Please read Section 201(3)-(4) of the Real ID Act:
(3) OFFICIAL PURPOSE- The term 'official purpose' includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.
(4) SECRETARY- The term 'Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Source: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf
In other words, the Secretary of Homeland Security has unilateral authority to expand the uses of real IDs. In their 2008 rule, DHS even doubled down:
"DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future (except of course to remove one of the three statutorily-mandated official purposes) as § 201(3) of the Act gives discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine other purposes."
That could include voting, accessing medical care, etc. Do you trust Kristi Noem with this power? Do you trust every future secretary with this power?
If not, I urge you to not get a real id or real id driver's license if you don't have one, or turn in your real id for a state id or state driver's license if you do have one, and instead get a passport. The DHS cannot enforce anything if the majority of Americans refuse to get real ids. Let us not just bow down to a national id that invades our privacy and could be used to control us.
"ICE is literally stealing people off the street", therefore we shouldn't fight against laws that give more power to DHS? Flawless logic.
As in, not being able to readily Identify yourself because you don't renew a license or state ID because you're protesting the Real ID implementation and roll out is likely to result in you not receiving due process.
Ok, I did not tell people to not have a license at all. If you live in a state where you can only get a real id (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Wyoming), absolutely renew it. However, if you don't live in those states, you can turn in your real id for a state one, and I'm recommending that everyone do that.
As for "not being able to readily identify yourself", it is my opinion that no one should be required to carry their id and that if the police stop you, you should only provide what is legally required of you. Illinois for example is a no id state, and the police cannot just ask you to identify yourself (excluding traffic stops). However, I also recognize that there are dangers to asserting your rights against law enforcement. If you fear for your life, then of course there is no shame in complying with what is requested of you.
I don't think you're really addressing what I said. You took one thing out of it you didn't like to argue about and left the rest as if it didn't exist.
There is nothing stopping this establishment (regime, government, whatever you want to call it) from deciding that the Real ID is the only valid government ID and that state ID or Driver's License isn't a valid form of identification. You posit that the Real ID could in some way be invalidated or change the rules making it unstable for things like voting or identification in certain circumstances and that this is a reason to get a passport or a State ID.
This neglects states where it is illegal to have both a state ID and a driver's license, people who can't afford both, people who can't afford a passport etc.
Most state websites will mention somewhere that a state ID acts as a form of identification within the state. Meaning the federal government could absolutely not consider it a valid form of identification. Other states aren't even required to take your state ID as a valid form of identification.
You're also neglecting that plenty of states haven't enacted a mandatory Real ID program yet or it hasn't gone into affect yet, however that may happen in a year, two years etc and so not getting a Real ID upon renewal will end up costing them more money they don't necessarily have.
Your reasons for not getting a Real ID aren't even particularly clear and you didn't answer any clarifying questions.
What makes the Real ID more dangerous than a State ID or Passport?
How much more expensive is it to get a Passport than a Real ID?
Is the process to receive a Real ID in some way more of a risk to personal privacy?
If it is a risk, what are the risks to personal privacy while getting a State ID or Passport?
Is there a reason to believe that this regime or one in the future will preclude Real ID from being used to prove things like citizenship status or voting rights?
I did only say state id in my original post, because I personally don't have a driver's license, but I really meant any form of state identification. Sorry if that was unclear. I have edited the post. As for "people who can't afford a passport", well, there's also the option of getting a passport card for $65 ($30 for the card, $35 for the processing fee if getting a card for the first time. When renewing the card, you only pay $30) and the card lasts 10 years, so it's pretty inexpensive. But also a passport isn't terribly expensive when you consider the fact that it's valid for 10 years. Lastly, I wanna say that I am not neglecting people who can't afford passports; it's the federal government who's doing that by requiring a real id. Also, I said in another comment that if you absolutely need a real id right now, then you should keep it. Just consider getting rid of it as soon as you can.
I'm not sure what you mean. In another comment I listed the five states that only have real ids and said that the residents there should protest to their state legislators and governor. I never said that you shouldn't go without an id at all.
How are my reasons unclear? I explicitly said why in my post: the secretary of homeland security has unilateral authority to expand the official purposes of the real id. Can the secretary of state do that for passports? Can a state executive officer do that for a state id? Additionally, in another comment, I said that there are plans to make real ids digital and accessible remotely and in real-time according to AAMVA testimony: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM07/20231205/116640/HHRG-118-HM07-Wstate-GrossmanI-20231205.pdf. This would allow the government to revoke your digital real id in real time if you say or do something the government doesn't like. A digital real id would also make it much easier for the government to track you. Passports, by contrast, are probably immune to digitalization for this century, as the US would have to convince 150+ nations to accept a digital passport. (I should have mentioned this in my original post, but I thought it would make my post too long.)
There is no reason to believe that, which is why we must fight back now, before 90%+ of Americans have a real id, making it easier to do what you said. We have proof that we actually can resist. Because of efforts from state legislatures and people around 2008-2010, the DHS's real id rule from that time was largely ignored. The ACLU even declared in 2012 that the real id was "dead" (source: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/real-id-dead-new-mexico-ids-will-continue-be-valid). That's proof that we can resist this.
[By the way, if you're curious about the reasons why Real ID was able to survive past 2012, it's because 1) around 2016, the federal government started saying that you would need a real id to fly, while acknowledging in a small footnote that there are 15 other acceptable ids that the TSA accepts, including passports. So people started pressuring their state legislators to comply. 2) The Real ID office at the DHS colluded directly with state DMV chiefs to prepare for real id implementation: "Nevertheless, it is telling that despite what was happening at the higher level, DMV chiefs were largely cooperative with the REAL ID Office. One interviewee said that although some governors prohibited their states from becoming compliant with REAL ID, those states still implemented perhaps 95 percent of the Act’s requirements. State DMVs would use the language of being 'consistent' with the Act’s requirements, rather than 'compliant,' thereby avoiding embarrassing their governors, while at the same time making the licenses more secure" (source: Magdalena Krajewska's 2020 journal article, “Implementing the REAL ID Act: Intergovernmental Conflict and Cooperation in Homeland Security Policy”, https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa010).]
One risk is that it makes it easier to create a national id database. Now, the real id act doesn't explicitly create a national database. However, what the federal government did do is it offered federal funding to each state to cover the costs of implementing real id, but "to be eligible to receive such grants, states shall provide electronic access to their databases to all other states" (source: same journal article as above). Meaning that if Texas and New York both accepted federal funding and the federal government wanted access to New York's database, it could just ask Texas.