Tell Trump to “Save it”
A study from the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at University of Maryland and the Brennan Center for Justice found that an estimated 21.3 million eligible voters would be unable to register under the SAVE America Act because they either do not have or do not have easy access to documentary proof of citizenship. The act is not an average voter ID bill that requires photo identification like a state driver’s license, but the highest level of citizenship proof — a birth certificate or passport.
Half of Americans don’t have passports and a large percentage of Americans don’t have access to the original copy of their birth certificate, especially older Americans or Americans who have moved far away from where they were born.
According to the U.S. Department of State, there are roughly 183 million passports in circulation as of 2025. The U.S. population, by contrast, is around 342 million — making the share of Americans possessing passports just above half the total population.
For Americans 16 years and older, getting a passport book for the first time costs $165, and an extra $30 to get a passport card. Passports for adults last 10 years and then must be renewed for $130. The top five states with the highest income per capita, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and California, also have the highest share of passport ownership in the country.
=====
I consider that to be unreasonable and over the top. The Rightwingers never stop and never really change their stripes, is this a new form of “poll tax” they are trying to sell? That is a lot of hassle for a problem that has yet to be substantiated in any serious way except in the active imaginations of Trump and Trump supporters.
With an amendment being presented by another hard line rightwinger, mail in ballots would be restricted. But i hope that this backfires on Republicans as they are used within many states and those that get hurt may be well amongst their own constituents.
As I said, Democrats need to stand firm and give Trump ABSOLUTELY NOTHING….
Not so much as an inch.
Thoughts, if any….Hmmm. 21,000,000 people have neither a birth certificate nor a passport...AND it will take more than a few hours effort to get it. That's over 10% of eligible voters.
I find this more than a little questionable. Both my birth certificate AND my passport were accomplished by mail, with a photo taken at a WalGreens (rather than my own computer) within walking distance.
I understand that not everyone lives in town, but that is a choice and carries many forms of cost (including driving to the polls!). But to take an extra 15 minutes to get a photo when they are grocery shopping in town doesn't make it "difficult".
No, Cred, this "report" is grossly exaggerated, and in any case comes down to personal choices for the vast majority of people.
(Pretty sure I've seen you exclaim in these forums that you would accept anything GOOD that come from Trump, without regard to the source. Between that and the statement in this post (give Trump ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) I know which one to believe is your truth.)How is it exaggerated, Wilderness? I acquired a passport 13 years ago and the completed documents were not sent to me overnight. I had to pay a not exactly negligible amount to obtain it. It is difficult enough when you factor in the fees and the processing time.
Well, i do not consider this as something “good”, but more of an intimidating hassle for a non-existent problem. Yes, you know my truth, Trump is abhorred and is to receive nothing from MY favored Democrats. In this circumstance, that is where I stand.It is exaggerated because it strongly implies that it takes a great deal of effort and cost to get that ID. That doesn't mean sitting in your chair watching TV for a month waiting - it implies doing something for a month. Or at least 8 or 10 hours - something beyond sitting there waiting.
It also implies a large cost - something on the order of getting a passport. Yes, your passport cost something, but that is completely irrelevant for the ID does not. It is not a passport and does not cost like one - pretending that is similar in cost is not honest.
This looks like another 'Voter ID' thread.
Are the affected groups still the same; minorities and the poor?
The passport costs aren't a poll tax argument; they're a deceitful dodge. Talking point clickbait. You need a birth certificate to get a passport; there is no need to spend more. Painting it as a financial burden is disengenuous.
Are your 'passport costs' complaints simply cover for thinking 'they' (the affected groups) aren't capable enough to ask for a birth certificate?
Would you be against the idea if it didn't cost more than a stamp or a visit to a county office?
GAHere is the skinny, gentlemen. Wilson had 14 points, I only have 5. So the ease of obtaining one at nominal cost and time is just so much BS. Why do you think Trump is so confident of the outcome of the midterms if he and his loathsome party could achieve another voter suppression ploy. This “crisis” was all created by Trump through his incessant lies, closer examination shows that it hasn’t held water. Its GOP standard procedure, sock it to the “little guy”.
