Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who were born on a kitchen table by kerosene lantern in an unheated, dirt floor shack on a subsistence farm in the middle of nowhere and whose birth was recorded, if at all, in a tattered family Bible somewhere are for the most part dead of old age my now.

The people who claim getting identification is too expensive or complex for them seem for the most part to afford other things, including cigarettes, drugs and booze, and to be able to handle normal transactions, like getting a prepaid cell phone. And if they’re really broke there typically are fee waivers available, and social service organizations to help them get straightened out if they want to.

The chronically disorganized really shouldn’t be setting the standard and even they usually can organize the things they really care about.

The truly mentally ill are unfortunate and it is hard not to sympathize with them, but again they really should not be the standard.

We have become way to much of a “show your papers” society. People with no business having copies of our drivers licenses routinely demand and scan them to keep in perpetuity. Even worse are the “show ID” transactions where possession of something that looks valid is enough.

All this being said, there are times when it is reasonable and important to be able confirm who a person is. The idea that it is oppressive to require people to have identification when they might have some trouble getting or maintaining possession of it is dramatically exaggerated. It comes up most often in the context of voter ID laws. People routinely show ID to visit their kid’s school, enter office buildings, get government services, get medical care, buy booze and cigarettes, and even see movies. But suddenly it’s a wholesale disenfranchisement to want to confirm that voters are who they claim to be? Not a persuasive claim.

I agree. It seems to me one solution is to accept expired IDs for voting also. I realize not everyone may keep their IDs up to date, but most people have them.

And guess what? DC offers FREE non-driver ID cards if you are a senior citizen, homeless, or were recently let out of prison:
https://dmv.dc.gov/node/1120181

Guess what??? You still have to have all the correct documents, which cost money, and transportation to the DMV, and be able to get the time off work.

So does voting. You have to travel to some voting site and get time off work.

Anonymous wrote:Tons. A decent portion of the homeless and mentally ill population have difficulty obtaining and keeping their identification documents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who were born on a kitchen table by kerosene lantern in an unheated, dirt floor shack on a subsistence farm in the middle of nowhere and whose birth was recorded, if at all, in a tattered family Bible somewhere are for the most part dead of old age my now.

The people who claim getting identification is too expensive or complex for them seem for the most part to afford other things, including cigarettes, drugs and booze, and to be able to handle normal transactions, like getting a prepaid cell phone. And if they’re really broke there typically are fee waivers available, and social service organizations to help them get straightened out if they want to.

The chronically disorganized really shouldn’t be setting the standard and even they usually can organize the things they really care about.

The truly mentally ill are unfortunate and it is hard not to sympathize with them, but again they really should not be the standard.

We have become way to much of a “show your papers” society. People with no business having copies of our drivers licenses routinely demand and scan them to keep in perpetuity. Even worse are the “show ID” transactions where possession of something that looks valid is enough.

All this being said, there are times when it is reasonable and important to be able confirm who a person is. The idea that it is oppressive to require people to have identification when they might have some trouble getting or maintaining possession of it is dramatically exaggerated. It comes up most often in the context of voter ID laws. People routinely show ID to visit their kid’s school, enter office buildings, get government services, get medical care, buy booze and cigarettes, and even see movies. But suddenly it’s a wholesale disenfranchisement to want to confirm that voters are who they claim to be? Not a persuasive claim.

I agree. It seems to me one solution is to accept expired IDs for voting also. I realize not everyone may keep their IDs up to date, but most people have them.

And guess what? DC offers FREE non-driver ID cards if you are a senior citizen, homeless, or were recently let out of prison:
https://dmv.dc.gov/node/1120181

Guess what??? You still have to have all the correct documents, which cost money, and transportation to the DMV, and be able to get the time off work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who were born on a kitchen table by kerosene lantern in an unheated, dirt floor shack on a subsistence farm in the middle of nowhere and whose birth was recorded, if at all, in a tattered family Bible somewhere are for the most part dead of old age my now.

The people who claim getting identification is too expensive or complex for them seem for the most part to afford other things, including cigarettes, drugs and booze, and to be able to handle normal transactions, like getting a prepaid cell phone. And if they’re really broke there typically are fee waivers available, and social service organizations to help them get straightened out if they want to.

The chronically disorganized really shouldn’t be setting the standard and even they usually can organize the things they really care about.

The truly mentally ill are unfortunate and it is hard not to sympathize with them, but again they really should not be the standard.

We have become way to much of a “show your papers” society. People with no business having copies of our drivers licenses routinely demand and scan them to keep in perpetuity. Even worse are the “show ID” transactions where possession of something that looks valid is enough.

All this being said, there are times when it is reasonable and important to be able confirm who a person is. The idea that it is oppressive to require people to have identification when they might have some trouble getting or maintaining possession of it is dramatically exaggerated. It comes up most often in the context of voter ID laws. People routinely show ID to visit their kid’s school, enter office buildings, get government services, get medical care, buy booze and cigarettes, and even see movies. But suddenly it’s a wholesale disenfranchisement to want to confirm that voters are who they claim to be? Not a persuasive claim.

I agree. It seems to me one solution is to accept expired IDs for voting also. I realize not everyone may keep their IDs up to date, but most people have them.

