A little background
https://news.yahoo.com/gop-warns-hr-1-c … 43930.html
I find this more than a bit irritating about Republicans and conservatives generally.
If you can't win the hearts and minds of the electorate with your ideas and policies, then your usefulness has come to an end.
"In Arizona, another battleground seeing an onslaught of election-related legislative battles, state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican, told CNN, "Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they're willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote -- but everybody shouldn't be voting."
This fraud thing is just a bunch of hooey, without any real substantive proof. But get the last portion of the Kavanagh tirade, (Everybody shouldn't be voting). Just who does this guy think that he is? So, he thinks that he and people like him should be able to cull the electorate. And who decides whose rights are to be compromised?
I say we ram HR-1 up the GOP pachyderm's bum and don't spare the KY. It is an essential piece of legislation right up there with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and we are going to see it through.
GOP: are you that fearful of the process?
I will write your obituary in advance if that is the case. Learn from Dick Dasterdly of the "Wacky Races", cheaters never prosper.
These antics from the Republicans are those of a party that is in decline.
That quote from Schumer was something I reposted to a liberal page I vent to:
"If one political party believes 'heads we win, tails you cheated,' if one political party believes that when you lose an election, the answer isn't to win more votes, but rather to try to prevent the other side from voting, then we have serious and existential threats to our democracy on our hands," Schumer said Wednesday. "That's why we need S.1. so badly."
Kill the filibuster and protect the rights of citizens.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … voters-li/
Well, Valeant, the GOP says it is all about fraud. What can that possibly have anything to do with making it a misdemeanor to provide food and drink for those waiting in line to vote?
The oligarchs that are the Republican Party no longer have any tricks left in the bag and I believe that the Right in its desperation will attack in a big way in response to changing realities.
The Republicans have prove themselves beyond reason and the Democrats must act boldly if anything is to get accomplished.
" What can that possibly have anything to do with making it a misdemeanor to provide food and drink for those waiting in line to vote?"
Can you possibly be serious with this question? We've seen times in the past with very personal, very insistent "help" on who to vote for and you want to give free, intimate, access to voters to anyone carrying a soft drink cup?
Cmon, Wilderness, we know that is bull****.
People, particularely in minority communities, are in lines for hours waiting to vote. Do you really think that their planned voting preferences are going to be changed because someone offers them a refreshment while standing in line for hours at a time?
I must have the worst attitude of them all. I don't take stake or stock in politics. Just enjoy the freakshow. Hard to share alternative thinking in these cultures and biological warfare.
Before you say "this fraud thing is hooey" you need to read the bill.
It is one scary piece of work. And it appears not much of the truth is being reported by the media in regard to what's in HR-1.
This bill would allow fraud at a level one could only imagine. It offers an invitation to commit fraud.
I do trust as the time comes closer to vote on the Bill more will be exposed of what's in it.
It is up to us to read this bill or forever hold our peace. I will be completely devastated if the Republicans don't fight tooth and nail to defeat this destructive piece of legislation. It completely supports and offers methods of committing voter fraud.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con … ill/1/text
Could you point out the sections that would "allow fraud" or "offer an invitation to fraud? Since you have read it.
Also, could you be specific about how "It completely supports and offers methods of committing voter fraud"?
Is it perfect? probably not. The Republicans will have an opportunity to debate their grievances. But with over 250 separate legislative actions on the state level restricting voting, including criminalizing offering a Big Gulp to those that may well wait hours to access the polls, that is unacceptable as it stands.
So, let's cut to the chase, shall we?
There have been many in the Republican Party that implicitly and one or two explicitely who say that more voters puts them and their candidates at a disadvantage, they did not qualify the voters, just too many. Why is that?
I am always going to err on the side of greater participation in the democratic process rather than less.
Again, I ask the question, what are you all afraid of?
So, when it comes to the universal right of American citizens over the age of 18 to vote regardless of the state where one may reside, one size does fit all.
