E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSArizona is asking the Supreme Court to uphold its process for registering voters, one that several states say will reduce voter fraud but that civil rights groups insist is an effort to discourage participation by legal immigrants.
The justices hear arguments Monday in a dispute over Proposition 200, adopted by Arizona voters in 2004. It requires residents to submit proof of citizenship when they register to vote in the state.
REUTERS/Molly Riley
The Supreme Court building seen in Washington May 20, 2009.
A coalition of civil rights groups says the law "requires naturalized citizens -- predominantly Latinos and Asians -- to surmount additional and unique hurdles to exercise their fundamental right to vote."
The case presents a conflict between two powers granted in the Constitution -- the right of states to set their own rules for electing federal officials and the authority given Congress to change those laws.
A decade ago, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the Motor Voter law. It requires all states to treat an application for a driver's license as a request for voter registration.
Applicants can also register by mail, in addition to the traditional method of showing up in person at a local election office. Under the Motor Voter law, each state is required to "accept and use" a federal registration form or their own version of it, as long as it deemed to be equivalent.
U.S. citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election, and the federal form requires applicants to state, under penalty of perjury, that they are American citizens. But Arizona's Proposition 200 goes further, requiring applicants to provide some form of proof at the time they want to register.
The challengers argue that it's a burden for naturalized citizens to provide the proper documentation. Using a naturalization document for proof, for example, requires an applicant to show up in person, because federal law prohibits making a copy of it. And they say the state's records are incomplete, lacking data that would allow election officials to accept some other forms of proof, such as any Arizona driver's license issued before 1996.
"Often, naturalized citizens must submit a voter registration application multiple times before they successfully register to vote," says a coalition of Latino and Asian American groups.
A federal appeals court ruled that Arizona went too far, departing so far from the Motor Voter act that the state was essentially rejecting the federal form.
Not so, says the state. "The requirement that applicants provide additional evidence to support their application does not constitute a 'rejection' of the federal form any more than an identification check at at airport gate entrance constitutes a 'rejection' of a passenger's ticket," says Arizona's legal brief in the Supreme Court.
Three other states have nearly identical laws -- Alabama, Georgia and Kansas. They've joined Arizona in urging the court to uphold the additional requirements for proof of citizenship.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Arizona, states would have broader powers to impose their own registration requirements. A ruling will come some time before July.
This story was originally published on Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:51 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Arizany? Is that part of the USA? ASHLEY JUDD (DEM-KY) 2014...Adios Mitch!
Latinos (the race that doesn't exist) place a "burden" on Americans when they use their non-American language of Spanish around REAL Americans.
William,
go crawl back under your rock. If you do not want to learn Spanish, French, or any other non-English language then don't. You cannot force people to speak in a language you prefer (try 1940's Germany for that kind of horsecrap); they will do so out of courtesy and I can tell you do not deserve any.
America is founded on the idea that we are a nation of all races, ethnic backgrounds, and religions and that makes the country stronger. Isolationism does not strengthen nations, it destroys them.
Besides all of that, by your ridiculous logic you yourself were born here by non-Americans. None of us, save for the Native Americans who inhabited the lands we now live in, are native to this country; we are all immigrants.
William Travis, that is about as racist as anyone can get! First of all, what is a REAL American? Do they have white skin, or fit some weird definition of a country born of immigrants just from white only countries? Secondly, being Latino isn't a race, rather a culture or indicating ethnicity, just like being Caucasian or African-American. Race shouldn't even be applied in human terms, it is scientifically a fallacy to do so unless applied across all peoples as a whole.
And thirdly, there is no American language, the majority of people in the U.S. speak English which we learned from the colonizers from the 18nth century, you know, from England :/. And if you want to get technical about the Spanish language, since you apply (incorrectly) American being a language, Spanish is spoken in the Americas.
Monterey Jim:
Oh so very mature. Grow up.
Geowil:
No, we can't 'force' others to speak in a language we prefer, but we can ask that they asssimilate. And as someone who takes peoples' fingerprints for employment background checks and immigration purposes both into and out of the US, I can honestly say I have never had a customer come in who did not understand me when I asked for personal information to fill out the forms, then explained the process of fingerprinting. Everyone I've ever fingerprinted understood my instructions, and many of the foreign-born immigrants brought a friend with them, relatives, or children who could 'translate' in case I gave an instruction they could not understand.
William:
Those Latinos/Hispanics who have the darker skin can trace their ancestry back to the original Native American tribes who settled in Central America after climate change turned the fertile grassland of the American Southwest into a desert. Many of the Native American tribes went east, becoming the Plains Indians and the Eastern region Native tribes, but a few went south and resetablished themselves as the Maya and the Aztec, the Mesoamericans. Therefore, they should be using the designation Native American.
Those Latinos/Hispanics with the lighter skin can trace their ancestry back to the Spanish Conquistadores who settled and then subjugated the native peoples. These should be using the designation white since people from Spain and Portugal are white Europeans.
And one other thing I want to point out to you; I ride public transportation to and from work every day. There are Hispanics who ride the bus with me, there are two recent immigrants from Ghana. Their use of their native language does not, in any way, burden me in the slightest. I suspect that half the time they speak their language just so no one else knows what they are talking about and can overhear their conversation; but when they get on they greet the bus driver in English, they greet other riders in English, and they have carried on conversations with me in English (and I have had a chance to brush up on my Spanish and French.) Their sitting in their seat speaking in their language does not burden me in the slightest. If this sort of communiocation burdens you because you do not understand what they are saying, then I would submit that you should probably focus on your own business and not seek to eavesdrop on the conversations of others.
Why would anyone still want to disenfranchise voters?
Time to move into the 21st century, GOP.
You see, Amanda, people like William Travis expect the whole world to accommodate itself to his preferences. As you point out, when people of other languages speak that language among themselves--maybe just so they can hear their native tongue, which I'm sure is a comfort to them in a new land--that doesn't burden anyone else, except for the William Travises who, I think, secretly fear that those people are saying nasty things about him that he can't understand. That must be a sad way to go through life, suspicious of everybody...
