Manage updates with the Download App
Real ID vs. the states
TalkBack
E-mail
del.icio.us
Digg thisReligious minorities face Real ID crackdown
By Anne Broache
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
February 6, 2008 4:00 AM PST
Editor's note: A May deadline looms as just one flash point in a political showdown between Homeland Security and states that oppose Real ID demands. This is the third in a four-part series examining the confrontation.
No television, no wedding or family photographs, and definitely no image of herself on her driver's license: That was the devout Christian life that Nebraska resident Frances Quaring was trying to lead.
Which is why, after the state of Nebraska rejected her request for a license-without-a-photograph in the mid-1980s, Quaring sued the state in a landmark case that ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court. She won, with the justices agreeing that preserving her freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in requiring an ID photograph.
More than two decades after the Quaring case, approximately a dozen states now offer religious exceptions when issuing driver's licenses. But because of a federal law called the Real ID Act that takes effect on May 11, residents of those states who have pictureless licenses could expect problems flying on commercial airliners and entering federal buildings, including some Social Security and Veterans Affairs offices.
The new rules could affect thousands of Americans in states including Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Minnesota, Kansas, Arkansas, and Indiana. Religious groups including some Amish, Old Order Mennonites, Muslims, members of Native American faiths, and fundamentalist Christians object to identification cards bearing their photographs--or, in some cases, even showing their unshrouded faces in public.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has criticized Real ID on numerous grounds, says it has received complaints about the law's rigidity toward religious groups and is "exploring all options," including a legal challenge to the law.
No photo ID, no admittance?
Starting May 11, the Real ID Act is expected to cause hassles for anyone with a pictureless license. Also affected are residents of a separate list of states--shown on this map--who may have trouble when flying on commercial airliners or entering federal buildings. Click a state below to see what it has told us about whether its driver's licenses will meet Real ID requirements.
Alabama
Alabama plans to ask for an extension. "At this point, one option that's being considered is a 'hybrid' approach to Real ID in Alabama, by which the state would offer compliant and noncompliant driver licenses and ID cards. We do plan to ask for an extension."
--Dorris Teague, Public Information/Education Unit, Alabama Department of Public Safety
Alaska
"Alaska does indeed intend to request an extension to meet the requirements of Real ID. We haven't submitted our extension request yet, but we fully intend to do so in the very near future."
--Whitney Brewster, spokeswoman, Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles
Arizona
Arizona says that Homeland Security has said the state will "automatically get an extension" because of an existing plan to revamp its licenses, according to Jeanine L'Ecuyer, spokeswoman for Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. That means its driver's licenses and state ID cards will be treated as Real ID-compliant until December 31, 2009.
But L'Ecuyer added that final compliance is still an open question: "Will Arizona do Real ID? Maybe is the honest answer to that question."
Arkansas
"We have asked for the first extension, but in the extension letter, we say we are not committed to implementing Real ID. We just need time to look at it and evaluate it."
--Mike Munns, assistant revenue commissioner for Arkansas
California
California reiterated in January 2008 that it has no problems complying with Real ID. Its statement did, however, mention "privacy and funding issues, which continue to be a concern for California."
Colorado
"We requested and received the extension until 2009, and we expect to be fully on the road to implementing Real ID satisfactorily by that point to get another extension in the future if we need to."
--Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revenue
Connecticut
Connecticut has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "We are still studying the issue. (Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Robert Ward) remains supportive of the concept, but no firm decisions have been made."
--Bill Seymour, spokesman for the motor vehicle commissioner.
Delaware
Delaware has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "The DMV director and secretary are going to give a briefing to the governor next month, February. Because we've got until the end of March to decide...After they have this meeting with the governor is when we're going to make our official choice."
--Mike Williams, spokesman, Delaware Department of Transportation
Florida
Florida has not announced whether it will or will not request an extension. "Thanks to the leadership of our governor, cabinet, and legislature, Florida already provides our citizens a secure and safe driver license and identification card, and we are well postured to incorporate any changes that may be required. We applaud the federal government on their efforts to protect all of our citizens with the implementation of this act."
--Ann Nucatola, public information director, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
Georgia
Georgia has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. The legislature has approved legislation authorizing the governor to reject Real ID if federal regulations do not "adequately safeguard and restrict use of the information in order to protect the privacy rights" of Georgia residents. "Our legislature has to make that determination within the next few months."