And while the right is at it, please provide the statistics for all the mail-in ballots that were cast by non-citizens or forged. We'll take either stat to back up your claims of an increase in fraud by allowing this type of voting.
By the logic of the right, restricting voting because someone COULD commit fraud - not that very many ever do - is appropriate.
There are way more instances of gun violence in this country than voter fraud - I guess that if someone COULD commit an act of violence with a gun, further restrictions are more than justifiable then, under the view of the right.
Did you read the bill? I realize it is lengthy and tedious. But I would hope some would read it before supporting it. As I said I would think the media will start pointing out the drawbacks of the bill. Perhaps if you don't want to read the entire bill, wait to have some of it presented by Journalists and media. It would seem many are just supporting this bill without being aware of what's in it.
You may not like what you ultimately discover what's in the bill.
So that's a no on providing any factual evidence to back up fraud claims. Got it.
I will be more than ready to debate the subject if the bill is reported on. It will be very interesting to learn how the Democrats will promote the bill, and if the Rep will debate the bill in regards to its propensity to promote voter fraud. They may not... They are no better than the Democrats. I pretty much agree with Cred the bill will be rammed through.
What changed? Americans have been voting for decades without a problem.
We go to the polls, those that can't apply to vote as absentee voters. Anyone can apply, yes they need to take the effort to file out a form, prove their identity, and wait for their ballot in each election.
It would seem a very simple process. I don't think the Republicans are fearful of how many vote, just that person's that vote are legally allowed to vote.
This bill leaves gaps in identifying voters as legal citizens. I find this unacceptable, this bill if passed will lead to fraud. It is shocking to see a bill like this even brought before Congress.
Read the bill.
I would like to read the parts that you say will "allow fraud at a level one could only imagine. It offers an invitation to commit fraud."
Since you made such a scary, emphatic assertuon, it would be great it you would share with us exactly which parts of the bill you think would endanger our democracy in such a horrible way. It would also back up your claims. So far, you have presented zero backup for such a sweeping claim.
This is a comment that elicited my responce. "I say we ram HR-1 up the GOP pachyderm's bum and don't spare the KY. It is an essential piece of legislation right up there with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and we are going to see it through."
I will be glad to have a conversation with anyone that read the bill. Otherwise, it's a waste of time in my view. I was pointing out it is not a bill that should be rammed through. Our voting system is too important to not be protected.
I also find it a waste of time arguing a given subject with anyone that is not equipped to argue facts that are presented in the bill.
I am not going to read the whole bill. How long did it take you to read the whole bill?
However, I would be glad to look at the specific sections that you say are so scary.
I find it odd that you say you "find it a waste of time arguing a given subject with anyone that is not equipped to argue facts that are presented in the bill" but you have yet to actually present any facts that are in the bill.
Why tell us how scary it is then refuse to share exactly why? Very strange.
And I don't intend to. I provide my reasoning.
One can provide "reasoning" on anything but unless there is some factual information or data to back it up, it's meaningless.
So, as of now, your assertion that the bill invites fraud is totally meaningless, especially since you read the bill but refuse to point to a single section to back up your claims.
S for "scary," I'm sure it is scary to Republicans who want fewer people to vote because they know their ideas are not as popular.
So, I'll concede that it's scary--to those who want to continue their craven efforts to suppress the vote.
Personally, I don't care who you get to vote...as long as they are an American, it is legal for them to vote, and they prove who they are.
The voting process itself: I very much favor the system used where I live. I present an ID and am given a ballot. I fill it out and insert it into the machine myself. Those that cannot vote in person are afforded an opportunity to do so by mail, but there is no mass mailing of ballots to any and every name on the voting rolls, which we all know contain many, many errors.
*edit* I did get a giggle out of your authoritative link though; by a movie star and a political commentator from the left. Certainly we should all take every thing those two have to say, painting the GOP negatively, as gospel!
Maybe you would enjoy the movie by South Park called.
I got a giggle out of you thinking one of those two political correspondents was a movie star just because someone has the same name.
Wilderness, I would not have call my link authoritative more than providing background. And what Valeant to you does have a point....
