2 hours ago, Delta111 said:

  Yes, Passports to get their B1 Visa's to enter the country from various M.E. countries (Mostly Saudi),,but In fact, 18 of the 19 hijackers had acquired some form of fraudulent ID, including 30 driver's licenses from various states to take flight lessons...

Keep in mind that in 2000, there was nothing preventing B entrants from getting Driver's Licenses, and many states actually required it once you stayed within the state for 30 days or more.

We're going to see here that outside of USCIS and (maybe) CBP, understanding of US immigration law is next to nil. Visa expiration has absolutely nothing to do with authorized stay in the US - it can be 100% legal to be here with an expired visa. There are millions of foreigners who can legally enter the US without a visa at all (I was one of them). A timely filed extension of status automatically provides authorized stay for 240 days after expiration with merely a receipt from USCIS. I could go on for ages.

All of these things are completely beyond the understanding of DMV clerks or Deputy Cletus, and this is why we shouldn't let state (or lower) level actors try and decipher immigration law. Even the feds aren't consistently good at it.

8 hours ago, Reader said:

They use the name and date of birth to check the database.
 

 I looked it up on  the web and it says if your not carrying  a licence you need to present it  to the nearest police station with in 7  days. So don't know  why you wouldn't  carry it with you. As i said before unless your one of  these sovereign citizen groups you see on  these utubes

15 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

'We'? I believe you mean you are done...but thank you for proving my point;

the increasing insistence of the over-arching state on it's citizens to prove who they are or what they are doing at any given time has little to do with legitimate concerns of preventing crime but much more with authorities attempts to accumulate as much information on the private lives of their law-abiding populations. 

That is the greatest stretch of imagination. If you really believe that, then I pity you. You must be looking over your shoulder at every turn.

18 minutes ago, IanHarrison said:

That is the greatest stretch of imagination. 

Hardly. Technology has allowed state entities to pile up and store truly vast amounts of data on the lives of ordinary, law abiding citizens going about their everyday business. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

 

2 hours ago, pete_auau said:

 I looked it up on  the web and it says if your not carrying  a licence you need to present it  to the nearest police station with in 7  days. So don't know  why you wouldn't  carry it with you. As i said before unless your one of  these sovereign citizen groups you see on  these utubes

We don't really have any of this 'Sovereign citizen' stuff in the UK. The statutes that established driving licences in the UK provided for exactly that; permission to drive a vehicle on the public highway. It was not meant to be any sort of ID.

Also, as a nation we do not have a history of being required to produce documents 'on demand', we left that sort of stuff to Prussians and Russians...

2 hours ago, Luke said:

Keep in mind that in 2000, there was nothing preventing B entrants from getting Driver's Licenses, and many states actually required it once you stayed within the state for 30 days or more.

We're going to see here that outside of USCIS and (maybe) CBP, understanding of US immigration law is next to nil. Visa expiration has absolutely nothing to do with authorized stay in the US - it can be 100% legal to be here with an expired visa. There are millions of foreigners who can legally enter the US without a visa at all (I was one of them). A timely filed extension of status automatically provides authorized stay for 240 days after expiration with merely a receipt from USCIS. I could go on for ages.

All of these things are completely beyond the understanding of DMV clerks or Deputy Cletus, and this is why we shouldn't let state (or lower) level actors try and decipher immigration law. Even the feds aren't consistently good at it.

The RealID is not about State or local authorities checking immigration status.  It's about having an ID that is verifiably valid by making States validate one's name, address, and status as a legal resident or citizen.  I suppose someone could present a fake passport or birth certificate and a DMV clerk wouldn't know that it is fake, but obtaining a fraudulent RealID would nevertheless be more difficult than getting an ordinary license.

Based on your statements you seem to be annoyed by the fact that govt. authorities would dare to check one's immigration status.  Are you advocating just not even bothering and allowing anyone in the world to just walk on in?  Do you realize the chaos that would ensue?  Have you thought about what it would mean if 10 million, or more, people flooded into the country every single year?  No other country on earth would allow that unless their leaders are insane.

Dave

7 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

We don't really have any of this 'Sovereign citizen' stuff in the UK. The statutes that established driving licences in the UK provided for exactly that; permission to drive a vehicle on the public highway. It was not meant to be any sort of ID.

Also, as a nation we do not have a history of being required to produce documents 'on demand', we left that sort of stuff to Prussians and Russians...

Says the guy from the country which engages in the most egregious 24/7 surveillance of its citizens in the world, with the exception of maybe China.

Dave

11 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Says the guy from the country which engages in the most egregious 24/7 surveillance of its citizens in the world, with the exception of maybe China.