When you have an Ohio poll worker that has been indicted on voter fraud spanning the past three elections, and that fact that she voted for Obama at least six times in just this past election, it is time for some sanity in our election process. As if election fraud is hard. No one can say for certain how much voter fraud exists, but it is likely far greater then anyone can imagine. Politicians have stolen enough from this country, it is time to make sure they are legitimately elected.
Of all of the insane, bat-crazy, racist things pouring out of Arizona right now, I don't have a particular problem with requiring voter ID.
Mind you, I don't support the standard GOP-version of "lets wait until an election year, and then only in swing States change all the rules right before election day to try to suppress liberal turnout." I mean, there is vote security, and then there is trying to steal an election under the false pretense of vote security.
However, if this were done 4 years in advance of a presidential election and timed in each State so there was 4 years between a Senatorial election, and if a State ID were provided free of charge to poor residents (you can't charge people to vote. illegal), then I would support this.
I believe this law is to REGISTER to vote, and it would require people to pony up a birth certificate and/or passport. I have no issues with that either, provided (as stated above), it is done 4 years in advance of an election, and the State will provide free documentation. Do residents have to show up in person? Yes. But seriously, if that is too much of a burden, then I guess showing up to vote is as well. Give me a break.
So if Arizona residents can get free copies of their birth certificates, this is the perfect time to do it. Obama just reelected, and many years before a new election for Arizona. People will have time to adapt to the change.
(Of course, this law was passed right BEFORE an election and meant to suppress voter turnout and was rejected by the courts, and only reached the supreme court NOW, but even if the racist, insane governor's bill has become legitimate by accident... it is still legitimate.)
First of all, Mexico declared war against Germany and never sent a single MEXICAN SOLDIER to fight the 1940's Germany that you mention.
Why? Because Germany supplied weapons to Mexico in the previous years in order to help them MAKE WAR ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Mexico has been the ENEMY OF AMERICANS SINCE 1836!
REMEMBER THE ALAMO? REMEMBER THE GOLIAD MASSACRE?
We are a nation of many races???? Then why are LATINOS wanting to PREVENT anyone from the EASTERN HEMISPHERE, where 80% of the world lives, from immigrating to the US????
How do you say HYPOCRITES in "Mexican" Spanish?
Tommy6860
I guess you don't live near those wonderful LATINOS. You wouldn't believe how they use the N word to insult black Americans!!
Take a look at Arlington National Cemetery. There are a lot of REAL Americans buried there.
More than 80% of the dead in every war or battle the US has fought have been white Americans followed by black Americans, with brown people being only a footnote.
Latino is a term dreamed up by Latin American communists to make Americans believe that Mexicans are backed by all of Latin America. THAT IS A LIE! Mexicans represent over 80% of all illegal aliens that sneak into the US to steal America"s resources.
Really, so YOU wouldn't think of race applying in a case of say marriage. You see people as all one color even with the knowledge that GOD created races?
In ENGLISH: Lorrie, Boot, Bonnet, Loo, barrister,
In AMERICAN: Truck, trunk, hood, bathroom, lawyer
This is too easy......
Why should I make the same mistakes that Latin America has made in learning Spanish when everyone in the eastern hemisphere, 80% of the world, is learning AMERICAN????? And the Brazilians speak Portuguese!
AND......In what language are all US documents created in???
So you are OK with "Latinos" taking over YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD and putting their store sign IN SPANISH ONLY???
Isn't that their way of saying "YANKEE, GO HOME!"?
You mean it's OK for invading "LATINOS" to disenfranchise AMERICANS?
95% of all slaves taken from Africa were brought to Latin America and the Caribbean and most by HISPANICS. Much of this took place long before the first colonies of the US were even started.
But it is interesting that the rest of Europe, like Napoleon's France thought that the Spain was like a third world when compared to the rest of Europe.
This is the US and Latinos are the ones teaching their children Spanish in order to keep them in the third world backward culture. I didn't force this on them. You people have got to realize that LA RAZA has been brainwashing Americans to feel sorry for them for decades. But who do Latinos feel sorry for?? The child in Africa who will NEVER see the US because an illegal alien from Mexico stole his place? When was the last time a Mexican had to worry about finding clean drinking water?
If you want to experience RACISM, why not suggest to a MEXICAN that for every one of their people that sneak into the US, a child from Africa will be taken into Mexico? See what Mexico, a country that is richer than 125 countries around the world, thinks of that!
NOW WHO's THE RACIST?
William Travis;
God didn't create races, s/he created people (actually evolution did that, but I am just avoiding being non sequitur for your part). I guess maybe had you even picked up and read an elementary grade level biology book, you would have figured that humans are all a race; skin color has nothing to do with it, except when racists want to denote their false superiority.
Those are English words, used in nearly all English speaking countries. But I guess the definition of "vernacular" would be lost on you. I must admit though, if someone used a British term for an American vernacular, I should be surprised that you wouldn't understand a common language (rhetorical question)?
English, and you have now assured me that you are really that daft.
I get the feeling that WT really really really has an issue with Latinos. Did one of them turn you down for a date, William? Sheesh...
Okay GOP supporters.. What 'form' of citizenship is required this time? Birth Certificate (chuckle, Obama produced his, and that still wasn't enough for you), Blood Type?, Library Card? Drivers License? Thumbprint? Do we get chipped at birth? Once a 'form' is decided upon, then can it change based on a 'whim' of the GOP?
Please tell us this week what 'form' is needed to 'prove' you are an american citizen.
P.S. Once you implement this, how much more "big government" spending is required. I am sure 'voting' is considered an entitlement.
William Travis-7825503
Having read your comments, all signs suggest..............ewe. Brown people? Shakes head. This is why republicans lose elections.. but keep on.
And here it is in a nutshell. We on the left would be a hell of a lot more comfortable with these ID laws if they weren't such an obvious shell game to make certain people jump through extra hoops to get to vote. How about we settle on one national standard of proof of ID for these voter ID cards that are so popular? Bueller? Bueller?...