It is good that you don't seek to put a straight jacket on those that participate in the franchise, but it obvious that the people you support want to do that and much more.
You can shoot the messenger, but the message is disseminated everywhere from any credible source. The Republicans simply must restrict access to the ballot to, as they say, have a chance at winning elections. The real explanation is not about fraud. Why would any competitor indicate that their platform has so little appeal that large swaths of the electorate has to be excluded so that they may win?
The bill would require states to offer same-day voter registration for federal elections and to permit voters to make changes to their registration at the polls. It would require states to hold early voting for at least two weeks and would establish automatic voter registration for individuals to be eligible to vote in elections for federal office in the state. Under the automatic voter registration provision, eligible citizens who provide information to state agencies (including state departments of motor vehicles or public universities) would be automatically registered to vote unless they opt out of doing so. The bill would also expand opportunities to vote by mail and would make Election Day a federal holiday. The bill would require states to offer online voter registration, which has already been adopted in 39 states and the District of Columbia; under the bill, states would be required to establish a system to allow applications to be electronically completed, submitted, and received by election officials, and to allow registered voters to electronically update their voter registration information. The bill would establish criminal penalties for persons who "corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote" and for voter deception or intimidation (the bill would specifically "prohibit knowing and intentional communication of false and misleading information – including about the time, place, or manner of elections, public endorsements, and the rules governing voter eligibility and voter registration – made with the intent of preventing eligible voters from casting ballots"). The bill would instruct the Election Assistance Commission to adopt recommendations for states on the prevention of interference with voter registration.
The bill would also authorize 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote in advance of their becoming 18. A 2019 proposal by Representative Ayanna Pressley to amend the bill to actually allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote did not succeed. The bill would also prohibit the practice of voter caging and restrict the practicing of voter-roll purges by limiting states' ability to remove registered voters from the rolls and setting conditions for when they could do so. Specifically, the bill would require states to obtain certain information before removing voters from the rolls, and would prohibit voter purges from taking place less than six months before an election. The bill prohibits any person from communicating "materially false" claims meant to prevent others from voting 60 days before an election and compels the attorney general to correct such misinformation. The bill also requires elections officials to timely notify any voter tagged for removal from the rolls and give them an opportunity to contest the removal or seek reinstatement of their registration. It also restores voting rights to felons who complete prison terms.
The bill contains various provisions to promote voting access for people with disabilities and provisions to strengthen the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) by providing additional protections for military and overseas voters. To ensure UOCAVA compliance, the bill would require "require all states ... to send uniformed service and overseas voters' ballots at least 45 days before a federal election (provided a request was received at least 45 days before the election); require states to use and pay for express delivery and return of ballots if they fail to send ballots to uniformed and overseas voters by that deadline; [and] extend the guarantee of state residency for voting purposes to all spouses and dependents of absent servicemembers (current law extends the guarantee of residency only to servicemembers themselves)." The bill would create a cause of action allowing the attorney general or a private party to sue if a state violates these provisions, and would require states to sent reports to Congress documenting "the availability of absentee balloting for servicemembers and overseas voters, how many ballots were transmitted, and how many were returned."
There, now tell us - what in there would lead to fraud?
Automatic voter registration of anyone dealing with a state agency, regardless of citizenship status, age, incarceration status, or anything else. California already does this with the result that millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote.
Inability to remove names from a voter registration list as needed.
Since Oregon became the first state to pass automatic voter registration in 2015, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have followed with their own version of the policy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Millions? Please provide any evidence for that. And then some actual evidence that even if they were registered, that they actually did break the law and vote.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … not-vote-/
You might want to start fact checking the scary info you get from you right-wing sources to avoid sounding like colorfulone.
Ah, the memories....
Or perhaps check Val's info from a very much left-leaning site.
"In a more extensive American follow-up to the 2012 study, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia (2018), Greenstein and Zhu directly compare about 4,000 articles related to U.S. politics between Wikipedia (written by an online community) and the matching articles from Encyclopædia Britannica (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure "slant" (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of "bias". The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologic … d%20toward
Plus ---Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles.