--Susan Sports, public information officer, Georgia Department of Driver Services
Hawaii
Hawaii has filed for and received an extension. "We are moving forward on reviewing the rules and coordinating with the county DMVs to see how the rules can be implemented and coordinated."
--Russell Pang, chief of Media Relations for Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle
Idaho
"We've asked for an extension, but we still have serious concerns and reservations about it and its future here is to be determined."
--Jon Hanian, spokesman for Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter
Illinois
"We have every intention to file for an extension."
--Henry Haupt, spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White
Indiana
"We do intend to comply, and we have filed for and received an extension. Over the past couple of years, we've done some security enhancements to our own system that we were going to do regardless of how Real ID rolled out."
--Dennis Rosebrough, spokesman, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Iowa
"Yes, Iowa will be implementing Real ID and we will be requesting the first extension."--Dena Gray-Fisher, spokeswoman, Iowa Department of Transportation
Kansas
"Kansas has obtained authorization for the extension, which gets us out to the end of 2009 and affords us the opportunity to see where we are, negotiate a few different things with our vendor and others. It gives us a little breathing room."
--Carmen Alldritt, director of the division of vehicles, Kansas Department of Revenue
Kentucky
"A Real ID would be an entirely new document. The current KY license would not meet the new standard...Kentucky has asked for the extension."
--Mark Brown, spokesman, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Louisiana
State officials have not responded to repeated requests for information about Real ID compliance. One bill in the state legislature asks Congress to repeal Real ID, while a response to a DMV survey says that "We believe that Louisiana will meet standards."
Maine
Will not comply. "There is currently no effort being undertaken within the state to roll back the public law preventing the secretary from moving in the direction of Real ID. It is a situation where Mainers may face some inconvenience at airports come May 11."
--Don Cookson, spokesman for Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap
Maryland
Maryland requested a deadline extension. "We're still going through 300 pages of federal guidelines. We're currently evaluating those guidelines and then we'll develop a program that is Real ID-compliant."
--Jack Cahalan, spokesman, Maryland Department of Transportation
Massachusetts
"Massachusetts did apply for the waiver and received it. We are basically telling (drivers who call us) that we've gotten the exemption, which means that you are going to show your valid driver's license to get on an airplane just as you have in the past until December 2009."
--Ann Dufresne, spokeswoman, Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles.
After December 2009, states can apply for a second extension, but will receive it only if they're taking affirmative steps to comply.
Michigan
Michigan has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "At this point, we have not requested a waiver. We're still trying to work out some of the details."
--Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lyn Land. The state's Web site says: "There are still many unknowns...Michigan law changes will be necessary."
Minnesota
"We did receive a letter from Homeland Security and it said that our extension had been granted, so that would mean that our documents, our driver's licenses, and ID cards, are compliant until December 31, 2009."
--Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokeswoman
Mississippi
No response to repeated inquiries.
Missouri
No response to repeated inquiries. The state Web site says: "January 11, 2008 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the final rule establishing minimum security standards for state-issued driver licenses and identification cards. The rule is 284 pages in length. The Missouri Department of Revenue is in the process of reviewing the rules to determine the impact to Missouri."
Montana
Montana's legislature has flatly rejected Real ID in a bill that the governor has signed into law. Gov. Brian Schwitzer has called on his colleagues in other states this month to join Montana in opposition to this "major threat to the privacy, constitutional rights, and pocketbooks of ordinary Montanans." Lynn Solomon, a spokeswoman for the Montana attorney general's office, told us: "Right now we're not even sure that the existing Montana law allows us to ask for the extension. We're just sort of sitting tight."
Nebraska
"Nebraska has requested and has been granted an initial extension. That extension does not require you to technically commit to Real ID compliance--it says we need some time, and that's what we said, we need some time. Whether or not Nebraska is ultimately going to be compliant is really for the most part right now in the hands of the legislature."
--Beverly Neth, director, Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles
Nevada
Nevada has applied for a deadline extension. "Certainly this is something that the governor supports and believes is important, although he believes in some respects it is an unfunded mandate and that the federal government should assist the states with the funding," Melissa Subbotin, spokeswoman for Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, told us.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire last year enacted a law that prohibits the state from changing its driver's license and identification card laws to comply with Real ID. It doesn't appear that is going to change. "As it stands now, the only action that has been taken is legislation to keep us out of it. There would be no way that the state could pass amending legislation or undo that within that time frame; it's just not going to happen. I don't see that anything could be done in the intervening time to change it," Jim Van Dongen, spokesman for the New Hampshire Department of Safety, told us.