Dave

I agree completely.  We have more and generally poorer quality CCTV surveillance than anywhere else on earth I believe. I don't like it and I'm certainly not alone in that either.

Once again, another example of the creeping surveillance state...

36 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Based on your statements you seem to be annoyed by the fact that govt. authorities would dare to check one's immigration status.  Are you advocating just not even bothering and allowing anyone in the world to just walk on in?

Since nuance is lost on you, let me be explicit - I do not want state and local government authorities making status determinations that they are not competent to make.

Let me give you four scenarios:

1) A British national walks into the DMV. She has an H-1 visa that expired a year ago, an SSN, and an H-1 I-94 that expires in 18 months.

2) A Canadian national walks into the DMV. He has no visa, a TD I-94 that expired 45 days ago and no SSN, but an renewal receipt notice from 90 days ago.

3) An Indian national walks into the DMV. She has a single-use K-1 visa, a K-1 I-94 that expired three weeks ago, no SSN and an I-485 receipt (adjustment to permanent residence).

4) A French national walks into the DMV. He has an expired H-1 visa, an H-1 I-94 that expired four weeks ago, an SSN, and a I-485 receipt from two weeks ago.

Who is in legal status and is eligible for a license? The correct answer for all four is YES. I don't trust anyone here to make the right determination and I certainly don't trust the average DMV clerk.

Edited June 10, 2025Jun 10 by Luke

3 hours ago, Luke said:

Since nuance is lost on you, let me be explicit - I do not want state and local government authorities making status determinations that they are not competent to make.

Let me give you four scenarios:

1) A British national walks into the DMV. She has an H-1 visa that expired a year ago, an SSN, and an H-1 I-94 that expires in 18 months.

2) A Canadian national walks into the DMV. He has no visa, a TD I-94 that expired 45 days ago and no SSN, but an renewal receipt notice from 90 days ago.

3) An Indian national walks into the DMV. She has a single-use K-1 visa, a K-1 I-94 that expired three weeks ago, no SSN and an I-485 receipt (adjustment to permanent residence).

4) A French national walks into the DMV. He has an expired H-1 visa, an H-1 I-94 that expired four weeks ago, an SSN, and a I-485 receipt from two weeks ago.

Who is in legal status and is eligible for a license? The correct answer for all four is YES. I don't trust anyone here to make the right determination and I certainly don't trust the average DMV clerk.

 

  Did any of them have a kangaroo....??  I was waiting for the punch line...!!!  

Here in the US, I decline to allow TSA to photo my face, so I guess that puts me in the paranoid camp.  In the US, the courts have upheld state "stop and identify" laws but these don't require a "card"; only that the person give his name.  The US has a fourth Amendment.  I guess you can waive your rights if you chose but I don't think we should just ignore it.

5 hours ago, Luke said:

Who is in legal status and is eligible for a license? The correct answer for all four is YES. I don't trust anyone here to make the right determination and I certainly don't trust the average DMV clerk.

I agree with you that I don't want a police officer or DMV clerk determining a person's immigration status.  That's not their job, although I'm sure that a DMV clerk with access to govt. databases could quickly verify that.

I don't like the idea of having to carry around a national ID card and then some govt. official stopping me and demanding to see my papers.  The fact is, the Real ID is not that, but you seem to be implying that it will be used to check immigration status on demand by some State or local authority.  It is simply a more secure form of ID wherein the identity, social security number, address, and legal presence or citizenship of the holder has been verified so that it can be used for certain things.  

IMO it should also be required to obtain employment and welfare benefits, which would go a long way in reducing fraud and ensuring that only legal residents or citizens can work or obtain welfare benefits.

Dave

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I agree completely.  We have more and generally poorer quality CCTV surveillance than anywhere else on earth I believe. I don't like it and I'm certainly not alone in that either.

Once again, another example of the creeping surveillance state...

Well, you're not alone.  Surveillance of the people has increased greatly here as well since the "patriot" act, a real misnomer BTW.

We still don't have CCTV spying on us everywhere we go - yet.

It's all about keeping the little people under control so the "elites" don't have to worry so much.

Dave

10 hours ago, Delta111 said:

 

  Did any of them have a kangaroo....??  I was waiting for the punch line...!!!  

or, "why the long face"?

13 hours ago, dave2013 said:

IMO it should also be required to obtain employment and welfare benefits, which would go a long way in reducing fraud and ensuring that only legal residents or citizens can work or obtain welfare benefits.

Keep in mind that state residency is completely orthogonal to employment authorization. It's completely possible (and occurs more frequently than you think) for someone to work legally in the US without being able to establish residency in any state.

Residency is state-level, employment is federal. You end up breaking stuff when you start mixing the streams.