I don't see how this comment is related to anything I have said or to this discussion.
But, it does appear you are capable of looking up information and linking to it.
How odd that you refuse to do so to back up your own claims about the voter rights bill. Since you have read it, it would be rather easy, wouldn't it?
Attack the source when you cannot counter the information contained within. She avoided listing any single part of the post that was actually incorrect, but instead wasted everyone's time dodging the request.
Was not attacking, was pointing out a fact about WIKI. Anyone can enter and edit. I use WIKI carefully due to their policy. To reiterate, I am not willing to debate the bill in-depth due to my belief that as of yet media have not been reporting on it. I assume most have not read the lengthy tedious bill. I would prefer to wait to discuss it when more are truly aware of what's in the bill that will affect us all. Some American's will find the bill pleasing, some will see it as a step deeper into Government taking away State rights, and so much more.
I think the bill will deserve a thread. It's clear at this point, it would be fair to wait until the Senate starts considering the bill. I have no other motive but to save my energy for a time when many more have had the chance to mull over the bill.
The reason I made mention of it at all --- I thought Cred's statement in regard to ramming it through was premature.
This all being just my view.
So, Shar, are the only acceptable sources for you Right Wing media? You folks speak of a general bias against the Rightwinger found in mainstream media. Perhaps, they are saying things that you all just as soon not want to hear?
Nice to see an example of that bias you claim is in Wikipedia, while The same article in Britannica is free from it.
To give context to why I posted the link that makes claims WIKI is a left-leaning site. I responded to a comment left by PP
You might want to start fact checking the scary info you get from you right-wing sources to avoid sounding like colorfulone.
Ah, the memories..."
Just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy. You see I can pretty much have the same opinion on a given source another user here finds non-bias. I gave a source to prove my point. WIKI is a poor source. I could literally enter and edit the article that Val used as a source. This is one reason I won't discuss the HR1 bill with someone that has not read some of the bills.
So it's not that I don't want to hear another opinion due to them using a given source. I took it as hypocrisy that PP pointed out --- It goes both ways.
My comment was in response to wilderness' claim that "millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote in California." A very specific statement that I suggested should be fact checked.
Do you believe it, too?
No problem with the subject of your comment. The problem was you assuming Wilderness obtained his info from a right-wing source. To be factual --- He offered no source. How would you have known where he came about his opinion? Your comment made no real sense to me.
You might want to start fact checking the scary info you get from you right-wing sources to avoid sounding like colorfulone.
you assumed --- Are you a mind reader?
False claims about illegal aliens and illegal voting originate from and are spread by right-wing media. Well, sometimes they originate from the mouth of a liar but they are then spread by right-wing media.
Perhaps if wilderness returns to the discussion he will share his source for his claim that "millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote in Califorbia." Whatever the source, that claim has been debunked by fact checkers.
Again I had no problem with the subject. Your assumption made no sense to me.
I have no idea if Wildreness's comment was factual in nature, he left no source to back it. Not sure how you knew his opinion came from a right-wing source.
It would be great if Wilderness address his claim. I have not fact-checked the subject. I was sidetracked with you assuming you knew his source as right-wing.
Why would I? You will simply claim it is debunked, whether true or not. You said so.
(But you can look for yourself; google "can illegal aliens vote in California" - you will find that while it is illegal to vote that registration to vote, with immigration status uncheckable the polls by law, is not only easy but inevitable.)
No, I personally cannot determine whether or not it's true and neither can you. I rely on fact checkers. You rely on....what?
Guess work as to whether it is actually happening.
This is just a 2-cent thought and I don't intend to Google it for verification. but . . . I do recall reporting of illegal aliens getting registered to vote through their DMV driver's license applications. I think I also recall that this wasn't due to the illegal's efforts, but due to the 'automaticness' of the process.