Can you attest that the information provided is not factual?
———
Here’s the heart of it: a birth certificate or passport is harder to produce than a standard photo ID because of the effort, cost, and access required to obtain, store, and replace them. A photo ID—like a driver’s license or state ID—is simply easier for most people to keep on hand.
Let me break it down Why Birth Certificates & Passports Are More onerous than state issued picture IDs
Presenting a birth certificate or passport is more onerous than a photo ID because these foundational documents are often not carried daily, cost money to replace, and require in-person, time-intensive procurement. Unlike a driver’s license, millions of eligible citizens lack ready access to these documents, creating significant logistical, financial, and logistical barriers.
Why Birth Certificates/Passports are Onerous:
Access & Availability: Many people do not keep original birth certificates on hand, and obtaining a new one requires requesting it from state vital records offices, which is time-consuming.
Cost: While a driver's license is commonly held, obtaining a birth certificate or passport often requires fees for the document itself, notary services, and potential travel costs, which can be prohibitive.
Logistical Hurdles: The process requires a "chain of identification," where one must present an ID to get an ID. Rural residents, low-income individuals, and those without reliable transportation face greater difficulties securing these documents.
Documentation Discrepancies: Married women whose name on the birth certificate does not perfectly match their current identification face extra, complex hurdles to prove identity.
Not Carried Daily: Unlike a driver's license or state ID, which are usually in a wallet, passports and birth certificates are often stored safely at home, making them inaccessible for immediate, in-person requirements, say users on this Facebook post.
https://www.nonprofitvote.org/reject-save-act/
This is where I firmly take my stand.And it is a stand you have taken and abandoned before.
Your link confirms that this is just another 'Voter ID' thread—a rehash of the same arguments.
If folks could get free personalized help obtaining the documents simply by asking, would you still be firmly against it?
What is your firm stand? No proof necessary to register to vote?
GAYou got me. I clicked your blind link. It was a remix of the same facts and talking points used in Cred's link (the memes were cheesy).
You're kinda saying, "Yeah what Cred said!" Right?
So, how about the same question: Is any proof of citizenship necessary to register to vote?
GANot in States like CA... its illegal just to ask for ID...
CA has the most fraudulent elections in the world today... sad really.
85% of Americans want voter ID... Congress doesn't...
Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm...."Don't forget, Trump holds the trophy for fraudulent elections. How quickly they want you to forget it. If it wasn't for his immunity, his ass would be in jail right now. Psychologists call this projection. He is projecting what he has done on to others. Just think, no Trump, what a wonderful it would be.
To answer your question. Here is what AI says about it.
**Short answer: In most of the U.S., *no*, you do *not* need to show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote — you simply attest under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen. A minority of states require actual documents, and new federal proposals would change this, but they are not law. Always confirm with your state’s official election office.**
---
The national rule (current law)
Under the **National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)**, the standard process is:
- You **check a box** affirming you are a U.S. citizen.
- You **sign** the form under penalty of perjury.
- **No documentary proof** (passport, birth certificate, etc.) is required in most states. [Business Standard](https://www.business-standard.com/world … 866_1.html)
This is why voter registration forms ask you to *declare* citizenship — not prove it.
---
States that *do* require proof of citizenship
Only **nine states** have laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship in at least some situations:
**Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wyoming.**
Some of these laws are **not implemented** or are **blocked by courts**. [Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Proof_of_citize … n_by_state)
Examples:
- **Georgia & Mississippi**: Only require proof if citizenship cannot be verified through databases.
- **Ohio**: Only requires proof when registering at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles office.
- **Kansas**: Law blocked by federal court.
- **Alabama & Louisiana**: Laws exist but are not implemented.