New Jersey
New Jersey has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. Mike Horan, a spokesman for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, said there are a number of factors that the state is considering, including cost and wait times at the DMV. "Are the Real ID requirements going to add 15 minutes more to a person's wait? Are we going to need a new computer system to manage the requirements? We're in a bit of a fiscal crisis like many states across the country. That's a major concern--there are so many things that are in need of money."
New Mexico
New Mexico has applied for the first deadline extension from the Department of Homeland Security. "We have not made a final decision on whether we are going to implement Real ID or not," said David Harwell, a spokesman for the state department of taxation and revenue, which issues driver's licenses. "We are in the process of studying all of the regulations that were issued by Secretary (Michael) Chertoff several weeks ago."
New York
New York has already received an "unsolicited extension" from the Department of Homeland Security as part of a recent agreement to change its driver license policies, said Jennifer Givner, deputy press secretary for Gov. Eliot Spitzer.
North Carolina
North Carolina said it will request an extension if it's necessary for state residents to travel after May 11, but has not yet done so. "We're feeling that we are on track to follow along the Real ID plan as it is right now. We don't see any situation at this point where our citizens' driver's licenses would be in jeopardy and keeping them out of federal buildings or off of airplanes...Basically we feel like we're in a good place."
--Marge Howell, spokeswoman, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles
North Dakota
North Dakota has applied for a deadline extension. "Our application is stating that we'd like the extension and we would still like to reserve the opportunity to investigate committing to full implementation," said Linda Butts, deputy director of driver and vehicle services, North Dakota Department of Transportation. "The other thing that's muddying the water is that so many of these rules are long-term and seem to continue to mutate and change a little bit, so that's another thing I think all states are looking at is the cost of implementation. Are these truly going to be the rules in 2015? Will the rules today be the rules that are implemented five, seven years down the road?"
Ohio
Ohio said this month that it has applied for an extension and was the first state to receive one.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma's legislature has approved legislation saying that Real ID "is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Oklahoma" and, therefore, "the state of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the Real ID Act." Paul Sund, spokesman for Oklahoma governor's office, told us: "I'm not aware of any repeal efforts, but our legislature does not convene until February 4."
Oregon
Oregon has requested and received an extension. In the longer term, however, the state may not comply. "Oregon hasn't made a decision for or against compliance with Real ID. But since the final federal rules were released January 10, our legislature is likely to put that on its 2009 agenda."
--David House, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has requested and received an extension. In the longer term, however, the state may not comply. "We're undergoing a comprehensive review of those regulations right now to look at some potential options, the cost that would be involved and also the impact to the citizens of Pennsylvania. Being granted this initial extension just allows us more time to do that and allows the citizens of the commonwealth to continue using their state driver's licenses and IDs through December 31, 2009."
--Danielle Klinger, spokeswoman, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has applied for and received the first deadline extension from DHS, according to state DMV spokeswoman Gina Zanni. "Our governor supports the Real ID initiative," Zanni told us. "We have applied for part of the grant money that has been made available...we'd sure like some money."
South Carolina
South Carolina has enacted legislation saying the state "shall not participate in the implementation of the federal Real ID Act." Beth Parks, spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, told us: "Yes, it is true that South Carolina is a nonparticipatory state for Real ID. The South Carolina legislature is the only entity that can change that position. We are comparing the new regulations to the proposed regulations and our previous cost estimates. Once we have completed our review, we will provide information to South Carolina lawmakers and answer any questions they may have."
South Dakota
"We've applied for an extension and received one, but we have not committed to Real ID yet," said Mitch Krebs, press secretary for South Dakota Gov. Michael Rounds.
Tennessee
"The Department of Safety is conducting a detailed review of the final rules in order to fully evaluate the impact Real ID implementation will have on the citizens of the state of Tennessee. While we anticipate filing an extension, no official request has been signed as of this date.
Keep in mind, an extension request is not necessarily an indication of our intent to comply."