But this is the problem with requiring additional documentation. What additional documentation is allowable as proof?
Last year when the Supreme Court started debating the issue a spokesperson from Homeland Security said there is no national registry of people who are Americans. The only way (within the current system) you can prove you're a legal American to the Federal government is if you have a passport.
The State Department then piped in with the fact that 160 million passports are floating around out there..out of a US census population of 312 million. So if the only way to prove you're a citizen is by showing a passport, only 160 million people would be able to vote.
Also, passports are not cheap. And there are people like me who are unable to get one because we don't have a birth certificate. I was abandoned as an infant at an orphanage with no documentation; after I was adopted, my adoptive parents had one issued for me with their names on it that was legally acceptable for me to get my driver's license back when I graduated high school. But times and laws have changed and if I allow my DL to expire and then have to apply for a new one (as opposed to a renewal) I wouldn't be able to get one because only an original birth certificate is now acceptable. I also don't have and can't get a passport because of that lack of an original birth certificate.
Many of those who are here legally from other countries also don't have original birth certificates. People who were born in conflict countries, far-flung villages in third-world countries where record-keeping is poor or nonexistent, or whose home countries have experienced a natural disaster (think Haiti or the Japan tsunami) may also now not be able to get copies of such a document because the original records were lost or destroyed. Even here in the US some of the older residents of Louisiana may not be able to get records if their parish was one of the ones devastated by Katrina and no electronic backup was ever made--or if the electronic backup was destroyed by flood or fire or other Act Of God.
There are many legal Americans out there who don't have birth certificates or original birth certificates. If the only people who can prove they are citizens are those fortunate enough to have birth certificates and be able to afford a passport, then the only ones who will be able to vote are the relatively well-off/wealthy, and you'll be excluding a large portion of the middle class and almost all the poor.
Travis - you are a perfect example of what happens when a teabagger loses torque on all of his screws.
You don't have a "single" screw LOOSE, you are rattling around with ALL of them LOOSE.
I wonder if you speak any OTHER language - or is UNGLUSH your only tongue?
Oh, and by the way - the EASIEST document to have that PROVES CITIZENSHIP is a PASSPORT - you don't NEED anything else
Voters fraud, what's that ? - Wasn't that voters fraud what Jeb Bush & Jim Baker did in Florida in 2000 !!!
So we should just let anybody who walks into a polling place and states they want to vote, vote without proof that they can legally vote do so? That is voter registration, so how do you prove you have to right to vote legally in this Country? What is your solution
If any voter fraud exist, its the Republicans, Dem's rule when it comes to honesty !!!
Most of the slaves sold to white slave traders were captured in African tribal wars by other Africans ad transported by seafaring traders of English, French, Spanish and Dutch origin.
You do remember that Christopher Columbus's expedition to find a westward route to the Indies for spices was financed by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain? That Catholicism was born there (hence the name 'Spanish Inquisition') and when the Pope at the time issued an edict declaring that native Americans were dumb beasts he specifically gave the New World into the keeping of the Spanish monarchy? Napoleon considered the Spanish to be beneath him because he couldn't conquer them...and it was partly Spain's under-the-table help that financed the French Revolution that eventually overthrew Napoleon and the French autocracy and established the French Republic.
And I am teaching my children a few words in Korean, and they are getting French and Spanish language lessons at school. My husband is teaching them some German and Polish, and my husband's mother is teaching them Cherokee. Does this automatically mean I want to keep them in a 'third world backward culture?'
There was a little blip on the news recently that said by the end of this century, more than half the languages spoken in the world in 1900 will be dead/extinct. I actually find that sad...there is so much we don't know, about us,our planet,and our history, and losing any part of that history diminishes us as a race.
That would be inaccurate because the US has quotas for each country (only so many people are allowed to emigrate to the US from that country per year.) The quotas are different for each country, and many of the countries in Africa never meet their quota because they don't have that many of their citizens who can afford to emigrate to the US. On average it's $6000 US Dollars to fill out and file the paperwork to come here, and that amounts to about three years salary for the average city-dweller in an African country. If you live in a poor tribal village in the middle of the jungle, forget it.
Last year when an earthquake hit Central Mexico and the poor in the mountainous regions had their infrastructure hit especially hard.
I'd like to point out to you that not all illegal in the US are Mexican, and half of those who sneak in over the southern border aren't Mexican citizens.Mexico itself has an illegal immigration problem and it's from further down the Centro-American land bridge. They are from Colombia, Nicaragua,Venezuela, Peru...all the South American nations. Even some from Asian nations, African nations, Middle Eastern nations. While many of those who sneak in are drug dealers and smugglers and criminal scum, there are many who try to sneak in because they simply can't afford to come in legally--that $6000 price tag I mentioned above to get here is is the equivalent to one average Mexican worker's salary for a year--but they are desperate to escape the country they are coming from. For much of the world, we are still 'lifting a lamp beside that golden door.'
The way I heard it was...
If you speak three languages, you're Trilingual.
If you speak two languages, you're Bilingual.
If you speak only one language, you're American!
See, we're easy to spot. However I now regret taking French in Junior High instead of Spanish. The only time French came in handy was being able to tell what was really being said in Last Tango in Paris compared to the subtitles.
I'll bet William Traverse would hate learning that more "Mexicans" died fighting for the Independence of Texas than white people. I'll bet he hates learning anything that goes against his master race beliefs. This link might help clear his mind about the "True Americans" buried at Arlington Cemetery, if he bothers to read it:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/History/Minorities/Minor_BlackHistory.aspx
let's see Arizona wants any one who is going to vote in a election to have some document to prove they are a eligible elector; what is wrong with that!
WT is a paid troll. He's here to make the GOP look even more racist then they already do and further polarize people.
That being said, this law is a bunch of horse sh!t because the state does not provide a free method for people to qualify their citizenship. Passports are expensive for the lower class to obtain and often can be inconvenient if there isn't an embassy or state department office nearby. "Birth certificates" are a joke as the GOP proved in 2008. So now we're left with there being no other document to "prove" your an American citizen to a a bunch of conservatives trying to lock in their state and marginalize another party's voters.