California — where you live — **does not require proof of citizenship**; you provide a CA ID/SSN or are assigned a unique identifier. [elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov](https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/pdfs/v … ements.pdf)
---
Proposed federal changes (not law)
The **SAVE America Act**, pushed by President Trump and some House Republicans, would require:
- **Documentary proof of citizenship** (passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers)
- **In person** presentation for federal voter registration
This proposal has **not passed the Senate** and is **not in effect**. [Yahoo](https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fac … 19438.html) [Business Standard](https://www.business-standard.com/world … 866_1.html)
---
Bottom line
- **Most Americans do NOT need to show proof of citizenship to register.**
- **You DO need to affirm you are a citizen**, and lying is a felony.
- **A small number of states** require documents, and some of those laws are inactive or partially applied.
- **Federal proposals** to require proof nationwide are *not* currently law.That was a wasted effort Mike. As soon as I read, 'here's what AI says' I stopped reading. If I wanted an AI answer, I would ask it myself.
It was a basic question directed at you personally. Why did you need to ask AI what you thought about voter registration?
Like with Cred, just looking for a starting point. It's silly to argue the details of 'it' when no one will say what the 'it' is.
Asking about a proof of citizenship requirement seemed like a good starting point.
Getting an answer shouldn't be this hard. You guys could pull a muscle ducking and dodging such a basic question. At least Cred 'qualified' his answer. You abdicated yours to AI.
GAI would much rather deal in facts than argue my opinion with someone else's opinion. That's a waste of my time. Why don't you want an AI answer? It may be a waste of time for you, but it is also a way to deny the facts. Here are the sources that others may be interested in even if you are not.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fac … 19438.html
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/pdfs/v … ments.pdf?
https://ballotpedia.org/Proof_of_citize … _by_state?
https://www.business-standard.com/world … 866_1.htmlBut, but, but ...
I didn't offer or rebut any facts. And so far, although the implications are obvious, I haven't claimed you are wrong.
It was a question for you, not a declaration. So what are those links supposed to prove? Your opinion is exactly what was asked: your opinion on one point. Easy-peasy.
GAThis is what you said:
That was a wasted effort Mike. As soon as I read, 'here's what AI says' I stopped reading. If I wanted an AI answer, I would ask it myself.You got me. I don't know what you mean. That quote doesn't seem to contradict or explain anything I said.
GASpeaking of AI... check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RpvGEtYokSMYeah, speaking of AI ... Val Kilmer will finish acting in a movie a year after he died.
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/val- … 236691042/
GAWon't be able to tell what is real and what is not anymore... unless the person is right there with you.
Using YouTube as an example of AI is a false equivalence. Now I understand why you don't trust AI, you and GA don't even know the difference.
Hahaha
Yeah, we're dumb and dumber alright....
I have news for you. YouTube is not AI.
So, you would rather argue with others' opinions instead of trusting AI with its sources to validate the facts?
No, I would rather have discussions. Some are about facts—arguable or not, and some are about opinions, which are always arguable. In either case, some common starting point is needed.
The loudest argument is about the proof of citizenship requirements. It was the point of Cred's OP. I thought it would be a good starting point. My bad.
The current system, which has been promoted and embraced, already includes proof of citizenship requirements. So, a good 1st question would be, are you (generic) against the Act because of its ID requirements, or its genesis?
Hence, the opinion question. Asking what you think before arguing about whether you're right or wrong.
GAI am against the genesis of the act. I feel there is no need for this act because statistics show over the years that non-citizen voting is microscopic.
I'm sorry but my background is technical writing and training on complex digital equipment that required research and analysis. Hence source information. So here are the statistics on non-citizen voting.
Below is what the empirical research shows across two decades of audits, prosecutions, and academic studies.
Empirical Data on Non‑Citizen Voting in the U.S.**
1. National studies consistently find extremely low rates**
Across federal, state, and independent research, the pattern is the same:
**Non‑citizen voting is measurable, but vanishingly rare.**
Key findings:
- **Brennan Center audits** (multiple years):
Non‑citizen voting rates typically fall between **0.0001% and 0.003%** of ballots cast.
- **GAO (Government Accountability Office)** reviews of state elections:
Found **no evidence of widespread non‑citizen voting**.
- **Federal prosecutions** (DOJ):
Over a decade, prosecutions for non‑citizen voting average **single digits per year** in a country with 160+ million voters.
These numbers aren’t zero — but they’re microscopic.
