ShareThis Page
Wrong on REAL ID |
Letters to the Editor

Wrong on REAL ID

| Monday, May 1, 2017 9:00 p.m

The Trib opinion page’s stance on REAL ID is really troubling ( “Legislature & REAL ID: Fix state-created dilemma” ).

I have held a valid Pennsylvania driver’s license since 1963. At that time, it was just a card with a printed name and address. Later the federal government demanded photo licenses. Now the REAL ID Act is asking for what can be called an “internal passport.”

I’m reminded of the famous line from old movies: “Your papers, please.” The law was passed by attachment to a military spending bill, never considered by itself. Opposition ranges from left to right political groups.

The latest information indicates that Pennsylvania driver’s licenses are in compliance with 32 of 38 standards required by the REAL ID Act. Of the six remaining, this one really gets to me: “Require individuals to apply in person with a raised seal birth certificate and two proofs of residency for the issuance of their license/ID card initially, and again every 16 years if there is a material change in their personally identifiable information.”

This stipulation alone will lead to states like California taking it to court and getting it tossed. California has issued over a million driver’s licenses to illegals. It is time for Pennsylvania to stop this in its tracks.

Robert Sioa

Pleasant Gap

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.