Talk:Real ID Act

According to [[ http://www.privacycoalition.org/stoprealid/ ]], there's until 5pm EST on May 8, 2007 to comment on the Act, via: The comments can be submitted in one of three ways:

  1. Online through the Federal Rulemaking Portal: [[1]] (search for "DHS-2006-0030-0001" and follow the instructions for submitting comments

This has passed now, hasn't it? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God damn it :( --I am not good at running 03:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically if the president doesn't sign it....ah, who am I kidding. Until PR gets out about how the Sec of HD is now a God amongst men, we're still royally screwed. FireballX301 04:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

It should be noted that the law does take effect May 10th, 2008 but STATES have until December 31st, 2009 to be in compliance. http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686.shtm Spiritfilledjm (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)spiritfilledjm[reply]

Biometric?

I thought the point of this act was to get biometric information yet that word is not found anywhere in the entire text of the article. What is the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.206.43.5 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what you're asking? Aceholiday (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Us

This is the first step by the US in brainwashing all of the American people and slowly takign away their individuality. This is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World novel becoming a reality, and people aren't even noticing. Mehicdino 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First step? Dude, we're on step 945 of Section 233, Book 17. Aceholiday (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck Out?

~~There seems to be little talk in the mainstream press regarding the fact that this part of the act was struck out? Logically, this seems to mean that it's dead for now, any evidence to the contrary?~~ -- Xanadu 16:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I believe the third paragraph of the “Current Status” section is biased. Its reads like a guide for people against the Bill. It should be just the facts. SenorAnderson 23:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is too biased for you, cut the crap and leave the facts. It is a very controversial subject.

There is no mention of the Senate bill. Apparently it was passed but this section has failed to give any specifics

Clay @ OCU

I was considering the last comment when I read the senate passed the bill 100-0. does that seem biased to you?

THOMSAS @ L.O.C. Too slow!

The thomas registry at the Library of congress is to slow. The revisions shown ae not yet up, and the day Bush signed 1268 to Public Law, there was no revision 6 posted. Still, the actual version that was signed is not there or accessible.

Thomas needs to get things together and get things posted faster so the public can keep up with this stuff. it has been more than a week and the version Bush signed is not yet available so that we can really know which was signed. If anyone has any idea of a way to find this out for sure, please share with us.

grrrrrr.....

And Australians?

What, are the yanks seriously picking on the aussies now?

No, you guys now get your own visa category (E-3 visa). That means more of you can come over and work here.

Hey, we admire u aussies! atleast most people i know

Acronym?

A lot of the literature surrounding the REAL ID Act capitalizes all the letters in the bill, implying that it is an abbreviation (like the USA PATRIOT Act). What is the long name of the bill?

Not being familiar with this law, I initially thought the part about changing visa limits for Australians was vandalism. But it's not. See Section 501: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c10955BdTd:e269084:

12.65.54.195 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

such as Mexico since their laws consider guilty until proven innocent as per Napoleonic code.

I removed this statement because it is not true, though certainly there are plenty of due process concerns. -- Beland 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More information needed

Changing visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australians.

That topic isn't covered in the article. Any details?

The term States

The Term States Refers to the 50 States,D.C, Puerto Rico ,USVI,Guam,American Samoa, Nothern Mariana Islands and Trust Territories from the pacific.

National identification (ID) cards are on the way. Starting in 2008, if you live or work in the U.S., or any U.S. territory, including Puerto Rico, you will be required to carry a federally approved national ID card. That is, U.S. citizens will need the national ID to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

In February, Congress approved a Republican-backed measure compelling states and U.S. territories to issue ID cards and passports with radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in them by no later than 2008. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved an $82 billion military spending bill that will, in part, create federally approved ID cards for all U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

"All states and U.S. possessions, including Puerto Rico, will have to comply with the national ID card requirement. If you want to get into a federal building, on a train or airplane, or even receive your Social Security check, you will need this identification," explained Eduardo Bhatia, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration.

wow... you are entirely wrong... i guess you didn't read the article

Act of Passage

According to what I can glean from Thomas, the REAL ID act was not a rider. It was inserted into the conference report for HR 1268.