2. State‑level audits tell the same story**
- Over **5 years**, Ohio found:
- **821 non‑citizens registered**
- **126 actually voted**
- Out of **~8 million** registered voters.
That’s roughly **0.0016%** of the electorate.
Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Kansas audits**
All found:
- Small numbers of non‑citizens on rolls
- Even smaller numbers who cast ballots
- Most cases traced to **bureaucratic errors**, not intentional fraud
-3. Why the numbers are so low**
Researchers point to structural reasons:
- **Severe penalties** (felony charges, deportation) deter intentional fraud
- **DMV and naturalization databases** catch most errors
- **Non‑citizens have little incentive** — voting jeopardizes immigration status
- **Most “non‑citizen registrations” are clerical mistakes**, not fraud
4. What about claims of large‑scale non‑citizen voting?**
When large numbers are alleged, they almost always come from:
- Misinterpretation of **jury duty records**
- Misreading **DMV data**
- Confusion between **non‑citizens** and **non‑respondents**
- Statistical extrapolations that collapse under scrutiny
Every time these claims have been investigated — including by Republican‑led states — the findings shrink to tiny numbers.
---
5. The political tension**
This is where the SAVE Act debate sits:
- **Supporters** argue that *any* non‑citizen voting is unacceptable and that current systems are too loose.
- **Opponents** argue that the empirical data shows the problem is **statistically negligible**, and new requirements would burden millions of legitimate voters to catch a handful of cases.Surprise, surprise. I also don't think the SAVE Act is needed. Once more, all that unnecessary effort. I didn't need convincing.
But I do have a point to argue about.
It is the disengenuous claims of voter suppression efforts, i.e., hundreds of dollars to get a passport. An 'et al.' would include most of Cred's OP talking points.
This uproar really is 'just another Voter ID argument.' The Act's requirements are mostly versions of current requirements (pre-v3). Without the politics (the genesis), it should be a no-brainer. Why wouldn't you want the security of clean voter rolls and secure elections?
GAA bit of a fabrication on your part, GA
I did not say “hundreds”…..Right. You said $165 + $30 ... $195. I'm $5 short of "hundreds."
The way you were throwing all those numbers out as being excessive cost burdens that will keep folks from voting because they can't afford this new "poll tax," I guess I got carried away.
I was 2.5% off numberwise. Sue me. You were 100% off truthwise. You know no one has to pay passport costs to get a birth certificate, yet you parroted that narrative.
GASomeone finally put it all together and spelled it out in video... Her hypothesis is my own:
https://youtu.be/ODf_QEONRyw?si=JLNXXSjr0xM9kmIbIt was put together well, i have a better understanding regarding what you are talking about. It is not like we have had a blind eye to this, we are and have been inundated with Chinese goods for sometime, based on lower costs. Yet, This new paradigm may well be unavoidable. Why not simply speak with allies and explain rather than cajole and bully? There is a case to be made here, i can relate to what is being said from the economic angle, anyway.
I think there were probably plenty of rational discussions behind the scenes.
I think the speeches given to various EU institutions, like at the WEF, spelled it out as well. Bluntly perhaps, but respectfully, especially where Rubio and Vance were concerned.
How the media frames this... or the lack of framing it... the constant barrage on Trump and how everything he does is wrong or evil, is why it seems so distorted.
I have said for years... disconnect from MSM... all of it... Fox and CNN...
When you do that, it is far easier to see the bigger picture, it is also easier to learn how to track down information rather than have it fed to you.
You are a very smart individual... but you love to fall for the worst that Salon or CNN is willing to spew out.
I admit... sometimes I even goad you into it... but right now, beyond the concern for China's rising and the threat it poses to America in particular...
We have a war ongoing against a Theocracy determined to destroy America (and Israel)... its been allowed to fester and spread its evil for 47 years... finally we are stepping up to hopefully put an end to this regime forever.
It needs to be ended... it has been funding the worst terrorist organizations in the Middle East for decades, it fought us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Syria, etc.
This is long overdue... the Iranian Theocracy must be extinguished.
