6 ms·

Does that make it zip code lottery for your right to drive or fly?

lavezza 6y ago
It just means that because this is a federal requirement that needs to be implemented by the states, we're going to see 50 different implementations. Some will work better than others.
- timeinput 6y ago
  My state doesn't require real id and I see no reason the get the realid compliant id my state offers. I have a passport, passport card, and global entry which are all federaly issued and "real" ids. Why is it so hard to just travel with a passport or passport card?
  - 0xffff2 6y ago
    Because only 42% of Americans have a passport and that number is by far a record high.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      Yeah not really a surprise. Most of the surveys I've read show something like 10-12% of people have never left their state, and 40% or more of Americans have never left the US. HN is overwhelmingly technical, educated, well-off, and travels a lot -- most of the US (and other places, for that matter) aren't. See also: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-of-americans-who-never-traveled-beyond-the-state-where-they-were-born-a-surprise/#ebb844928984 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-o...
kube-system 6y ago
Not really. 1. You don't need a REAL ID to drive. 2. State IDs aren't the only way to get a REAL ID. All federally issued IDs are already REAL ID compliant.
- Reelin 6y ago
  Which is odd to say the least, because the documentation for a US passport (as of a couple years ago) was less stringent than that required by the REAL ID act.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    It’s pretty much the same in terms what the feds want. Some states layer on their own requirements for their own policy reasons. Places like South Dakota do things to enable them to make a few bucks from vehicle registration for out of state people.
riffic 6y ago
Arguably your right to drive does not exist (it's a privilege to operate a motor vehicle.) Your right to cross state lines and travel freely (by common carrier flight) is stronger than a purported right to drive.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  Why is it not considered a privilege to occupy space in a flight in state-controlled airspace? At what point does it become a de facto travel ban, e.g. one can of course travel, so long as they are walking, and of course not on private or government-owned land.
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  Your right to cross state lines and travel freely does not include any right to a particular mode of transportation. You would pretty much have to argue that interstate travel is impracticable without airplanes and that trains/buses/your feet don't suffice.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    The fact that trains/buses/your feet doesn't suffice has already been covered in Gilmore v. Gonzales, among other similar points in the same area.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      From the Wikipedia entry: > there was no constitutional violation because air passengers could still travel without identification if they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary screening" search I wasn't aware that I could decline to show ID at an airport security checkpoint in favor of undergoing a secondary screening. Does this actually work in practice? (Also, I wonder how it squares with automated facial recognition and similar biometric technology?)
      - monocasa 6y ago
        Yeah, I've done it. You just get your bags searched a little harder as if you had been "randomly selected for additional screening".

It just means that because this is a federal requirement that needs to be implemented by the states, we're going to see 50 different implementations. Some will work better than others.

timeinput 6y ago
My state doesn't require real id and I see no reason the get the realid compliant id my state offers. I have a passport, passport card, and global entry which are all federaly issued and "real" ids. Why is it so hard to just travel with a passport or passport card?
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  Because only 42% of Americans have a passport and that number is by far a record high.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Yeah not really a surprise. Most of the surveys I've read show something like 10-12% of people have never left their state, and 40% or more of Americans have never left the US. HN is overwhelmingly technical, educated, well-off, and travels a lot -- most of the US (and other places, for that matter) aren't. See also: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-of-americans-who-never-traveled-beyond-the-state-where-they-were-born-a-surprise/#ebb844928984 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-o...

kube-system 6y ago

Not really. 1. You don't need a REAL ID to drive. 2. State IDs aren't the only way to get a REAL ID. All federally issued IDs are already REAL ID compliant.

Reelin 6y ago
Which is odd to say the least, because the documentation for a US passport (as of a couple years ago) was less stringent than that required by the REAL ID act.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  It’s pretty much the same in terms what the feds want. Some states layer on their own requirements for their own policy reasons. Places like South Dakota do things to enable them to make a few bucks from vehicle registration for out of state people.

riffic 6y ago

Arguably your right to drive does not exist (it's a privilege to operate a motor vehicle.) Your right to cross state lines and travel freely (by common carrier flight) is stronger than a purported right to drive.

ultrarunner 6y ago
Why is it not considered a privilege to occupy space in a flight in state-controlled airspace? At what point does it become a de facto travel ban, e.g. one can of course travel, so long as they are walking, and of course not on private or government-owned land.
henryfjordan 6y ago
Your right to cross state lines and travel freely does not include any right to a particular mode of transportation. You would pretty much have to argue that interstate travel is impracticable without airplanes and that trains/buses/your feet don't suffice.
- monocasa 6y ago
  The fact that trains/buses/your feet doesn't suffice has already been covered in Gilmore v. Gonzales, among other similar points in the same area.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    From the Wikipedia entry: > there was no constitutional violation because air passengers could still travel without identification if they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary screening" search I wasn't aware that I could decline to show ID at an airport security checkpoint in favor of undergoing a secondary screening. Does this actually work in practice? (Also, I wonder how it squares with automated facial recognition and similar biometric technology?)
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Yeah, I've done it. You just get your bags searched a little harder as if you had been "randomly selected for additional screening".