--Mike Browning, spokesman, Tennessee Department of Safety
Texas
Texas has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "We're still reading the fine print." --Tela Mange, spokeswoman, Texas Department of Public Safety
Utah
Utah has requested and received a deadline extension. "Our driver's license division is not a policy-making body. It would be up to the legislature and the governor. We are currently going through our legislative session--it just started. That will be one of the topics, whether to go through with it."
--Sgt. Jeff Nigbur, spokesman, Utah Department of Public Safety
Vermont
"Vermont requested and was granted an extension until December 31, 2009."
--John Zicconi, spokesman, Vermont Agency of Transportation
Virginia
Virginia has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "The Virginia DMV is currently reviewing the regulations to determine our next steps."
--Melanie Stokes, spokeswoman, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
Washington
Gov. Christine Gregoire signed legislation last year prohibiting the state from implementing Real ID unless the federal government provides funding and greater privacy protections. But, in an apparent effort to avoid inconveniencing state residents in May, Gregoire requested a compliance extension. "By not filing an extension, effective May 11, Washingtonians would have automatically been subject to additional security screenings at airports and federal buildings," Gregoire said in a recent statement. It also said: "I will not allow for confusion and chaos at our busy airports. This extension will allow our residents to continue use of their Washington state driver license or ID card to board planes and enter federal buildings...The federal regulations on Real ID compliance are ambiguous, and I share funding and privacy concerns held by many state legislators."
West Virginia
West Virginia has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "In West Virginia we are still weighing our options based upon the recent changes to the act's requirements."
--Susan Watkins, spokeswoman, West Virginia Department of Transportation
Wisconsin
Wisconsin has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "We've not made a final determination regarding next steps for Wisconsin as it relates to Real ID," said Patrick Fernan, operations manager for the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles. "We have not requested an extension as of yet."
Wyoming
Wyoming plans to request a deadline extension. "Unless the law for implementation of Real ID is changed in Washington D.C. or our Wyoming Legislature passes legislation not to comply with the Real ID, we will work toward implementation," said Jim O'Connor, support services administrator for the Wyoming Department of Transportation. He added, however: "We are concerned about this unfunded federal mandate and the effect it will have on the people of Wyoming."
Washington, D.C.
The nation's capital has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "The DC DMV is still deciding on next steps," said public information officer Janis Hazel. "Nothing further to report at this time."
"We are deeply concerned that Real ID and the associated regulations intrude on the religious liberty of many Americans who for reasons of faith wear head coverings or object entirely to having their photo taken," said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The faithful shouldn't have to choose between a driver's license and their religious beliefs."
Under Real ID, there's no obvious wiggle room for Americans who object to facial photograph requirements on religious grounds. The lengthy new regulations released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security last month set minimum standards for state-issued driver's licenses and IDs, among which is a "full facial digital photograph" that adheres to specific federal requirements.
This could pose real problems for some residents of states with a history of allowing the devout to obtain valid driver's licenses without photographs in an attempt to accommodate religious beliefs. Still more states have enacted laws known as "religious freedom restoration acts," which more broadly allow for accommodation of religious beliefs in the face of government regulations.
"My understanding is that the Real ID legislation takes that option away from states," said Steve Nolt, a history professor at Goshen College who has studied Amish interaction with government regulations in recent decades.
For some Christians, Quaring included, one source of religious objections to Real ID comes from the Christian Bible's Second Commandment, which in one translation says: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
Homeland Security justifies its mandates by saying a facial photograph "serves important security purposes." Its stated goal through Real ID--approved unanimously by the Senate and overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives as part of a "Global War on Terror" bill--is to improve driver's license security and thereby handicap terrorists, identity thieves, and illegal immigrants.
"Given these security concerns and the clear statutory mandate, DHS believes that a driver's license or identification card issued without a photograph could not be issued as a Real ID-compliant driver's license or identification card," the agency says.
Translated, that means in just over three months, federal agencies may no longer accept those "noncompliant driver's licenses" for Americans who are boarding a commercial airplane or entering a federal building. In addition, Homeland Security can add other requirements--one Homeland Security official recently suggested Real ID could be required to buy certain cold medicines--without consulting Congress first.
The lack of flexibility is troubling to Herman Bontrager, the secretary-treasurer of the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom. His all-volunteer group has met at least twice with Homeland Security officials to try to seek a compromise, and it's also talking with some members of Congress, as the Amish don't generally file lawsuits. They've had "congenial" conversations that discussed alternative possibilities for verifying identity--the Amish are amenable to fingerprints instead of photographs, he said--but no actual progress has been made so far.