[edit]
I think you can see something explained by Bill Maher (below):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxWbkgRY3ik
Many of the racists and radicals that were hiding within the "MAGA" movement are now exposing themselves... they too are attacking Trump.
Which is a good sign, if Trump were really all the evil things some people believe him to be... I doubt he would be getting such negative attention from people on the right who are talking out their arse.Thanks, Ken, the video gave me a better view of what is at stake, I don’t necessarily agree with the way that the Trump administration or the right in general proposes to address the problems.
I watched the Maher interview, unlike the YouTube guy, I did not vote for Trump and have no confidence in his suggestions or solutions until after it has been filtered through saner minds as to it or their viability.
I am not concerned about the fact of the Iranian theocracy. I am only concerned about the terrorists and terrorism that have been actively attacking us since 9-11.
With all the “rational” dialogue behind the scene, why the economic warfare against our allies?
Are you kidding? the racists and radicals call the MAGA party home, did you actually read the other article that I posted in its entirety revealing what the young republicans or (Hitler youth) were saying and attacking surreptitiously? This sort cling to Trump as their only hope of having their malignant dreams and objectives realized.
THIS is the foundation and future of the GOP? I have every reason to be concerned, and excuses wont do.
We all have our preferred sources, you have yours and I have mine. The video was educational but doesn’t change my basic attitudes.That is fair...
It's also fair to note that the Progressive Left politicians openly express and advocate for things that are not in the best interest of the people, or the nation.
Here is the difference I see...
Within the umbrella of the Republicans there are extremists, racists, sexists... sure... they are going to find a home somewhere.
But I do not see extremist actions or efforts from the Trump Administration.
Controlling the borders I do not see as racist... using ICE to round up criminals and remove them from our country, not racist, that is what I want our government doing, ridding the nation of corruption and threats... not harboring them or helping them to feed from the troth of the taxpayer.
But the Left calls these things racist... right?
What do we see from the Progressive Left (seen in the Biden Admin)?
Do we see racism?
Yes... a DEI quota system that prioritizes hiring based on sexual preference or race, rather than on merit, education and ability.
Does the Left prioritize the interests of American Citizens?
No... it does not. Whether paying to fly in migrants from foreign nations... or refusing to stand when asked if they would prioritize Citizens over migrants. We see the position the Party has taken on this matter.
Yes... the Right has its racists and sexists...
The Left has its pedophiles, its LGBTQ+, its anti-Colonialists, its anti-white racists, support for migrants and open borders, Socialists, Communists, etc.
I think the BIG difference is the racists and sexists are marginalized on the Right... this is seen in policy efforts and actions.
On the Left the extremists are front and center today... they are driving the Party, its policies and agendas.
So to simplify... as I like to do... the Left today is Anti-American, anti-norms, anti-Christianity... its revolutionary in nature, its immoral, its corrupt.
The alternative to the continued destruction of norms and nation... is the Right, we only have two choices... and until Trump, we really only had different shades of grey, there was no real difference being offered.
Unfortunately, Americans have a short memory, and all the things they hated about the Biden Administration will be forgotten, as focus (thanks to some degree by a very spiteful media) shifts to all the things they do not like about Trump...
A reasonable person with a fair grip on history, and how it often rhymes, would be concerned with what comes after Trump... economically, socially, politically.
“If folks could get free personalized help obtaining the documents simply by asking, would you still be firmly against it?”
The point is that there is no provision in the bill to allow for this, that is why I am firmly against this. My consolation is that so much of the provisions talking about mail in ballots are going to have an adverse effect on GOP turnout as well. So, there is no rehash, picture ID plus a great deal of support financial and logistic when we want birth certificates or passports. I can live with that as a minimum, but I see none of that here.That reads like you're saying proof of citizenship is necessary to register to vote and a picture ID is satisfactory for you. Is that right? Is that any picture ID?
GAI will qualify that, i am not going to risk the constitutional, financial and logistic problems involved in the issue and that which faces millions of authorized voters just because the GOP wants to chase after a gnat or two.