I think that reporting also mentions a few instances of the illegals actually voting. However, that same recollection left the impression that the numbers involved are nearly negligible, certainly not millions.
Remember now, that was just a 2-cent unchecked recollection, so take it for what it is worth. But it does seem to show the opportunity for fraud.
I also recall one poor woman that failed to check the "I'm an illegal alien" box on the DL forms and was scared to death they would find her out if she reported that she was now registered to vote when she shouldn't be.
Yes, California is registering illegal aliens to vote, while pointing out that it is illegal for them to vote, registered or not. And yes, some vote illegally; to think otherwise would be to assign a level of honesty to the human race that isn't there. To think it is negligible...well, it's rather hard to make an honest call there as it has never been tested or checked. In that matter the liberal mantra of "No one has found evidence so there is no need to look for any" is alive and well.
Odd then that federal law “requires the chief election official in each state to attempt to verify the information on first-time voter registration applications” by cross-referencing it with databases maintained by agencies like the DMV and Social Security Administration.
So, there seems to be people looking for it in every election despite your misunderstanding of 'liberal mantra' or your falsely equating one case you heard of an accidental registration to 'millions of illegals voting.'
You've gone full right-wing nutjob. Fact checkers are wrong if you say so,right?
If you would take the time to learn how California ensures that only U.S. citizens vote, then you would see that it is ridiculous to assert that millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote. Yes, as with any bureaucratic process, errors could be made, but with the safeguards in olace, it is absurd to believe it would occur in the millions.
Just put in a little effort. I have noticed that you are content to not look for yourself but accept what you want to believe. You've fully embraced Trumpism: Believe, and don't look outside your bubble.
I remember a time when we mostly agreed on the facts even if we disagreed about pokicy. I guess those days are gone.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/calif … s-to-vote/
I like that you claim it is absurd to think millions of illegals are registered to vote (as opposed to actually voting)...without giving even the slightest bit of evidence or even reasoning. You don't even give a single "safeguard"!
I love your link, where the fact checkers assume (without any evidence whatsoever) that illegal aliens will always, and only, use the AB60 license rather than go to the effort to apply for a regular license. Doesn't make much sense to me - any alien declaring that they are in the country illegally is automatically subject to deportation.
And if they DO get a regular license they are then (according to your link) automatically registered to vote. Which is what I said, isn't it?
I also like the bit where the "fact checkers" simply accept that California has "taken steps" to prevent registration...like graying out the areas needed to register IF the operator knows, somehow, that the applicant is an illegal alien. Of course, if they aren't told that (and they can't ask)...
You may trust the state of California, the King of Sanctuary, with elected politicians actively participating in aiding illegal aliens to avoid the law, will take reasonable steps to prevent them from voting. I do not.
Nor does that address the millions that are here legally, but not a citizen; they all get regular licenses (they must "Provide original or certified copies of documents that establish your full name, date of birth and legal residency or status in the U.S.", from the Ca DMV)
So I put in the effort to read your link; how about you put some effort into thinking what an illegal will do (about a license) and reason your way to if they will be registered to vote or not (whether they actually vote is irrelevant).
I have one question for you. Given that voter fraud is such a hot topic for certain people, if millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote in California, why hasn't it been proven?
Yeah, I'm sure they are thinking, 'maybe if I do something illegal while getting this license that will increase my chances of staying in this country.' Right-wing logic, sound as always.
Why not? It is California where mayors and others openly flout immigration laws and aid illegals in avoiding those laws. Why would an illegal alien be afraid of being caught voting, or any other immigration law when they know the state will protect them from prosecution or deportation?
Left wing "logic" is so predictable - simply leave out anything that doesn't serve to prove the point you wish to make.
Openly flout is another beautiful exaggeration of yours. Like millions of illegal voters.
Choosing not to assist federal authorities by not allowing local enforcement to ask about immigration status or to detain people longer than their release date is not exactly 'flouting.'
You can thank Joe Arpaio for his racist actions in arresting plenty of actual minority citizens, and the $200 million his county had to pay out, as a reason why governments may have wanted to steer clear of immigration involvement.
