6 ms·

DHS Says DHS-Certified Real IDs Too Unreliable to Confirm U.S. Citizenship

99 points by xenophonf 10mo ago

jjgreen 10mo ago
I swear I read that as "DHH says ..." before reading the article
- 317070 10mo ago
  I had "DHL" and was wondering who let them organise ID in the USA. Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible. 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 10mo ago
    > Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah
  - jjgreen 10mo ago
    Interesting -- I'm a Brit and have that ick, I can't really understand people who don't: that agents of the state can demand "papers please" fills me with foreboding, particularly given recent European history. That in the UK you can reply "no thanks" and walk away is one of few things I like about the place.
jmclnx 10mo ago
Is anyone really surprised by this ? It is not like we did not see this coming, the only surprise is it took this long.
johnbender 10mo ago
At the outset the article rather bizarrely casts the subject circumstances as a matter of government incompetence in its design and execution of an identification standard as opposed to the reality it then reports on which is DHS tripping over itself to justify unlawful detention of US citizens without cause.
- ranger_danger 10mo ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use this as justification for a national ID, even though (to my knowledge) that would require amending the Constitution (or just ignoring it).
  - Wowfunhappy 10mo ago
    Why would a national ID require a constitutional amendment?
    - semiquaver 10mo ago
      It would not, although a requirement to carry and provide it to authorities on demand may require a change to the fourth amendment.
      - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago
        >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.
        Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
        There used to be a fig leaf of truth to the idea that the supreme court would interpret things and it would generally stick. That has changed with today's court reinterpreting many settled legal ideas, one obvious one being the recent "kava augh stop" turning America into a "show your papers please" country. It didn't used to be this way.
V__ 10mo ago
How convenient, if the whole system is so badly constructed, that you can pick and choose when something is valid or not: > There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
tyleo 10mo ago
This feels strange and biased, and I’m not sure it belongs on HN. 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.
- Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - FloorEgg 10mo ago
    I agree with GP here. According to the official HN guidelines this doesn't seem like it belongs on HN.
  - tyleo 10mo ago
    I don't understand your point. My comment about article context is an objective statement that you can verify. 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.”
- witte 10mo ago
  [dead]
poplarsol 10mo ago
REAL ID's are issued to non citizens with lawful status at time of issuance. Their presence in the country can subsequently become unlawful.
- FireBeyond 10mo ago
  As far as I'm aware, that's really only in California, and even then isn't as big of an issue as it's made out to be. 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.
- maxerickson 10mo ago
  If someone is here long enough to obtain a state id, there's no reason to detain them on suspicion of their status having expired, so an unexpired id should be enough to end the encounter. 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.
  - pandaman 10mo ago
    The US does not have "legal after being a certain time in the country by any means" laws like some other countries. It's the opposite: the longer you are in the country illegally, the more penalty you accrue. There had been one-off amnesties when people were indeed given legal status for being in the country illegally long enough, but there were only two of those: in 1929 and 1986.
    - maxerickson 10mo ago
      Which has little to do with the procedure we should require when an enforcement officer is presented with a valid state issued id.
threemux 10mo ago
I can't speak to any original purpose of the act, but Real IDs in practice have never guaranteed a person currently has legal status. It is not even enough on its own to demonstrate the ability to legally work (see form I-9). If you want to quickly prove citizenship, a passport is what you need.
- AnotherGoodName 10mo ago
  I mean i literally was forced to get a real ID since i was in the US for more than 10 days (you can't drive on a foreign license longer than that in California and they hand out real ID licenses now). 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.
  - toast0 10mo ago
    > I mean i literally was forced to get a real ID since i was in the US for more than 10 days (you can't drive on a foreign license longer than that in California and they hand out real ID licenses now). 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...
    - AnotherGoodName 10mo ago
      Indeed a resident non-citizen who's required to get a licence in 10 days. A very common thing in the valley. Which is why this article is going at the wrong point. Real ID is meant for citizen and non-citizen alike.
      - queenkjuul 10mo ago
        But not for people who don't have legal permanent residence
phoe-krk 10mo ago
> When asked to comment on Lavoie's declaration, a DHS spokesperson said in a statement to Reason: "The INA requires aliens and non-citizens in the US to carry immigration documents. Real IDs are not immigration documents—they make identification harder to forge, thwarting criminals and terrorists." >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.
- yubblegum 10mo ago
  I have made multiple photocopies of my US passport (naturalized) that I have put in my wallet, backpacks, etc.
  - bathtub365 10mo ago
    I wouldn’t expect them to accept photocopies of a passport
    - jtokoph 10mo ago
      I would hope that they have access to a tool to look up the passport by number and confirm that the details match the copy and the photo appears to look like the person.
      - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
        They do, but it can and will be ignored, based on events to date. The goal is to create ambiguity to enable a power imbalance enabling working outside of the legal framework to accomplish target outcomes. It turns an objective boolean evaluation (“is_citizen”) into a subjective one (“is_preferred_and_compliant”).
mrbluecoat 10mo ago
Not exactly what I wanted to read on the first day of 2026, but honestly not surprised. Welcome to the year of 'More Of The Same'.
euroderf 10mo ago
It seems too easy for the government to turn people into unpersons.
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
  I don't want to minimize what this guy went through, but it's important to emphasize that DHS did check within the hour whether he was a US citizen and did release him when they confirmed he was. Most citizens still have no realistic risk of being unpersoned, and it's important that people know that so that they feel comfortable being outspoken against the administration. (If ICE shows up in my neighborhood, for example, I would have a duty to be mean to them rather than hiding in fear.)
  - queenkjuul 10mo ago
    And then detained him a second time, don't forget
Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
This discussion is missing the existence of the other type of real ids only for verified us citizens called "enhanced drivers licence", or edl https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they. 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-after-offering-to-show-passport-sparks-backlash/ar-AA1S91KO https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-citizen-arrested-by-ice...
- wrs 10mo ago
  The actual point is, as a citizen, I’m not required to carry any form of ID just to go about my daily business. This is not supposed to be a “papers please” country.
  - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
    I agree we are not supposed to be a "papers please" country but we are now with Justice kavanaugh's recent ruling, now called the kavanaugh stop. We lost that freedom until or unless the supreme court has a new interpretation to fix this. 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.
drweevil 10mo ago
> ...when our Fourth Amendment rights are eroded, there is no evidence or piece of plastic that will suffice to overcome an officer's "reasonable suspicion" once the government decides you're a target. 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.
rose-knuckle17 10mo ago
of course. they want to determine citizenship arbitrarily on a case by case basis, usually judged on-the-spot based on skin color and whether they think you attend an evangelical (made up faith) church.