I want PROOF beyond the word of the orange tinted goof ball and a corrupt political party that this non-citizen voting is a “national crisis”.
Remove the bad apple without toppling the entire cart. As a Dem and progressive, when the Republicans propose, I instinctively oppose….."I want PROOF beyond the word of the orange tinted goof ball and a corrupt political party that this non-citizen voting is a “national crisis”."
Cannot be done. Democrats have always fought tooth and nail against any kind of check here - they simply will NOT verify eligible voters and will NOT allow tests or checks to find out how many are illegal. We know that ineligible people are registered, but even here Democrats simply rare back and deny it happens while looking at the proof. To carry the law to the ballot box is a crime to them.
Of course, that is kind of the point - without cooperation from half the political strength the only way to find out is to pass laws enforcing that only citizens vote. Not that sit on the books while no one looks.Why would I support a draconian proposal without proof of a problem?
For example:
Much more might be added along the same lines. In Ohio, the secretary of state announced in 2017 that a total of 821 non-citizens were found to have registered in the state over the previous five years, 126 of whom actually voted. That’s among an electorate of roughly 8 million.
——
How many zeroes to the right of the decimal point do you see when you divide this? I am interested in facts, not conjecture.And it works very well to maintain a larger House delegation and more electoral votes than should be there. We understand the reasons for maintaining illegal populations and voting. Doubly so when you exclaim that there is no fraud...because you don't check.
We just do not think it is the right thing to do.
What did you qualify? Do you think any proof of citizenship is needed to register to vote? No picture ID, no nothing but your say so?
Pick a stand. You say you're firmly against it, but won't say what 'it' is.
It sounded like a Picture ID was good enough for you, but now you want to qualify that. To what?
GAI repeat……
“So, there is no rehash, picture ID plus a great deal of support financial and logistic if we want birth certificates or passports. I can live with that as a minimum, but I see none of that here.”
I am more than happy with a picture ID and the voters affirmation that he or she is a citizen, under penalty of law if giving a false statement. That seem to have been working just fine.That was like pulling teeth.
But at least it was legit; the claim is enough for you. No proof needed.
What about challenges? How do you resolve them? What if you were confronted with a claim you knew couldn't be true (pick any extreme that would be legit for you), how would you resolve it?
Our current system is the 'honor system' you're promoting, and it already includes proof of citizenship stuff—the same stuff you are against when Trump promotes it.
That was the original point. I don't think the SAVE Act (et al v.3?) is worth passing because of its content, you were against it because of its origin.
GAAs for the “claim”, with a HIGH level of suspicion, i may make mention to the authorities. For now, honor system is fine until conservatives can prove that this uncitizen voting problem is the national disaster that they say it is. Their proposed fix for a non-existent problem is far too cumbersome under the circumstances.
So, why is the right harping so much about this when a working system is already in place?
So, you hid your actual stance on this bill? I am against it because of both origin AND content.
I haven’t contributed to this forum before because I’ve always struggled to understand the American voting system, and I knew nothing about the SAVE America Act until now. After doing some reading, it’s clear to me that the Act carries a high risk of voter disenfranchisement.
When I compare it with the UK system I’m familiar with, the SAVE America Act appears significantly harsher in several ways:
Proof of Citizenship
- USA: Mandatory documentary proof
- UK: Not required
Photo ID Requirements
- USA: Required, including for mail voting
- UK: Not required for mail voting
Accepted Forms of ID
- USA: A very narrow list
- UK: A broad list, covering many everyday documents
Free Voter ID
- USA: Not included in the federal bill
- UK: Free voter ID is available and widely accessible
Complexity
- USA: The process is complex, which inevitably means some eligible voters will struggle
- UK: Only photo ID is required at polling stations; the system is comparatively simple
What We Use for Photo ID in My Household
- I use my free elderly person’s bus pass (everyone in the UK automatically receives one at State Pension Age).
- My wife uses her free disabled driver’s badge.
- Our son uses his driving licence.
From a UK perspective, the American approach seems far more demanding and much more likely to exclude people who are perfectly entitled to vote.Thanks for weighing in, Nathanville.
