1. United States
2. Calif.
3. Letter

I am a constituent in your district, and I am writing in regards to recent remarks from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. In an interview with reporters on January 15, 2026, while discussing Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, Secretary Noem stated: “In every situation, we’re doing targeted enforcement. If we are on a target and doing an operation, there may be individuals surrounding that criminal that we may be asking who they are and why they’re there, and having them validate their identity. That’s what we’ve always done.” I am trying to understand how this guidance should be interpreted by ordinary citizens acting in good faith. As a practical matter, there is no way for a law-abiding citizen to know when or where an enforcement operation might occur. If individuals may be asked to “validate their identity” simply because they are nearby, this implies that citizens must be prepared at all times, in all places, to produce documentation such as birth certificates or passports in order to avoid detention or questioning. This raises concerns that I believe align with long-standing Republican and constitutional principles. First, the United States has historically rejected the idea of internal “papers, please” requirements. Freedom of movement without constant documentation has been a core distinction between America and authoritarian systems. The Constitution places limits on suspicionless questioning and protects against unreasonable stops. Second, there are serious logistical and economic realities. Many Americans do not own passports. Birth certificates are not documents people are advised to carry due to the risk of loss, replacement cost, and identity theft. Requiring citizens to be perpetually prepared with sensitive documents places a burden on working people, seniors, rural residents, and those with limited resources. Third, encouraging people to carry foundational identity documents increases the risk of fraud and identity theft, a concern Republicans have long emphasized, particularly when it comes to protecting citizens from financial and bureaucratic harm. Finally, from a public trust perspective, vague standards about when identification may be demanded can create uncertainty and fear among citizens who are otherwise following the law. Clear, limited, and constitutional boundaries are essential for maintaining confidence in law enforcement and the rule of law. I respectfully ask for clarification on how these remarks should be understood and what guidance Congress intends to provide to ensure that enforcement practices remain consistent with constitutional protections, individual liberty, and practical reality. Thank you for your time and for your service to our district. I appreciate your attention to this concern.