The photo ID requirement has already raised practical concerns in recent years, particularly because of the newly instated passport requirement for crossing into Mexico and Canada, where the Amish often travel to visit family or seek medical treatment, Bontrager said. Because the Amish don't fly on airplanes, most do not have passports, he said, adding that he worried the Real ID requirements could make it less convenient for them to access federal buildings. Without a photo-equipped license, they won't be able to visit some Social Security offices, for instance.
"I think the Amish appreciate the conversations and the access to Homeland Security people, but we're now getting down to the implementation phase," said Bontrager, a Lancaster County, Penn., resident who runs an insurance company inspired by Biblical principles. "Each step in the rulemaking progress, we provide comment, and so on and never get any response. We have not yet seen any evidence that they're willing to make accommodations or provide options."
Next page: Religious freedom vs. security?
What is Real ID?
Federal regulations creating a uniform national ID card--called Real ID--take effect on May 11. If your state hasn't agreed in principle to upgrade its driver's licenses to be Real ID-compliant, you could have trouble traveling by air and taking advantage of some government services.
A CNET News.com survey shows that just over half of the states have signed up, while some have flatly refused to participate, typically citing costs or sovereignty worries. Privacy is another concern, with a mandatory barcode on Real ID cards lacking encryption or legal prohibitions against misuse, and mandatory linking of states' motor vehicle databases.
Stories in this series
Monday: Real ID could mean real travel headaches
In just over four months, millions of law-abiding Americans could face new
hassles when traveling on commercial flights if they hold driver's licenses or
ID cards issued by states that haven't agreed to comply with Real ID. Homeland
Security is already predicting "delays" and "enhanced security screening"
procedures for those Americans in the non-Real ID line at the airport.
Tuesday: Federal buildings become Real ID zones
Everyone from visitors to the U.S. Capitol building to
jurors being called to duty in federal courthouses could be affected by Real
ID's requirement that noncompliant driver's licenses may not be used to access
"federal facilities." Homeland Security says it "cannot predict" how many
Americans in non-Real ID states will be inconvenienced.
Wednesday: Religious minorities face Real ID crackdown
Some U.S. states have long allowed citizens with religious objections to avoid
having their photograph on driver's licenses. The Amish, Old Order Mennonites,
and some Muslim women fall into this category. But licenses without photographs
don't comply with Real ID, a rule that could invite a legal challenge.
Thursday: FAQ: How will Real ID affect you?
What are the privacy implications? What happens next? This list of frequently asked questions tries to clear up
some of the confusion surrounding the controversial law.
Previous coverage
DHS: Real ID could help shut down meth labs
Chertoff: Real ID will 'strengthen' Americans' privacy
National ID plan may have killed immigration bill
Senate takes step away from Real ID
Congress rethinks the Real ID Act
Homeland Security offers details on Real ID
FAQ: How Real ID will affect you
Related coverage
U.K. ditches ID card megadatabase
Tech industry attacks state anti-RFID laws
Britain to use ID card database as national register
New RFID travel cards could pose privacy threat
Feds: More data sharing by terrorist screeners
Passports to get RFID chip implants
Credits
Editors: Michelle Meyers, Desiree Everts
Design: Shaun Charity
Production: Daniel Judd
Survey: Anne Broache
Besides this national ID card will be merged with data that is compatible with NAFTA and the spp.gov website so people can go anywhere.
Anotehr part of the Bible would almost for sure call this the MARK OF THE BEAST.
Some websites are saying alternatives to the national ID card are the implantable rice sized scannable ID's and this reeks of "Mark of the beast." 666 is the number of mankind and not a paticular person. Stanley Kubrick(soylent green) warned us of humanities creulties to mankind and this is the start of it.
A Photograph isn't a security procedure. It's a tool that can be used for security purposes. Would they object to a finger print? That's more fool proof than a photo. It's not like we don't have the technology to read a print. They stick them on Laptops and PDA's now. Automatic Facial Recognition is actually harder to implement.
This whole argument will boil down to the rights of individuals. The Civil War took care of States Rights. The next one will abolish individual rights. My guess is there won't be blood shed in the next one. The citizens of the U.S. will just let the Fed do what it always does. Assume more power and control.