99 points by xenophonf 10mo ago

jjgreen 10mo ago

I swear I read that as "DHH says ..." before reading the article

317070 10mo ago
I had "DHL" and was wondering who let them organise ID in the USA. Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible. 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 10mo ago
  > Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah
- jjgreen 10mo ago
  Interesting -- I'm a Brit and have that ick, I can't really understand people who don't: that agents of the state can demand "papers please" fills me with foreboding, particularly given recent European history. That in the UK you can reply "no thanks" and walk away is one of few things I like about the place.

jmclnx 10mo ago

Is anyone really surprised by this ? It is not like we did not see this coming, the only surprise is it took this long.

johnbender 10mo ago

At the outset the article rather bizarrely casts the subject circumstances as a matter of government incompetence in its design and execution of an identification standard as opposed to the reality it then reports on which is DHS tripping over itself to justify unlawful detention of US citizens without cause.

ranger_danger 10mo ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use this as justification for a national ID, even though (to my knowledge) that would require amending the Constitution (or just ignoring it).
- Wowfunhappy 10mo ago
  Why would a national ID require a constitutional amendment?
  - semiquaver 10mo ago
    It would not, although a requirement to carry and provide it to authorities on demand may require a change to the fourth amendment.
    - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago
        >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.
        Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
        There used to be a fig leaf of truth to the idea that the supreme court would interpret things and it would generally stick. That has changed with today's court reinterpreting many settled legal ideas, one obvious one being the recent "kava augh stop" turning America into a "show your papers please" country. It didn't used to be this way.

V__ 10mo ago

How convenient, if the whole system is so badly constructed, that you can pick and choose when something is valid or not: > There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

tyleo 10mo ago

This feels strange and biased, and I’m not sure it belongs on HN. 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.

Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
[flagged]
- FloorEgg 10mo ago
  I agree with GP here. According to the official HN guidelines this doesn't seem like it belongs on HN.
- tyleo 10mo ago
  I don't understand your point. My comment about article context is an objective statement that you can verify. 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.”
witte 10mo ago
[dead]

poplarsol 10mo ago

REAL ID's are issued to non citizens with lawful status at time of issuance. Their presence in the country can subsequently become unlawful.