It was actually rejected three separate times by the U.S. Senate, and was only passed because it was added to a larger bill containing disaster relief and funding for Iraq.

I think the good citizens of this country, liberals and conservatives alike, should be very concerned with the direction of the step this REAL ID is taking.

US Domestic Air Travel without "Real ID" complaint ID

As an ANON visitor I wish to remind those that state that failure to carry an "approved" ID would prevent domestic air travel by carriers of non-approved IDs that a US or any foreign passport would constitute valid ID for US domestic air travel. I *always* carry my US Passport for domestic air travel as the TSA agent need not know anything more about me than I am a US citizen and am identified as documented.

While it may not be "bias"...

...the links section contains some links whose description alone makes their legitimacy HIGHLY suspect. 68.39.174.238 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real id act

 Here is a web site to help cancle this bill out....This is one more step of big brother getting bigger... Please sign up today

http://www.nonationalid.com/TakeAction.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.73.159 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh my: "the National ID is leading us into the prophesied world government and its mark of the beast system." I'm sure you can come up with a more reputable anti-Real ID site than that... Offshore1 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Citations

I added a citation for Utah passing a resolution opposing the REAL ID Act. I was wondering if it is better to cite the actual resolution (http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/hbillenr/hr0002.htm) or the recorded votes (http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/status/hbillsta/hr0002.001h.txt). The actual resolution is obviously more pertinent, but the voting results actually back up what is being said. --66.7.120.2 01:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of innocence

I removed the following unreferenced claim from the article:

"Such due process issues include nations, such as Mexico, which do not subscribe to the concept of innocent until proven guilty."

This seems implausible; moreover, traffic tickets are usually an administrative (not criminal) matter, and rights such as presumption of innocence and trial by jury generally do not apply to such cases in U.S. states, either. -- Beland 22:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I added the references template to the bottom, and touched up some of the references. Also, cleaned up the states compliance area - there was some redundancy, and there wasn't any reference for Tennessee, so I removed it from the list of states that had passed anti-REAL ID Act resolutions. Arrdee 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

42 USC 666 =

The article said

In addition, the federal Social Security Administration, (42 U.S.C. § 666(28)), requires the States to maintain a new hire directory. Employers would no longer be able to accept, or ultimately hire, bearers of non-compliant documents for employment.

42 USC section 666 is titled "Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement". The new hire directory is section 653a, but I don't see any requirement there for employers to require ID of any kind from employees. Even if the States are required to maintain a new hire directory this does not mean they are required to accept federally-approved ID or any ID at all, so some additional citation is required.

It also said

Also, financial institutions are required to assist the Federal Parent Locator Service, ((42 U.S.C. § 666(17)). Financial institutions would require compliant documents from all customers. Bearers of non-compliant documents would be denied financial or banking services.

which suffers from the same kind of problem: the second and third sentences don't follow from the first, and I don't think the first sentence is relevant to the topic.

It also said

Additional federal and state agencies who will require compliant documents are listed, in part, in (42 U.S.C. § 666).

which is, as far as I can tell after reading the whole section, simply not correct.

-- Geoffk01 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota?

The article says both that North Dakota has passed legislation condemning the act, and that Chertoff says it's made progress in complying. I can see how both can be true, but I want to be sure that it's correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.153.115 (talk) 00:35, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism

There are quite a few people opposing this Act, and it's easy to see how it can be rapidly seen as a scary proposition, I believe it would be interesting and informative to have a skepticism/criticism/opposition section in the article. Zulu Inuoe (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I really should pay more attention to the article. Zulu Inuoe (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 license in 2 states

if you have 2 licenses in 2 states, do you get a letter from "real id administrators" asking you which one you want to keep?