And nice job ignoring the mention of the federal law that states new voter registration info gets cross-referenced with multiple databases. Like going door-to-door is the only way to confirm immigration status. Maybe if it was still 1950 that would be the only way.
Another blatant lie to think any state would protect someone from illegally voting. You laid that conspiracy theory out earlier that because immigrants tend to vote blue, democratic governments are looking the other way. Pure speculation with zero basis in reality.
At this point, I'm leaning toward agreeing with Credence. All these fabrications and conspiracy theories does make one think of the term nut-job.
Yes, it is exactly flouting. You can choose to minimize it, to pretend it isn't illegal, to try and make it sound reasonable...but it is still egregious flouting of our laws in order to allow foreign citizens to be supported from American pocketbooks. When the mayor of Sacramento (if my memory serves me) goes on the air telling illegals to run and hide because ICE is making a run through the area it is not only flouting but highly illegal in an of itself. When California refuses to allow ICE into public buildings (courthouses) it is flouting. When the state refuses to allow determination of immigration status in order to get freebies illegals can't have it is flouting the law.
And all your spin, all your tears, all your protestations to the contrary won't change that. California is openly flouting US laws in favor of citizens of foreign countries that are violating our laws every day of their lives.
You claim the mayor (of Oakland by the way) did something illegal. Was she charged with a crime? No? So did ICE officials just ignore the laws? Oh, the hypocrisy!
And if choosing not to cooperate with ICE is so illegal as you claim, why did the Supreme Court refuse to take up the case by a 7-2 margin?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … values-act
You can say something is illegal, but when the highest court in the land disagrees with you, it means you are the one crying the fake tears and spewing falsehoods publicly.
Is aiding and abetting criminals in avoiding legal pursuit or capture illegal? I believe you'll find it is everywhere in the country.
Which has nothing to do with ICE (not sure what that comment as about) but most assuredly has to do with the Oakland mayor as she provided advice and cautions on how and when to avoid capture.
Fortunately I did not say refusal to help law enforcement was illegal (that was purely Valeant, exaggerating and changing what was said)...but it is surely "flouting" American laws.
Can you point to which criminals were aided and abetted? Advising constituents of their rights under the law is now aiding and abetting to the very far-right. And I guess that would have been the DOJ enforcing the aiding and abetting charge, when did they file charges? Or did they ignore the law like you claim all the sanctuary cities do?
Oh, yeah, you said refusal to help ICE was 'flouting' the law. So I'll just rephrase my statement to note that the Supreme Court does not find any issue with local jurisdictions making policies that prohibit cooperation. The point is unchanged even if you want to argue about words for the sake of argument, which is all you ever do.
LOLOLOLOL Advising illegal aliens that ICE will visit and they should hide is "their right under the law" now, is it?
You and I have very different concepts about what the law is, and what constitutes aiding a second party to evade law enforcement.
(The SCOTUS does not concern itself with flouting the intent of the law as long as the letter is followed. I'm surprised you are not aware of that.)
If you could point to the part of her post where she said they should hide, that would be great. Otherwise, you invented that intent for her. Her post clearly states an intent to protect the residents of Oakland and then it goes on to educate them about their rights under the law. Odd that someone intent on breaking the law would advise people about the law.
I doubt you're much of a constitutional scholar to understand what the SCOTUS does or does not concern itself with.
"Her post clearly states an intent to protect the residents of Oakland..."
Thank you. That's what I said; her words were intended to protect the residents of Oakland from prosecution from law enforcement. And that's a criminal offense just as much as hiding a criminal from police is.
You created the 'prosecution from law enforcement' part. Just like you fabricate so many other things.
I'm with PrettyPanther, it's useless to discuss topics with you when you make up so many falsities.
Which state entity has gone door to door getting information on the immigration status of every registered voter in California? As far as I know it has not been done and there are no plans for doing so - given that, does it answer your question as to why it hasn't been proven?