The impetus here is to control the vote from those supporting the alternate party, that is what Republicans do. This idea of “integrity” is just an elaborate smoke screen to conceal the real reason. This all has been initiated by Trump based on zero evidence from one who is hardly the epitome of integrity.
First of all, the problem is non-existent, in other words we are talking about fractions with many zeroes after the decimal point.
Second, the idea should be to encourage participation of all in the franchise with as little roadblocks as the law would allow, that is not what is happening here.
Asking millions of people as citizens to forage for their birth certificates or passport is a bit over the top for me.Absolutely, Credence — and it’s the same story here in the UK. Voter fraud is virtually non‑existent, and there’s never been a case that would have changed an election result. So when governments start rolling out layers of bureaucracy in the name of “integrity,” it’s hard not to see it for what it is: a smoke screen to make voting harder for the people least likely to vote for them.
When the Conservatives introduced voter ID in the UK, they at least kept it relatively simple: photo ID at polling stations, a broad list of acceptable documents, and a free voter ID card for anyone who needed one. It fits my favourite old saying — KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
What’s interesting is that the UK is actually moving in the opposite direction to the SAVE Act. Scotland and Wales — both run by long‑standing left‑wing governments — lowered the voting age to 16 years ago, and now that Labour is in power at Westminster, legislation is going through Parliament to extend that across the whole UK.
And yes, there’s a political dimension to that — historically, only around 15–20% of voters under 25 support right‑wing parties. Lowering the voting age taps into a large pool of new voters who tend to lean left. But whatever the motivation, the direction of travel here is toward expanding participation, not narrowing it.And yet every time you get on a plane, or apply for a job, or do so many things in life today... that is EXACTLY what you have to do.
But not to vote?
Please... stop supporting the corruption and fraud in our election process, no one should be allowed to vote who can't be bothered taking the time to verify they are a Citizen.
Here is the problem. This study is ridiculous. It asks people's opinion but doesn't provide any facts.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/def … f?inline=1
From the study,
the independent Opinion Research Corporation conducted
a telephone survey of 987 randomly selected voting-age American citizens.1
The survey
included several questions sponsored by the Brennan Center, asking whether respondents
had readily available documentary proof of citizenship or government-issued photo
identification, and if so, whether it contained current information:
1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on
it, like a driver’s license or a military ID?
2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current
name (as opposed to a maiden name) on it?
3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth
certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can
quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?
4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a
maiden name)?
That's it. Four questions from a random telephone survey. Questions that make no sense.
Here's the problem. There are those of us who know better.
If you are a US citizen, you can get a copy of your birth certificate by contacting the department of vital records in your state. With most states, you can order a copy online. It's just that simple. This will get you a US passport as well as provide you with proof of citizenship.
How about US citizens that were born in other countries?
Again, it's easy. I wasn't born in the United States. If you are here legally, as I am, you can get a copy of your birth certificate from the department of state that will issue you a certificate of citizen born abroad. My parents are US citizens.
If you are a naturalized US citizen, you will be able to register to vote.
So, to say that anyone can't get a copy of their US birth certificate if they were born in the United States is a blatant and unequivocal lie.
Again, this was a ridiculous poll done by ridiculous people to perpetrate a falsehood.
Is there anyone on the left who likes to tell the truth?Empirical Data on Non‑Citizen Voting in the U.S.**
1. National studies consistently find extremely low rates**
Across federal, state, and independent research, the pattern is the same:
**Non‑citizen voting is measurable, but vanishingly rare.**
Key findings:
- **Brennan Center audits** (multiple years):
Non‑citizen voting rates typically fall between **0.0001% and 0.003%** of ballots cast.
- **GAO (Government Accountability Office)** reviews of state elections:
Found **no evidence of widespread non‑citizen voting**.
- **Federal prosecutions** (DOJ):
Over a decade, prosecutions for non‑citizen voting average **single digits per year** in a country with 160+ million voters.
These numbers aren’t zero — but they’re microscopic.
2. State‑level audits tell the same story**
- Over **5 years**, Ohio found:
- **821 non‑citizens registered**
- **126 actually voted**
- Out of **~8 million** registered voters.