And guess what? DC offers FREE non-driver ID cards if you are a senior citizen, homeless, or were recently let out of prison:
https://dmv.dc.gov/node/1120181

Guess what??? You still have to have all the correct documents, which cost money, and transportation to the DMV, and be able to get the time off work.

Anonymous wrote:11 percent of the U.S. population doesn't have valid ID, according to the ACLU.

It's up to 25 percent for people of color.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who were born on a kitchen table by kerosene lantern in an unheated, dirt floor shack on a subsistence farm in the middle of nowhere and whose birth was recorded, if at all, in a tattered family Bible somewhere are for the most part dead of old age my now.

The people who claim getting identification is too expensive or complex for them seem for the most part to afford other things, including cigarettes, drugs and booze, and to be able to handle normal transactions, like getting a prepaid cell phone. And if they’re really broke there typically are fee waivers available, and social service organizations to help them get straightened out if they want to.

The chronically disorganized really shouldn’t be setting the standard and even they usually can organize the things they really care about.

The truly mentally ill are unfortunate and it is hard not to sympathize with them, but again they really should not be the standard.

We have become way to much of a “show your papers” society. People with no business having copies of our drivers licenses routinely demand and scan them to keep in perpetuity. Even worse are the “show ID” transactions where possession of something that looks valid is enough.

All this being said, there are times when it is reasonable and important to be able confirm who a person is. The idea that it is oppressive to require people to have identification when they might have some trouble getting or maintaining possession of it is dramatically exaggerated. It comes up most often in the context of voter ID laws. People routinely show ID to visit their kid’s school, enter office buildings, get government services, get medical care, buy booze and cigarettes, and even see movies. But suddenly it’s a wholesale disenfranchisement to want to confirm that voters are who they claim to be? Not a persuasive claim.

I agree. It seems to me one solution is to accept expired IDs for voting also. I realize not everyone may keep their IDs up to date, but most people have them.

And guess what? DC offers FREE non-driver ID cards if you are a senior citizen, homeless, or were recently let out of prison:
https://dmv.dc.gov/node/1120181

Anonymous wrote:The people who were born on a kitchen table by kerosene lantern in an unheated, dirt floor shack on a subsistence farm in the middle of nowhere and whose birth was recorded, if at all, in a tattered family Bible somewhere are for the most part dead of old age my now.

The people who claim getting identification is too expensive or complex for them seem for the most part to afford other things, including cigarettes, drugs and booze, and to be able to handle normal transactions, like getting a prepaid cell phone. And if they’re really broke there typically are fee waivers available, and social service organizations to help them get straightened out if they want to.

The chronically disorganized really shouldn’t be setting the standard and even they usually can organize the things they really care about.

The truly mentally ill are unfortunate and it is hard not to sympathize with them, but again they really should not be the standard.

We have become way to much of a “show your papers” society. People with no business having copies of our drivers licenses routinely demand and scan them to keep in perpetuity. Even worse are the “show ID” transactions where possession of something that looks valid is enough.

All this being said, there are times when it is reasonable and important to be able confirm who a person is. The idea that it is oppressive to require people to have identification when they might have some trouble getting or maintaining possession of it is dramatically exaggerated. It comes up most often in the context of voter ID laws. People routinely show ID to visit their kid’s school, enter office buildings, get government services, get medical care, buy booze and cigarettes, and even see movies. But suddenly it’s a wholesale disenfranchisement to want to confirm that voters are who they claim to be? Not a persuasive claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably thousands.

There are plenty of older folks who were born in the rural south who are living in DC now and may not have ever had a birth certificate.

How did they get to DC? How do they get a social security check? How do they rent?

Many came to DC in search of educational opportunities for their children. They took the train, the bus, or came with other people by car. Imagine, for example, a SAHM who never drove. Any social security that she has would be based on her husband’s income and SS# . She might still live in the family home — a house that was purchased by her husband. Many people of a certain age were paid in cash and don’t qualify for social security benefits which, originally were deliberately crafted to leave out jobs that were disproportionately held by Black people.

Maybe go read up on the Great Migration.

The Great Migration was 100 years ago. There is no one collecting social security based on their husband who doesn't have their own SS#. Sorry... even in the 30s when Social Security was created and your point was actually true, the government made all sorts of accommodations... you could bring in a church document, you could bring in your mom or a sibling or a friend to verify your birth. They swore an affidavit and they gave you a SS#. We now fall over ourselves to accept documents from every country in the world. There is no one who can't get an ID if they want one.

Are there homeless and mentally ill people who have lost the card, sure? But even most of them receive SSI, so yes, someone is holding their paperwork.

Anonymous wrote:I would conservatively estimate that probably 75% of AA people over 50 years old lack any form of govt ID at all. It just wasn’t done before the 70’s. And they’ve grown up and lived their whole lives without ever driving or traveling, or being able to get a job. You people live very sheltered lives, and have no idea what life is like in the AA community.

Anonymous wrote:I would conservatively estimate that probably 75% of AA people over 50 years old lack any form of govt ID at all. It just wasn’t done before the 70’s. And they’ve grown up and lived their whole lives without ever driving or traveling, or being able to get a job. You people live very sheltered lives, and have no idea what life is like in the AA community.