The idea of proven citizen being a requirement for voting is a valid one, there simply needs to be an existing infrastructure setup for it to be enforceable. All the idea's proposed by the GOP are centered around marginalizing the poor democrat voter block. Create a single national ID card system and then have the states issue them to anyone over 18. Poof is any form of birth certificate or nationalization document. Issue them at the DMV, where you gotta show up in personal anyway.
Well, I had two years of Latin in high school, unless I convert or join the medical profession, no one uses it. But to William Travis, the Spanish had settlements in Florida, Georgia, California, the Southwest, and South America before the English or French knew how to sail to the New World. Had the English Navies not defeated the Spanish Armada and the French. You would now either speak French or Spanish. The truly Native and only true Americans are the Indian Tribes who occupied this land. The next most ancient Americans are those Spanish you seem intent on denying voter rights to. Unless you are a Native American, you and your family are just as illegal an immigrant as those you dislike today and so are mine.
Mexico was in the middle of a civil war at the time that WII broke out.
The current president was overturned in an election and staged a five month civil war to have the election results overturned. President Roosevelt sent in US military intelligence to quell the uprising, which resulted in the new Mexican president being so grateful that raw materials--oil, minerals, manufacturing goods--poured northward over the border to help the US in its war effort. Mexico broke off relations with the Axis powers after Pearl Harbor, but held onto their neutrality decree of the 1930's until Germany sank one of their oil tankers. Then they declared war in June of 1942. However, their antiquated war machine couldn't compare with the new tanks ad heavy artillery of the Axis powers and the Allied powers,and the only force the had that could hold any sort of chance in a modern war was their Air Force, which they sent to join the conflict ad yes, the Mexican Air Force did see combat and did have their pilots die in WWII-- look up 'The Aztec Eagles'.
In the meantime however, the average Mexican citizen, unhappy with their government's declaration of neutrality, and who were firmly on the side of the US and the Allied powers, were immigrating to the US to take up places in the US war machine. They worked in the factories, in shipping, and when the US said US citizenship would be granted to any Mexican national who signed up in the US military, they signed up in droves. Many of the Hispanic names on those grave markers at Arlington are people who were Mexican at the beginning of the war, died fighting in WWII and were granted US citizenship posthumously.
First off, there's no such language as 'American'. There is 'English', 'French' and 'Spanish'. Now, due to language drifts, English can be broken down by linguists to 'Queen's English' and 'American English" but it is not recognized by the scientific community at large--just as Ebonics does't qualify as its own language.
The three working languages of the world are English, Spanish and French, with Mandarin Chinese being the fourth but unofficial language. All international trade, business, and politics are carried out in at least one of these three; some, like the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Netherlands, conduct all tribunals and hearings in all three languages.It also helps at the bargaining table when you know what the head of state sitting across the table from you is being told by his advisors.
In order to become a naturalized citizen you are required to demonstrate that you can read ,write, speak and understand English. When you are naturalized by the Court you receive a Certificate of Naturalization. That is all you need to register. That is all the State is asking you to present, but the Liberals want to make this a cause celebre to gain votes from Latinos.
There are people in the State from over 100 countries most aren't complaining only the Latinos.
They don't want to assimilate, but want all the benefits.
Even the voting ballots are in Spanish, but no other language is accommodated.
Arizona is overwhelmed with illegals looking for the easy life. They commit 70% of the crime, all of the smuggling, drugs or people, car theft etc. Because the FEDs failed miserably to control the Border. Not all are a problem, many work hard, but are still illegal.
Amanda, your post has to be one the best I have ever seen on this Blog. No animosity, no name calling, just good hard facts. What a delight to read such an intelligent post. You are so correct, there is no language called American. William Travis doesn't realize it, but such a description would refer to slang, not a real language.
@ Geowil
If you live in Arizona it is NOT unusual that one have to be bilingual-Spanish in order to qualify for a job position, regardless if you're well qualified otherwise. I believe they have twice passed the "English Only" law but never have enforced it. As an example AZ sends out voter pamphlets of probably 60 pages or so due to half of it being in Spanish. Rather unfair and blatant favoritism when there are many other immigrants, from various countries, legally here, some working toward citizenship, who learn English and/or have interpreters.
Just stating the way it is.
I've interacted and worked with Spanish co-workers and many other nationalities and enjoyed doing so, but it appears the Federal and AZ governments, especially, are catering to the Spanish, legal or not, an added expense to our already financially stretched governments.
Rather interesting that U. S. citizens and legal immigrants, from countries other than Mexico, are to take a backseat to one particular nationality, regardless of which one it would be.
So much for us all being created equal.
Seaskip, you ever voted in Chicago? No election ever goes with out a dead vote!
Rontron, the way you describe Arizona, why would anyone want to live in such a State with all that criminal activity. From your writing, only illegals commit crimes and the English Population are the victims. It appears from your post that all illegals are out to gain free services from the State and other races work hard and pay for those activities. I've never been to Arizona, I'm sure there are very fine people who represent all races living there. But like any State in America unless you stop businesses from hiring illegals they will continue to cross our borders. Hotel/restaurant industry, farming, construction, all hire and don't report them. It is all about the money and saving these companies make. Surely you know this. Most of local enforcement look the other way and you know this. So all the bellyaching should be directed at your local, state, and federal elected so called leaders. After all immigration laws are enacted by Congress, per our Constitution, and the enforcement of those laws executed by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. McCain has attempted to enact reform but so many states where farming is predominant can't profit without illegals. Large farm conglomerates lobby against reform. Even small farmers and construction use illegals and the other industries I mentioned. It's more complicated than just what you post.
I cannot see the problem with requiring verification of citizenship for registration to vote when there is no immediate election and no urgency.
You've got four years to get your paperwork together, people. If you're using stolen identification... well, you're the kind of people we don't want voting in national elections, so voter registration works.
DUH!!!!
William, after the last post I swore I was done trying to explain the fallacy of your arguments but I got suckered in again. So:
Excuse me? Latinos have never excluded people from the Eastern Hemisphere from emigrating, Americans have.