And non-religious people need to realize that this country is based on the freedom to practice our individual faiths freely.
You want National Security? Build a Wall on the Southern Border, and then round up the Illegal Aliens and cast them out of the country. If they come back in, execute them as foreign invaders.
Sorry Folks - 12 Million Illegal Aliens are called an Invading Army.
Sorry sir you must allow us into every facet of your data on your national ID card. If not then sorry sir you will not be hired or employed with us anymore.
your medical bills without being entitled to any details about
your medical history that might impact those costs.
nice!
more to the point, these religious folks who object to a
tightened identification system are absolutely free to travel by
car, bus or train (if, of course, their god lets them) without any
problem.
the point here is, if you receive something you have to give
something -- your employer deserves some transparency when
s/he provides you with discounted healthcare plans; society
deserves a simple way of identifying someone who wants to
travel on a plane (a mode of travel incredibly vulnerable to even
a single malicious traveler).
that's life. you want to play, you gotta pay the piper!
The insurer does not cost the company based on individuals, but overall expenses of the company plan.
HIPPA locks the company (and pretty much everyone else) out that data loop.
Of course, I expect some backlash against HIPPA because of the overly broad interpretation of the law. Been kicked out of a doctor's office for using a phone with a camera in it? I have.
As to voting issues, this would enhance the integrity of the voting system by avoiding fraud
However, if you read the captions per state, you can see that for several states requesting an extention does not mean acceptance yet. The map would be more honest if it also made a difference between the states that actually said 'yes' and the ones that asked for an extension. Again, these states that asked for an extension could still be 'no' states in the end.
There are two questions here: One is whether the state will comply with Real ID or request an extension so its driver's licenses can continue to be used to travel/enter federal buildings starting May 11.
The other is whether a state will eventually not comply with all the requirements, meaning that licenses will work past May 11 but will cease working for flying/federal building purposes at some future date.
We debated which to have our map reflect, and we chose the first. But there are a bunch of states (Washington state, for instance) that are almost certainly going to be in the second category.
We explained this at great length in day #1 and day #2 of our series. Click on the links on the right of the article for the background.
Do these Muslim women who wear face veils wear veils while they drive? Did they object to being photographed for their passport to enter this country?
Would they allow an expert artist to draw an accurate rendering of them, (subject to inspection and approval, of course) for their license?
The answer is simple ? If these people are so devoted to their religion that they cannot comply to basic, essential laws which every other American must abide, then giving up the right to drive a motor vehicle should not be a problem. Why should the state need to make sacrifices for these people? If they believe so deeply in their religion, let them make the sacrifice ? take a bus.
If you don't want your picture on an ID, then the government should have a process in place to address. For example, at airports, you would be put through a much more stringent search process. At Federal buildings, you would have to accompanied at all times while in the buildings.
Would these be bad for the person, probably, but then again, I don't want people on the same plane with me that have not been properly screened.
According to MY religion, (John-ism) I'm exempt from paying taxes. Think the IRS will bend the rules for me?
Seems simple to me. No matter how hard you try to turn Americans into Cookie Cutter Citizens it's just not going to work. The Feds need to find another way to keep us safe than eroding our freedoms in the name of security.
Prove you are in USA legally.
Allows you to fly in and around USA and outside USA borders.
Anything else I consider abuse.
Health data on the card is violation of privacy.
privledges. If these individuals do not want their picture on the ID,
then they do not have to have one and they will have to deal with
the consequences of these actions. The whole purpose of the ID is
to include the picture. One without the picture really is not much
of an ID to begin with.
And if my three-year-old wants to participate in craft time at preschool, she must help tidy up the toys first.
Sometimes if you want to be a part of society, you have to play by the rules.
I've been required to show photo ID every time I fly for years now. Are these religious minorities who can't even watch TV or drive a car (generalizing, yes), really allowed to even fly on a plane that flies under its own power? Do these people also avoid all stores and public places that have video cameras or intersections with speed cameras? You're already on camera any time you're anywhere near a federal building or airport.
This doesn't sound like a religious choice so much as someone who has had any sort of self-esteem or self-worth beaten or bred out of them to the point that they lack (or are not permitted) to place any value on who they are. Or they are hiding from something. Do they hold jobs or social security cards? Or pay taxes? I just don't buy the religious angle. Seems like a cover for something negative, either by their choice or forced upon them.