But answer me this: do you truly believe that California, with it's egregious flouting of our immigration laws including openly aiding and abetting violation of those laws, would care if illegal aliens voted and gave liberals a larger lead? Can you honestly say that you believe the liberal government of California would put any significant effort into stopping liberal votes from illegal aliens?
Fact checkers, common sense, multiple reports from both sides of the political spectrum. I have found, this past year, that many fact checkers are merely a voice for the political left and will spin a claim into nonsense before agreeing to something the left doesn't want. So, for me, fact checkers are to be "fact checked" as much as anything else any more.
But here is your "fact": https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ca … M%3DVDVVXX
Illegals are registered upon getting a drivers license unless they declare themselves to be an illegal alien and check the appropriate box. This is in line with what I heard years ago, and I have little doubt it is true.
I would ask why would you assume that the "volunteers" have a leftist bias. Do not conservatives have the option to write and contribute to articles?
'Regardless of citizenship status' is a fabrication.
Up to an illegal if they opt-out when they apply for a license. Certainly leaves an option to commit fraud. That is a huge loophole.
Actually, they need to opt-in when first applying. When doing a renewal, they need to opt-out.
And they do not get the option to commit fraud, they get the option to be illegally registered. They would then have to actually vote, and risk the penalties for doing so.
It is not rocket science to require different documentation for getting a driver's license as a non resident vs being a resident. The license for the nonresident is tagged in such a way that does not permit he or she any option for automatic registration come election time.
More BS, Wilderness, "millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote"?
Voter registration lists may be culled only under certain conditions, not in an arbitrary fashion the way the GOP does things to basically keep people who don't vote for them from voting.
Valeant, I think that pretty much addresses the content of the bill in a nutshell.
In Oregon, it has long been the policy that local police did not handle immigratuon violations. A person here illegally could report child abuse or assault, for example without fear that police would check their immigration status. You don't want victims of violent crimes worrying that they will be themselves incarcerated if they need to call the police This is not a new policy and only became an issue when the Trump administration tried to force local law enforcement to act like immigration police. There are many good reasons the two functions remain separate.
Of course, I know this won't matter to the rabid anti-immigration people. Many of them would rather put a child or other victim at higher risk than allow immigration enforcement to do their jobs and local police to do theirs.
First, it was always policy to aid federal law enforcement, with nothing but a heads up at times. Now that is illegal; local cops, knowing the whereabouts of a person violating federal law, may not inform federal enforcement.
Trump never tried to force local cops to "act like immigration police" and deport people. He DID ask for the minor aid of information and keeping a criminal behind bars a couple of days until they could be picked up. And Oregon refused in both cases, preferring to protect illegal aliens from federal law enforcement.
Perhaps the best way to end that child abuse is to deport the parent, and child, back home. Seems simple, right? Obey the law, go home and the child won't be abused any more. Or do you expect American law enforcement to prevent crimes all over the globe, too?
It should be; I fully expect law enforcement to enforce the laws. Not ignore them and certainly not to aid criminals in avoiding the law. We are a country of laws; ignore the ones we don't like and the result is anarchy. Unfortunately some states have decided they are above the law...along with some at the federal level as well.
by Justin Earick 8 years ago
While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting? What if we used the carrot approach - say increasing tax-credits for voting in primary, mid-term/off-year, and local elections? The more active the...
by Mike Russo 10 months ago
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/25/10102594 … -black-vot
by mio cid 9 years ago
So the republican party is not only trying to suppress the vote of minorities,but now they have also been caught red handed trying to commit voter fraud in Florida.
by Michele Travis 9 years ago
Why don't enough people vote?More than 130 million people turned out to vote Tuesday, the most ever to vote in a presidential election.In 2008 the Presidential electionwith ballots still being counted in some precincts into Wednesday morning, an estimated 64 percent of the electorate turned out,...
by Readmikenow 20 months ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
by VC L Veasey 7 years ago
Which Political Party Wants To Make It Harder For Citizens To Vote And Why?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|