← Back to context

Comment by aboardRat4

1 day ago

Isn't it nice to have a guaranteed way to prove that (1) you are you, that (2) you are a citizen, that (3) you are over 18, and that (4) you live where you live?

Guaranteed in the sense that (a) it's available instantly, (b) everyone _has to_ accept it, because it's universal.

So you don't have keep paid utility bills with your address, just show your ID card. You don't have to "register as a voter" ever again, just show your ID before getting a ballot.

If you are worried that your tenant might happen to be an illegal migrant, and would risk being deported instead of paying rent next month, just make him show an ID before signing a rental agreement.

3 comments

aboardRat4

Reply
eesmith  19 hours ago

There is a tautological issue here - before Real ID everyone had to accept state-issued ids because that's what people had.

How does Real ID guarantee (1), (3), or (4) better than the state-issued non-Real IDs?

Places are not required to accept all Real IDs as proof of age. A bar, for example, may reject out-of-state ids for proof of age for those who look under 25.

Real ID does not prove citizenship (2). Non-citizen residents may have Real ID.

If a Canadian claims to be a snowbird tourist and wants to rent your guest house for five months, and you are worried that he might happen to be an illegal migrant and would risk being deported instead of paying rent next month, how does Real ID help?

He has no Real ID, only Canadian ID.

Note also that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin. Landlords must provide equal opportunities regardless of nationality or immigration status.

Your proposed scenario seems like it breaks anti-discrimination law.

Even better, if that person shows you a valid tribal id from a federally recognized tribe, but which is not Real ID compliant, will you rent to him? The feds consider it a valid alternative to Real ID.

  • aboardRat4  9 hours ago

    Okay, I misunderstood you, sorry.

    Yes, the system as you are describing it makes no sense.

    >Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin

    Maybe the USA is like this. I haven't and seen such an interpretation of "national origin" anywhere else in the world.

    I have only ever heard the term "national origin" with respect to _citizens_. E.g. you were a Pakistani, married a Chinese took Chinese citizenship, you are a Chinese citizen, but your "national origin" is still Pakistani. Of course discrimination on the basis of something which is not in the documents is illegal. You are a Chinese no matter where you were born. But if you are born as Pakistani and are still a Pakistani, then the term "national origin" makes no sense.

    >Your proposed scenario seems like it breaks anti-discrimination law.

    Again, possibly the USA is unique in this respect. Where I live (as well as my previous country) the anti discrimination law is strict, but it only extends to the government institutions. And I'm finding it baffling that it may happen to be otherwise in other countries.

    State universities cannot reject students based on race or sex. Buses must carry everyone regardless. Police must accept complains from all. Of course.

    But prohibiting private people from freely exercising their basic rights of liking and disliking whoever they want (and consequently making or not making commercial agreements with them) is such a mind-blowing example of tyranny that it's hard to even imagine for my third-world brain.

    • eesmith  1 hour ago

      This was a tangent starting with "I find the RealID opposition baffling." at > National origin discrimination involves treating workers (applicants or employees) unfavorably or favorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).

      > National origin discrimination can include preferring foreign workers, including workers with a particular visa status, over American workers.

      > National origin discrimination also can involve treating people unfavorably because they are married to (or associated with) a person of a certain national origin.

      In where you live, and where you used to live, a business can refuse service to a minority group? To indigenous people? What about to someone whose boyfriend is a member of a minority group?

      You write 'exercising their basic rights of liking and disliking whoever they want (and consequently making or not making commercial agreements with them)'.

      The "consequently" is doing some heavy lifting. In the US you have the basic rights of liking and disliking whoever you want. This is part of the freedom of assembly, which is the US way of saying the freedom of association.

      Commercial agreements for services available to the public, however, are interpreted under different rules than private agreements. In the US you are free, under the law, to run a private club which refuses black people, Jewish people, women, and so one. These all exist.

      However, if your club is open to the public, then you cannot discriminate on race, religion, or sex.

      (Technically the US had federal civil rights laws, which under our federal system only apply to businesses large enough to nominally be involved in interstate commerce. However, state laws essentially extend this to everyone, with a few carve-outs for, for example, a women looking for a housemate and insisting they be another woman.)

      Do you live in one of the handful of countries which are not signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination? Quoting from