(Yes, I am a Christian, but I've never heard of anything in my Bible to suggest that I should not take photos of my family.)
As a Christian when last did you read the second commandment, or other passages in the good book for that matter?
Check Christ out in Matthew 22:21. Whose image and superscription are you? We in fact are talking aboat something new here. It is not a photo we are talking about but your god given image IMAGE as a badge of servitude, for an electronic automated buying, selling and tracking system.
Check out Revelation 13:14-18 in the original Greek and you just might discover these marks Mr. Mike Chertoff wants from amidst your eyes and face as well as the right hand may just be the kiss of death eternal we have all been well warned about.
your actions.
Big deal you say? Yes -- because we've already seen that the
gov't is ready and willing to abuse authority (Patriot Act) given
under the premise that it would affect very few.
Checking for fake IDs is only valid if you force the owner to
track the information for later retrieval. So now the gov't will
force business owners to track citizens for them -- sort of like
AT&T, but it won't be optional.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Ergo, the requirement for a photo id is unconstitutional and cannot be used by the federal government in any way, shape, or form to discriminate against that person.
If the federal government uses state licenses as their RealID 'vehicle', then the holding of a federalized state license no longer is a privilege, it becomes the right of that person.
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SOMETHING IS A PRIVILEGE OR NOT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A PERSON BASED ON THEIR RELIGION!
If the government ORDERED everyone to obtain a RealID, that might be a different issue.
Also, the courts tend to give some latitude in the interests of preserving other rights that may come into conflict. For example...Free speech...but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater...
There is also the need to insure the voting process is free from fraud, and reasonable measures to insure that are a must.
There is also the question about how society as a whole can function if individuals do not have to prove their identity in a myriad of transactions.
I would expect the court would find some proof of ID reasonable, and not overly burdensome.
If you want a society of laws, it may be a necessity...a requirement in the terrorism/electronic age to establish that you are you.
Besides, you're missing the main point about RealID--the underlying linking of databases that contain numerous bits about all our lives.
As concerned as I am about personal liberty and privacy, I am not opposed to requiring a photo ID to have an actual _photo_. Until every cop, every border guard, every TSA screener, every bailiff, and every other person in a security function has a readily accessible scanner that can compare a person's ID card with the person themselves, through fingerprint, aura, or the smell of their armpits, and communicate that information for verification instantly and securely to the national data center, until that status is in place, I want to see photo IDs with real photos.
The primary mission of any government is to coerce. If you think that doesn't apply to the US government, check out an article about the Whiskey Rebellion. I think the US government does about as good a job of balancing coercion with liberty as any government on this planet. In this case, I'm siding with coercion.
Yes, Real ID is imperfect; name something that isn't? Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best idea we've come up with so far, so we stick with it and try to improve on it. Same with Real ID: until something better comes along, it's much better than our present wide-open vulnerability.
Security is an all-or-nothing deal. As soon as an exception is made for even one minority group, an aspiring terrorist wishing to bypass security merely needs to claim membership of the minority group. Since by it's very nature, the minority's members are un-identifiable, any claim of membership is impossible to verify or refute.
We can't even stop under-age drinking with current ID technology, but American citizens seriously expect their security forces to protect them from terrorists by using the same ineffective tool? Duh!!
Oh, and let me guess; the next "news item" will be "illegal immigrants face Real ID crackdown"?
Spare me.
If you want special ID and search procedures for people with special beliefs whether its Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or other religions - ok let them pay for the complete cost for those special requirements - all of them. That would have to include set up of the "new" agency in charge, all the bureaucrats who justify their existence within that agency and empire building with its power, the rent for their space and the costs of all the resources they require.
Its time this country and this world quit confusing or excusing the mentally lame with the mentally lazy. Critical thinking is not a luxury or an option if your are a responsible citizen - any where. If you chose not to make choices in your life without critical analysis of their basis, worth, validity and subsequent consequences - you should pay for it - all of it. Insurance company's have finally wised up to those who chose to be addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc. It only seems fair to extend the same logic to the supernaturally addicted - whose chosen belief systems require that they receive additional care and consideration. This includes making the third largest business in the US pay its appropriate share of taxes - that being religion.
Religious freedom is not an absolute. If religious freedom were an absolute, we should then be allowing terrorists to blow up more buildings?after all it is their religious beliefs that drive them to strap bombs to their chests.