In the late 1800's the railroad barons were bringing over Chinese workers by the boatload to work on building the railroads. Men worked in construction, women were brothel fodder. Signs were posted in both Chinese and English, and the American people complained about the 'yellow peril'. The most common complaint was that 'if this keeps up, we'd all end up a Chinese colony', or 'we'd all end up speaking Chinese', and that the Chinese were taking our jobs and our resources which should go to American citizens.
In the late 1890's the US government passed laws banning all emigration from China, decreed that Chinese people couldn't marry whites or own property, and had to live in neighborhoods specifically set aside for them (think Chinatown in San Francisco.) These laws lasted on the books until the civil rights movement of the 1960's, when it was determined that racially-based laws were unconstitutional.
There is a Mexican restaurant in my neighborhood called 'El Salto'. It's not a deliberate exclusion, it's simply the name of the place.There's also a place called Cucina Italiana--do I then infer that an Italian place with an Italian name spelled out in Italian means the Italians are trying to take over my neighborhood? What about the pub with the sign on the outside that simply says 'Slainte'? Do I then infer that the Irish are trying to 'take over'?
My neighborhood is one of the oldest ethnic neighborhoods in our municipality. Originally settled by Poles, some of my neighborhood's historic buildings have the original 1800's signs cut in the marble entirely in Polish, and a newer plastic card next to it saying what it is in English. Most of the residents in the neigborhood would like to get rid of the little plastic signs in English. Being able to read every sign outside every business and know what it says is a source of pride for our little community, because we think it tells everyone outside that we're world citizens--we're open-minded, tolerant, welcoming, friendly, inclusive, we can see value in others' cultures, we're not isolationists, and we don't have an our-way-or-the-highway mentality.
If you look at a sign in another language and it says to you 'Yankee go home' then I pity you. To me, what it says is 'come on in and learn about me, and I can learn about you.' It's an invitation to exchange, not a symbol of exclusion. To me, it's nothing wrong with them, it indicates there's something wrong with your viewpoint.
I took Spanish during my elementary school years (it was the only offering at the Catholic school I went to and it was only offered because the parents of one of my classmates volunteered to teach the language lessons after school.) But when I got to high school my Dad told me to sign up for a year of French and then a year of Latin, and then after Dad and Mom died I ended up signing up for Spanish again. All of those languages have helped me out; being a biometrics technician, I now have to deal with all sots of people from all walks of life and while I have not had anyone come in speaking Latin, Latin is the root language for most of the major world languages and once I figure out the Latin root word, translation of non-English documents (very very rare) is pretty easy.
And most of the immigrants from Africa speak French or have French names--last week I had a young lady tell me I was the first American she'd ever met who pronounced her name (Enjoule) correctly.
It doesn't make sense to have a law that says only citizens can vote, and yet forbid a state from requiring proof of citizenship in order to register. I would find it fair if EVERYONE (including myself) is forced to pony up a valid birth certificate or passport in order to vote. Voting is a sacred right, and each vote cast by a person who is not legally eligible to vote disenfranchises a voter who IS legal. The emphasis on voting should not be to make is at easy as possible, but rather to make it as honest as possible. Freedom isn't free. Many paid great costs so that we could have it. Going through a little hassle to cast our hard won ballots is worth it.
Sure, but FINISH THE HISTORY LESSON! After the battle, the Mexicans were given a Christian burial while the evil Americans that fought bravely, THEIR bodies were piled high and set on fire. Boy. those Mexicans were just like Nazis!!
Why are white Americans called WHITE, Obama is called BLACK, but there are no colors to for Latinos??
Cut the crap.....HISPANICS were the guilty party that took the most slaves from Africa.
Napoleon was a product of the French Revolution. Please read a book or watch PBS's Napoleon. It contradicts everything you just said.
Mexico quadrupled its population in the last 55 years. Why should Americans suffer because of this. They prove that they ruin everything by taking over a town then trying to colonize it for Mexico. Don't deny this!
Mexicans will take away US immigration from the countries of the eastern hemisphere as long as Americans refuse to stand up and say "ENOUGH!"
seaskipper
"If any voter fraud exist, its the Republicans, Dem's rule when it comes to honesty !!!"
Hey man, you might be able to get that TV fixed. If you call around, someone may get it fixed in time for you to watch the news
As an AZ resident, you'd be the best one to ask these questions of. I have a lot of questions that I hope you can answer:
Is a certificate of Naturalization really all you have to present to prove you're a citizen?
What about those who are natural-born citizens who don't need a Certificate of Naturalization? How do they prove they are citizens?
How do you tell who needs to provide additional documentation and who doesn't? By the language the speak? What about people from Puerto Rico who may only speak Spanish or speak it with a heavy accent, but they are considered US citizens with no need for a Naturalization certificate? Or American Samoa?
Have you ever seen the Certificate of Naturalization? It's a sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 green paper with a photo stapled to it and the Oath of Allegiance printed on it. Do you have any idea how easy it would be for someone to break into a house, steal it, rip off the photo and staple theirs to it?
If the only document allowed is a Naturalization certificate, natural-born US citizens will be unable to prove their citizenship in order to vote!
Now here I will agree with you. As is the case in many other countries in the world, any documents that need to be accepted by the international community at large should be available in all three of the working languages of the world. Many of the French African immigrants I've dealt with have said that navigating the immigration process would be easier if the documents were as readily available in French as well as English and Spanish.
I don't see a problem with requiring identification, my question would be what kind of identification is required, and what happens if you are legal but unable to get what the are asking for? As Rontron said above, all you need is a certificate of Naturalization--what about natural born American citizens who aren't required to get one? How do they prove they are citizens? What documents are going to be required of them to prove they are citizens?
Amanda, thanks for your fabulous posts.
The William Travis posts make it clear that his mind set is "the problem" he wishes to foist on others.
(sigh) Okay, let's go through this again.
