Jump to content

Talk:Real ID Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.94.119.60 (talk) at 12:30, 2 April 2017 (→‎Advice on addition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Funding for REAL ID Act

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1229446699591.shtm <--- Department of Homeland Security's Press Release on the matter. --Megwhit1012 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification re: Michigan

The article currently states that Michigan both a)has passed anti-Real ID legislation and b)adopted a pro-Real ID stance. Additionally, the link cited for part b is broken. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References 76 and 77 on this page are broken links. 128.36.71.33 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Howie[reply]
Reference 12 was also broken. I've replaced it with a link to the Federal Register version of the document. This link should be stable. Musonius (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 82-84 have broken links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryan910 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New information regarding Ohio's rejection

As of Dec 6 2013, Ohio has rejected REAL ID act implementation. http://www.dispatch.com//content/stories/local/2013/12/06/state-pulls-plans-to-comply-with-federal-id-law.html. Putting this in the talk section since I don't know what the vision is of the authors regarding state by state implementation or rejection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.34.2 (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State compliance graphic is misleading

The graphic associated with the page only lists official compliance - a binary - not whether a state meets or exceeds the requirements, or what stance they've taken. As such, it's misleading; most states already meet or exceed the requirements. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic is out of date and inconsistent with the State adoption and non-compliance section. As an example, Indiana is shown as dark gray (filed extension) on the map but is listed as compliant in the referenced section. ejly (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) 12:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic also lists at least one state, Tennessee, as being compliant when Tennessee is definitely NOT compliant, as of January, 2015.

Looks like acronym

   The title looks like an acronym, but seems not to be. There must have been some press commentary on why the acronymic fetish for gov't programs is attractive to bill-drafters, and in what sense(s) it was argued that REAL ID was more real than its predecessors. Off-hand, it looks like a hint that lack of standards for counterfeiting-resistance was an issue or a red herring. Should be addressed.
--Jerzy•t 11:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ID renewal / birth certificate Catch-22

My state ID expired on my 65th birthday. Then I discovered that, because Real-ID had been implemented in Arizona, I needed to present my birth certificate in order to renew my ID. However, before sending me a copy of my birth certificate, the San Francisco County Recorder requires me to send them a notarized form. But Arizona notaries require a CURRENT ID for identification before notarizing any form. So I am now and forever an "undocumented citizen."

Many others have the same problem. (Google for "catch-22 id renewal birth certificate") But I have yet to find a solution. This problem should be mentioned in the article. Or better yet the solution, if there is one. Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona has fairly typical requirements placed on the notary to identify the signer who appears before the notary, explained in the Arizona notary manual beginning on page 19. You can find a notary who knows you, in which case you don't need any ID. Or, you can bring a person with you when you visit the notary; the person you bring must know you and have ID. Arizona offers a search page where you can search for a notary in your area who you know. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article rated as "low importance"?

For me and at least 40,000 others (41,400 hits on Google search for "catch-22 id renewal birth certificate"), it is of vital importance. Without a valid ID, I cannot file a Social Security change-of-address, therefore I cannot get my Medicare card, therefore I cannot get medical care. This is literally a matter of life-or-death.

Ray Eston Smith Jr (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

needs a major rewrite

finding it hard to plow through, and I a) have a reason to read it and b) have a very high tolerance for gobbledegook Elinruby (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on REAL ID Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on REAL ID Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Papersplease.org seems unreliable

I reverted two edits because they rely, at least in part, on papersplease.org because the site seems to be biased and unreliable. The headline at the page that was cited reads "DHS continues to threaten states that resist the REAL-ID Act", which doesn't seem like neutral language. On the same page we see a link named "CDC proposes martial law in the guise of 'medical quarantine'"; the idea of a medical institution proposing martial law seems quite unbelievable. If the editor really wishes to use this source, I request it be discussed at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard first. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on addition

I would like to add to the article the following line:
"In many states a Driver's License in compliance with the REAL ID act is marked by a star in one of the card's corners"
In which paragraph should I add this? 84.94.119.60 (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Real_ID_Act&oldid=773443610"