This shows how ridiculous our courts have become. By denying a person a driver's license because their religion won't allow them to carry a photograhpic image we are not violating their second amendment rights. The government doesn't require anyone to get a driver's license. However, if they want to drive on the public roadways they have to get one. It's their choice. Sometimes you have to give up some things you want in order to be faithful to your beliefs.
By the way, how much of an image is acceptable. If a head shot is not acceptable, then an image of your fingerprint should also not be acceptable. I'm now sure how the Amish could find one ok but not the other.
A better definition of religion I haven't seen for a while.
Its time to stop this now I pay for uninsured motorists who will buy insurance even if requided by law. My medical insurance is higher because we have a large population of uninsured by choice who feel they are never going to need medical,
If you don't like rules move somewhere else.
Being a citizen I demand my rights not be trampled on. You can give yours away if you wish, but hands of my Constitutional rights.
require REAL ID compliant cards to purchase certain medications.
Expect this expansion of "oversight" to continue, since they can
do so without authorization from Congress.
I would not be surprised that at some point down the line, you
will be required to have a REAL ID compliant card to purchase
basics such as gas and food.
And then they'll have road blocks at each state border, where
they'll check and register your travels across state lines.
Now -- just so long as they don't accidentally "lose" our data
that they are collecting. It's not like they've ever done that
before.
Sure you're life and credit may be destroyed because some some
flub at a federal agency by some guy who hates his job -- but
don't you feel safer?
planes. You'll also need one to enter a federal building, ANY federal
building. And they are already talking about expanding its reach to
when you buy certain medications. And I'm quite sure that is just
the beginning.
So even if the Amish aren't flying planes, they'll be affected.
This is reminiscent of the decision in Canada to allow Sikhs in the RCMP to wear turbans instead of the regulation headgear -- freedom of religion does NOT mean a condition where the believer is absolved of the logical consequences of their belief. Frankly, if I believe there is a God, and that he speaks to me (or someone) and tells me/them I have to wear a turban, then I am objectively NOT fit to serve as an officer of the law.
If I have Mr. Moon in every room of my house than I am idolizing him.
Any time you lift a person higher than yourself and have a picture of them then you are idolizing them.
This does not pertain to family pictures.
What did people do in times of old?
Genesis 40:8
"And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."
Genesis 41:15-16,39
"And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it."
"And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace."
"And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:"
2 Peter 1:20-21
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Long ago, did people turn to God for answers?
Apparently so. Answers came, in prayer from heaven, but also through holy men of God. How could people possibly have such confidence in these men?
The Lord has said,
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
So can people can have confidence in otherwise ordinary men, as the last phrases state?
The holy men of God referred to, His servants, are always appointed or called by Him. He knows them, He chooses them, not the other way around.
The other way around results in confusion.
See how Saul (Paul) and Barnabas were separated or called for God's work, in Acts 13:1-2 (don't ignore verse 1).
Things worked differently then. And they worked.
Such is also available today, just not in the conventional places you may be accustomed to looking.
Primitive pygmies for heavens sake know more about their soul than these so called modern "outcome based educated" people! Are people now delusional in their self esteem, increasingly emulating the "all seeing" god!
We have used our own I.D.(ie:our own bodies) since the beginning of time. Our body and soul is the perfect identifier of ourselves.
How stupid can one be to forfeit the ownership and control over the ability to function in this world, to some electronic jailer who will now hold and control our I.D..
To exchange your body as I.D., for a data based biometric identifier owned by some outfit like "Homeland Insecurity", and run by some guy Chertoff(translation "of the devil")from the KGB, you are clearly have to be an uninformed ignorant fool!
ALL IDENTIFIERS, APART FROM YOUR BODY, ARE PROPERTY OF THE ISSUER! All the plastic you mistakenly call your own, is simply a leash that has you collared. Times are rapidly changing and biometrics are turning this collar into a noose. Stay leashed at your own peril, but leave me out of this stupid totalitarian scheme.
THESE IDENTIFIERS REDUCE YOU TO SLAVE STATUS AT BEST!
This transformation to a mandatory corporate I.D. owned by some parent company like "Homeland Insecurity" reduces all Constitutional Rights to mere Privileges that can be withheld in a nano second(real time), any time.
Please, please Gullible Gulliver it is past time that you to wake up, and now!
Digital Dropout