Those Latinos/Hispanics who have the darker skin can trace their ancestry back to the original Native American tribes who settled in Central America after climate change turned the fertile grassland of the American Southwest into a desert. Therefore, they should be using the designation 'I' for Native American.
Those Latinos/Hispanics with the lighter skin can trace their ancestry back to the Spanish Conquistadores who settled and then subjugated the native peoples. These should be using the designation 'white' since people from Spain and Portugal are white Europeans.
I'm a biometrics technician. I take fingerprints for a living. When filling out the blank for the race designation this is how the manual instructs us to fill that out. There is W for white, B for black, A for Asian, I for Native America or U for unknown/other/multi-race.
The were Portuguese, English and Dutch. See the below clip:
In the mid-fifteenth century, Portuguese ships sailed down the West African coast in a maneuver designed to bypass the Muslim North Africans, who had a virtual monopoly on the trade of sub-Saharan gold, spices, and other commodities that Europe wanted. These voyages resulted in maritime discoveries and advances in shipbuilding that later would make it easier for European vessels to navigate the Atlantic. Over time, the Portuguese vessels added another commodity to their cargo: African men, women, and children.
For the first one hundred years, captives in small numbers were transported to Europe. By the close of the fifteenth century, 10 percent of the population of Lisbon, Portugal, then one of the largest cities in Europe, was of African origin. Other captives were taken to islands off the African shore, including Madeira, Cape Verde, and especially São Tomé, where the Portuguese established sugar plantations using enslaved labor on a scale that foreshadowed the development of plantation slavery in the Americas. Enslaved Africans could also be found in North Africa, the Middle East, Persia, India, the Indian Ocean islands, and in Europe as far as Russia.
English and Dutch ships soon joined Portugal's vessels trading along the African coast. They preyed on the Portuguese ships, while raiding and pillaging the African mainland as well. During this initial period, European interest was particularly concentrated on Senegambia. Culturally and linguistically unified through Islam and in some areas, Manding culture and language, the region and Mali to its east had a long and glorious history, centered on the ancient Kingdom of Ghana and the medieval empires of Mali and Songhay. Its interior regions of Bure and Bambuk were rich in gold. It reached the Mediterranean and hence Europe from Songhay. The slave trade was closely linked to the Europeans' insatiable hunger for gold, and the arrival of the Portuguese on the " Gold Coast" (Ghana) in the 1470s tapped these inland sources.
http://www.inmotionaame.org/migrations/topic.cfm;jsessionid=f8302197611363596488349?migration=1&topic=2&bhcp=1
You're right and I had my historical figures mixed up. It was the French King Louis 16th, not Napoleon. However, the fact remains that Spain was NOT considered a third world country but a major economic and commercial trade force to be reckoned with.
Mexicans have never sought to ban US immigration from Eastern countries. The US did it all by ourselves. Did you not see my post on the 1890's laws against the 'yellow peril'?
I think you're transposing a personal dislike of a specific person onto an entire subsection of humans who look like a person who you have a personal grudge against. My advice would be to let that grudge go, life is too short for you to spend it hating a person just because they look like someone you personally dislike.
And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, we've already spent too long on an off-topic discussion on history and ethnic arguments. Let's get back to the original topic; voter ID laws that apply fairly to everyone today.
The current system of a person simply signing saying they are a citizen is a joke. Without some means to verify the statement, it is worthless. Contrary to what the liberals try and tell everyone, voter fraud is a big problem in this country. The liberals rationalize that because there have not been many proven cases of voter fraud that it does not exist. The problem is these same liberals have been taking deliberate steps to keep the fraud from being exposed. There are many illegals that have registered and vote in our elections. This is because the liberals have been successful in blocking any legislation that would force someone to prove they are a citizen when they register. The like to ridicule conservatives when they fight against regulations by accusing them of having a naive "trust me" attitude. Well this is the exact attitude they are supporting now, we are supposed to just "trust" that the person signing saying they are a citizen actually is one. This is absurd!!! We need to start now with the implementation of voter ID laws and citizenship verification for any new voter registration. That way the liberals can not cry that six months or a year in advance is too close to the election to make a change. It is amazing how getting an ID to be able to vote can not be done in 6 months according to the liberals yet most states only give you 30 days to get your car registered and change your license over when you move to a new state and everyone seems to think that is reasonable and can be done. We have 3.5+ years before the next presidential election so let's start now and take this ridiculous argument away from the liberals.
Wouldn't it be great if people would actually READ THE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE BEFORE POSTING IT AS PROOF OF SOME KIND????? This info is about BLACK AMERICANS not BROWN MEXICANS!!!!
History Lesson: Who INVENTED the term :"Native American"?
The Indians didn't! Think about it!!!
Who wants to divide and conquer the United States?....Hmmmm?
William:
They didn't invent the name 'Indian' either.
Referring to Native Americans as 'Indians' is disrespectful. The white Europeans who 'discovered' the American continent thought they'd discovered a back door to the Spice Islands, or West Indies, and called the indigenous peoples 'Indians' because of that.
My husband's mother is Cherokee and they simply refer to themselves as 'the People'.
The term 'Native American' is the correct one, as this is not the West Indies and they are, therefore, not Indians. Native American is a designation picked up to differentiate between those who were here first and those who came later, but irregardless, we're all Americans. Even the people from Mexico, since the land they happen to be sitting on is 'Central America' and the people from Brazil Colombia, Venezuela, Panama and other countries from parts south of us are on the 'South American' continent. Only in the United States do we have the absolute hubris to consider ourselves the only ones with the right to call ourselves 'Americans'. Everyone born in the Western Hemisphere can call themselves an American, with the literal definition being 'from the Americas'.
Amanda-2017567
Are you thinking of World War One???? That's the usual excuse given to minimize the killing of Americans done by Pancho Villa....But I guess killing Americans is still OK with the "brown nosers".
Fortunately, this is PURE BULL CRAP!!!! Mexico demanded that not even one American soldier set foot on Mexican soil throughout WW2. We were to build airfields in Mexico but these crazy Mexicans didn't realize that Americans would be landing there??? OOPS!!
