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 GangofOne (talk | contribs) at 23:55, 12 February 2020 (→Alternatives: answer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on REAL ID Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. General consensus for a move. (closed by page mover) feminist (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


REAL ID Act → Real ID Act – or Real ID, per WP:TITLETM / MOS:ALLCAPS / MOS:TMCAPS / MOS:TM ("use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile ... avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile"). Although the all-caps styling is used in some sources (perhaps especially in the self-published sources from the U.S. federal government), it is not used consistently in either the cited independent reliable sources or within the Wikipedia article itself. The article contains more than 100 instances of "Real ID" with mixed-case styling, and only 81 instances of "REAL ID" with all-caps. The "REAL" does not appear to be an abbreviation (or at least not one that is widely known, if it exists). The all-caps styling seems to merely be for emphasis. Please also see the July 2005 comment with the heading "Acronym?" in the Talk page archive and the May 2015 comment on the article talk page with the heading "Looks like acronym". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternatives

Can we get a list of compliant alternatives where you don't need a REAL ID? Nickvet419 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compliant with what? What kind of situations are you thinking of where a person does not need a REAL ID? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
passport, military id. I believe intended question is "Can we get .... when you don't HAVE a REAL ID?GangofOne (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Real_ID_Act&oldid=940511477"