but more fear-mongered. The more accurate one is that elements of the Federal Government are "unhappy" that some States will issue a Drivers License based on understanding of road laws and practical skills, and not based on demonstration of legal residence or citizenship. Washington, for example, is one. You pass your test, written, practical, pay your fee. They don't ask about your citizenship. So the Federal Government says "Well, we won't allow your DLs to be used federally (or for flying), then".
- vinay427 7y ago
  Well, this requirement makes sense from a federal perspective, and the ridiculous saga that ensued over getting states to comply (including the seemingly incompetent ones, looking at you California...) points to the "problem" of not having a federal universally accessible ID, including for proof of residence and/or citizenship. If the federal government wants to have an ID that displays legal residence, then they can either entrust the states to do so or issue one themselves, which seems even less politically viable.
  - moate 7y ago
    I genuinely wonder how much xenophobic fear-mongering you would have to drum up in order to get the "Don't Tread On Me" camp to agree to mandatory federal ID. I think you're right, it's much easier to just slip it in on the state level with Licenses. Also, do you think California was being actually inept or just willfully ignorant based on their demographics? I live in NJ and I know we were also one of the laggards. Shocker, we also have a very large immigrant population, and have a AG that issued orders not to assist ICE. Seems like it's probably easier to play coy and just drag your feet on this one. Or it could just be good ol fashioned government bureaucracy and ineptitude.