The AZTEC Eagles were a last minute entry into the PACIFIC war after Germany butt was already kicked. Check it out! The Germans surrendered on May 8th 1945 and the AZTEC Eagles started their brave contribution to a just about defeated Japan in the Summer of 1945. Giving them the entire month of June instead of the actual start of summer in the middle of June, their "contribution" was a total of 2 1/2 months. WoW! 10 weeks when my father was in the US Army for 4 long years.
If you know anything about SPANISH, the Mexican version of Spanish makes most Spaniards ill.
Can you name the Spanish speaking countries of the eastern hemisphere??? OK I'll give you Spain. What are these other super important countries??
Amanda-2017567
The only race of people ever to land on the moon is white English speaking Americans. Are they now to consider themselves Native Moonians???
Does the US, by planting its flag on the moon, suddenly OWN THE MOON??
When the world was at war, TWICE, the people who yelled "AMERICANS!" were the people who set the standard for " WHO IS AN AMERICAN!" They weren't thinking of Latinos, now were they. Latinos were in the US nice and safe picking crops and demanding higher wages.
....and
......you are going to feel so stupid
........I have never, never, never heard a CANADIAN refer to himself as an American!!!
Nope, WWII. The were in the middle of a civil war. Mexico had had a policy of noninterference and neutrality since 1930 (much like Switzerland). They didn't break it until they were attacked themselves in 1942 and one of their oil tankers was sunk by a German sub in the Gulf of Mexico. I invite you to have a nice long read on h subject of Mexican history.
Which hereby proves that your earlier assertion that "Mexico declared war against Germany and never sent a single MEXICAN SOLDIER to fight the 1940's Germany" was erroneous.
The same could be said of many who speak the 'Queens English' about those who speak 'American English'. Hugh Laurie, a British-born actor, complained about having to learn an American accent for the TV show 'House'..."The word is spelled 'barbiturate' but Americans just throw out the 'r' at random and call it 'Bar-bit-u-ate'."
The Phillipines were also settled by Spain and the inhabitants usually have Hispanic fist names. In fact Filipinos are often confused with Puerto Ricans and Pacific Islander Hispanics like Cuba and the Dominican Republic.
If there were people on the moon when people from Earth first landed it would be correct to consider them 'Native Moonians'. Same with the Native Americans who were here when the white Europeans first landed. They should be considered Native Americans.
Exactly my point, thank you for proving it. The white Europeans who landed here and found a native population already here have no right to claim that they own the land, papal decree or no papal decree. That right belongs the people who were already there. Hence they had no right to name the natives 'Indians'.
If the generally accepted name for these new continental bodies is 'the Americas' then those who were already here are called, rightly, Native Americans.
And as I said above, no, Mexican nationals in the US were not 'nice and safe'. They signed up to serve in our military, plenty of them died and were buried as war heroes. And yes, some of them are buried at Arlington.
No, I've never heard a Canadian refer to himself as an American. I have, however, heard many refer to themselves as South Americans and Centro-Americans and, with a great deal o[ pride, I've had someone refer to himself as a descendant of the Mesoamericans.
In the context of 'American', as in, a citizen of the United States, my definition of an 'American' is someone who takes the Oath of Citizenship with no reservations and with full intent to carry out all of its provisions. Along with the rights to freedom of speech, assembly etc. that come along with being a US citizen, those rights are paid for with responsibilities like jury duty, voting, and taking up arms in our military if the US needs you to do so, in defense of our country and our Constitution. When I took the Oath of Citizenship I swore to do all of this, and so I am obligated by my sworn oath to defend the legal rights of all Americans.
While you may have had the good fortune to be born here, that doesn't absolve you of having the same responsibilities that I have as a sworn citizen. You are responsible for attending jury duty if called; you are responsible for serving in our military if required (the draft); you are responsible for upholding the Constitution and the rights of your fellow Americans.
If you're in favor of an unconstitutional law that will exclude any subsection of the American people from their right to vote, then per my definition, you're not an 'American'.
I can neither say I am for or decidedy against this law as I don't know enough about it to form an opinion one way or another. In order to form an opinion,I need the answers to the questions I asked in post 1.44.
However, going on what Rontron said, that the only proof of citizenship required is a certificate of Naturalization, I am against the law then as it means that natural-born US citizens, who are not required to have Naturalization certificates, would be unable to vote--thereby infringing on their rights.
If the law stipulates that either a naturalization certificate or a US passport is acceptable, then I am against it as it excludes those in the US population who do not have and/or cannot get a passport for whatever reason--again infringing on Americans' rights.
For me personally, I don't vote so this law does not affect me personally. But it affects the rights of my fellow Americans and that is something I am sworn to defend against.
William Travis:
I see you finally came around to stating that Americans speak English :/ Whatever happened to Americans speaking American, eh?
Also, define what is an American race, considering you've listed skin colors in previous replies as the prerequisite definition of "race".
William:
I misspoke. it wasn't a noninterference policy, Mexico declared a neutrality policy in 1930 as WWI was looming on the horizon.
Mexico cut off all ties to the Axis powers. Refusing to allow the Axis powers to use Mexican shores as an attack launching point was what caused the German subs to attack mexican trading ships and eventually sink the Mexican tanker, which is what precipitated Mexico's entry into WWII.
Why do white people hate black people, why do some African tribes hate other tribes, why do white Italians hate white Irishmen? Why did Catholics hate Protestants, why do Baptists hate Unitarians? Simple. Among the human race there will always be hatred/distrust of The Other. It's a basic fact of human nature and has little to do with white, black, red, yellow, or brown. Race is an excuse, not a reason.
They did and they do. Even now. They accept green card holders and those green card holders get bumped to the top of the list for their willngness to serve. There's a movement npow to grant children who were brought here illegally as infants by their parents citizenship if they serve in the military.
And I seriously doubt your attitude did anything to help change his contempt. In fact, he might have adopted that attitude just to watch your reaction.