FireBeyond 10mo ago
As far as I'm aware, that's really only in California, and even then isn't as big of an issue as it's made out to be. 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.
maxerickson 10mo ago
If someone is here long enough to obtain a state id, there's no reason to detain them on suspicion of their status having expired, so an unexpired id should be enough to end the encounter. 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.
- pandaman 10mo ago
  The US does not have "legal after being a certain time in the country by any means" laws like some other countries. It's the opposite: the longer you are in the country illegally, the more penalty you accrue. There had been one-off amnesties when people were indeed given legal status for being in the country illegally long enough, but there were only two of those: in 1929 and 1986.
  - maxerickson 10mo ago
    Which has little to do with the procedure we should require when an enforcement officer is presented with a valid state issued id.

threemux 10mo ago

I can't speak to any original purpose of the act, but Real IDs in practice have never guaranteed a person currently has legal status. It is not even enough on its own to demonstrate the ability to legally work (see form I-9). If you want to quickly prove citizenship, a passport is what you need.

AnotherGoodName 10mo ago
I mean i literally was forced to get a real ID since i was in the US for more than 10 days (you can't drive on a foreign license longer than that in California and they hand out real ID licenses now). 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.
- toast0 10mo ago
  > I mean i literally was forced to get a real ID since i was in the US for more than 10 days (you can't drive on a foreign license longer than that in California and they hand out real ID licenses now). 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...
  - AnotherGoodName 10mo ago
    Indeed a resident non-citizen who's required to get a licence in 10 days. A very common thing in the valley. Which is why this article is going at the wrong point. Real ID is meant for citizen and non-citizen alike.
    - queenkjuul 10mo ago
      But not for people who don't have legal permanent residence

phoe-krk 10mo ago

> When asked to comment on Lavoie's declaration, a DHS spokesperson said in a statement to Reason: "The INA requires aliens and non-citizens in the US to carry immigration documents. Real IDs are not immigration documents—they make identification harder to forge, thwarting criminals and terrorists." >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.

yubblegum 10mo ago
I have made multiple photocopies of my US passport (naturalized) that I have put in my wallet, backpacks, etc.
- bathtub365 10mo ago
  I wouldn’t expect them to accept photocopies of a passport
  - jtokoph 10mo ago
    I would hope that they have access to a tool to look up the passport by number and confirm that the details match the copy and the photo appears to look like the person.
    - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
      They do, but it can and will be ignored, based on events to date. The goal is to create ambiguity to enable a power imbalance enabling working outside of the legal framework to accomplish target outcomes. It turns an objective boolean evaluation (“is_citizen”) into a subjective one (“is_preferred_and_compliant”).

mrbluecoat 10mo ago

Not exactly what I wanted to read on the first day of 2026, but honestly not surprised. Welcome to the year of 'More Of The Same'.

euroderf 10mo ago

It seems too easy for the government to turn people into unpersons.

SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
I don't want to minimize what this guy went through, but it's important to emphasize that DHS did check within the hour whether he was a US citizen and did release him when they confirmed he was. Most citizens still have no realistic risk of being unpersoned, and it's important that people know that so that they feel comfortable being outspoken against the administration. (If ICE shows up in my neighborhood, for example, I would have a duty to be mean to them rather than hiding in fear.)
- queenkjuul 10mo ago
  And then detained him a second time, don't forget

Alive-in-2025 10mo ago

This discussion is missing the existence of the other type of real ids only for verified us citizens called "enhanced drivers licence", or edl https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they. 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-after-offering-to-show-passport-sparks-backlash/ar-AA1S91KO https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-citizen-arrested-by-ice...

wrs 10mo ago
The actual point is, as a citizen, I’m not required to carry any form of ID just to go about my daily business. This is not supposed to be a “papers please” country.
- Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
  I agree we are not supposed to be a "papers please" country but we are now with Justice kavanaugh's recent ruling, now called the kavanaugh stop. We lost that freedom until or unless the supreme court has a new interpretation to fix this. 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.

drweevil 10mo ago

> ...when our Fourth Amendment rights are eroded, there is no evidence or piece of plastic that will suffice to overcome an officer's "reasonable suspicion" once the government decides you're a target. 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.

rose-knuckle17 10mo ago

of course. they want to determine citizenship arbitrarily on a case by case basis, usually judged on-the-spot based on skin color and whether they think you attend an evangelical (made up faith) church.