That’s roughly **0.0016%** of the electorate.
Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Kansas audits**
All found:
- Small numbers of non‑citizens on rolls
- Even smaller numbers who cast ballots
- Most cases traced to **bureaucratic errors**, not intentional fraud
-3. Why the numbers are so low**
Researchers point to structural reasons:
- **Severe penalties** (felony charges, deportation) deter intentional fraud
- **DMV and naturalization databases** catch most errors
- **Non‑citizens have little incentive** — voting jeopardizes immigration status
- **Most “non‑citizen registrations” are clerical mistakes**, not fraud
4. What about claims of large‑scale non‑citizen voting?**
When large numbers are alleged, they almost always come from:
- Misinterpretation of **jury duty records**
- Misreading **DMV data**
- Confusion between **non‑citizens** and **non‑respondents**
- Statistical extrapolations that collapse under scrutiny
Every time these claims have been investigated — including by Republican‑led states — the findings shrink to tiny numbers.
5. The political tension**
This is where the SAVE Act debate sits:
- **Supporters** argue that *any* non‑citizen voting is unacceptable and that current systems are too loose.
-
**Opponents** argue that the empirical data shows the problem is **statistically negligible**, and new requirements would burden millions of legitimate voters to catch a handful of cases.I, and the majority of American citizens, want voter ID legislation.
There is NO reason for anyone to not have an ID to vote. NONE.
The vast majority of other countries do this and I think the US is advanced enough to be able to do it as well.If its "negligible" then pass it and move on... great way to make the 85%+ of Americans that want it happy, right?
So... why is it the Democrats are adamant that no such thing passes?
Unless there IS fraud that they are benefiting from... and they damned well know they are benefiting from it, that they need it, to hold on to power in places they would otherwise probably be thrown out on their ear by the people, the Citizens, that are tired of their traitorous to America nonsense.Why do you need it when there is statistic evidence that voter fraud is miniscule? Trump is the one who is trying to get this bill passed. He needs it to control the vote. If you look at the Jan, 6, he holds the trophy for voter fraud.
Here is where I stand Mike. So, go get your blunderbuss to shoot down a gnat.
Opponents** argue that the empirical data shows the problem is **statistically negligible**, and new requirements would burden millions of legitimate voters to catch a handful of cases.
Related Discussions
- 31
Why can't same sex couples be on a birth certificate!!
by Homez78 15 years ago
My partner and I are in a same sex relationship, and will have been together 10 years this year.We are what I would class as, in a "stable" relationship, have our own house, good jobs, and security.We decided not long after brought our house, that we were serious about having a baby.So...
- 6
When doing genealogy, how do you deal with differing facts?
by Paula 14 years ago
When doing genealogy, how do you deal with differing facts?When trying to stay factual, it can be difficult when records give varying information. For instance, the census results can even differ! Birth certificates and those facts can differ from other official records. I didn't...
- 8
President Soetobakh Soetero?
by AnnCee 15 years ago
Drudge has linked this story from World Net Daily that notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new conference on Obama's eligibility to hold the presidency.Let's research WHY the court could be compelled to do this.It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth...
- 2
Are birth certificates that are legally valid in Kenya also legally valid in the
by ngureco 13 years ago
Are birth certificates that are legally valid in Kenya also legally valid in the US?And are marriages that are legally performed and valid abroad also legally valid in the US?
- 61
What do you think about the ruling for Arizona?
by Holle Abee 15 years ago
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Arizona cannot require proof of citizenship for voter registration. HUH???? Sorry, I'm all for legal immigration, but voting is a right reserved for U.S. citizens - not for illegal immigrants. When American citizens are convicted of drug crimes, their...
- 14
Exclusive to Newsmax: Donald Trump's Birth Certificate
by OLYHOOCH 15 years ago
Oh, you are going to love this one. One of you said no, WHITE, President ever had to show there Birth Certificate, WRONG.Read it and lets see what you say now,Donald Trump, who has been making television appearances calling for President Barack Obama to release his official birth documents,...