Not everyone declared 'illegal' has actually broken any laws. My coworker's mother was deported as illegal in december of 2011. She was adopted as an orphaned infant from Germany in 1945; Immigration at the time never told her parents that citizenship wasn't automatic with adoption (that law changed in 2000) and so when they did a routine record search 60+ years later it turned up that her citizenship was never filed. Although they acknowledged that it was their agency's mistake in not telling her adoptive parents--there was a letter that expressly said the parents didn't have to file for her citizenship--they didn't give her the chance to file paperwork to correct the mistake and deported her to Germany, where she'll have to remain for ten years before my coworker can apply to bring her back. They hope she'll be back by her 80th birthday.
And me, I was declared illegal. I was abandoned as an infant at an overseas orphanage; my parents brought me here and adopted me, but never told me before they passed away in a car accident shortly before I turned 18. USCIS did a routine record search, found out that my adoption paper had gotten lost out of my file, then came to me for a copy. When I couldn't give them one they decided that made me 'illegal'.
Now, since no laws had been broken they couldn't arrest or charge me with anything, so I was 'civilly detained'. This means no habeas corpus, no right to a lawyer, no right to a hearing or a judge or even a phone call--since you haven't done anything wrong and aren't being charged with anything, why would you need a lawyer or a hearing? And since I don't have an original birth certificate showing where I was born, there was nowhere to deport me; they simply told me I'd remain in deportation until I gave them a copy of the paper. It took me three years of writing to every courthouse in every state we'd ever lived in to find that paper.
So no, not every person deemed 'illegal' has broken laws. While a majority have, there are many that haven't, and grouping all of us in the same category denies up the right to fairness that every person in the US is entitled to, by our Constitution--'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process'.
William Travis, Native Americans is a term we invented. I would think calling tribes "Indians" came about due to the settlements in the West Indies. Before that natives was most likely the term used to describe different races.
Unless our history books have it all wrong the original immigrants to the Americas were every European who mustered the courage to settle in a new land that was wilderness. French and Spanish were the first major settlers, but the English became dominant due to having the most powerful navy in the world at that time.
When the colonies unified and forced the English from ruling them we had every known Western European language spoken in the Colonies. This diverse group of people formed our Nation.
We have trough-out our history welcomed non-English speaking people to our shores. From the Irish, Italians, Scandinavians, Germans, French, you name it we have it all. We are the one true melting pot of all languages and races on this Planet.
Yes, we proudly call ourselves Americas, but not because the majority of us speak English, but because we are so diverse by being home to freedom seekers from around the World. We pride ourselves that we have different ethnics, different religions, different ancestry and we are able to exist together for the good of all. There is no other place in the world that can claim such diversity.
We created the illegals with our hiring of cheap labor and now our farmers can't exist without them. There are no "Americans" willing to perform the back breaking work these people do. The majority of Americans won't clean hotel toilets, change sheets, or clean up after people. Americans won't dig the ditches, pick the fruit, pick the low lying vegetables, or do most menial jobs. I am fully aware and know that the problem with true illegals has to be addressed.
But to make it harder for those Spanish speaking citizens to vote is not the way to go. As many have attempted to explain to you, just because they speak Spanish, were born here, naturalized as citizens doesn't make them second class to "whites". No minority should be subjected to additional proof of citizenship unless we all are subject to the same laws.
I am Caucasian, Lily White isn't the only color in this Great Nation, there are many more Colors that are just as bright, illuminating qualities that serve to better our Nation. Our diversity is what makes us who and what we are as a Nation and a People. Once we start putting up barriers we are no longer a free society, we then become racists willing to subdue those we deem inferior. That is not what I wish to see in our Nation. Is that what you want?? I hope not.
" U.S. citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election, and the federal form requires applicants to state, under penalty of perjury, that they are American citizens. But Arizona's Proposition 200 goes further, requiring applicants to provide some form of proof at the time they want to register."
How can anyone deem this as unreasonable? If those who believe in their right to federal voting then proving it should not be a problem. It's only a problem for those who aren't citizens. How can the Supreme Court even question this?
Okay, here's the questions that need to be answered. How do you prov you're a citizen? What documents are allowable?
Naturalization certificate: Another poster above, Rontron, lives in AZ and he said all you have to do is show a naturalization certificate. Okay,so how is a natural-born US citizen going to prove they are a citizen? They aren't required to have a Naturalization certificate. And I'm not going o get into how easy it would be just to staple your own photo to a stolen Naturalization certificate and pass it off as your own.
Passport: Homeland Security says the only way to prove you are a citizen is through the passport registry system. The State Department says there are 160 million people out there with a passport out of a US census population of 312 million. That means only 160 million people would be eligible to vote--and those 160 million people would be relatively well-of because passports are not cheap. Most of the poor and a significant portion of the middle-class don't have or can't afford a passport.
Original birth certificate: Many don't have an original. Or it's been lost over the years. People from areas hit by natural disasters, like the poor parishes in Louisiana, may not be able to get a copy anymore if the place were they were stored was destroyed, paper records were destroyed, electronic backups were damaged/wiped out or simply never made. And as another poster pointed out above, President Obama produced the short form and long forms of his birth certificate and they weren't acceptable. Puerto Ricans used their birth certificate for so many mundane identification services and there was such a problem with identity theft that the Puerto Rican government cancelled out all of their old birth certificates, revamped the format, and reissued them now with the caution to their citizens to not use it for anything except federal identification purposes. And there are people like me, abandoned as an infant with no paperwork.
If the only proof allowed is a certificate of Naturalization, I am against the law then as it means that natural-born US citizens, who are not required to have Naturalization certificates, would be unable to vote.
If the only proof allowed is a naturalization certificate or a US passport, then I am against the law as it excludes those in the US population who do not have and/or cannot get a passport for whatever reason.
If any combination of passport, birth certificate (any birth certificate legally registered with a US or US Province court, not necessarily original) and naturalization certificate is allowable as proof of citizenship, then I would be in favor of the law as it seems the easiest way to put to rest an issue which has no easy answers.
William Travis, you do realize that this article and conversation is about voter registration laws and not about illegals?? There are so few voter frauds or rarely an illegal voting, to be a insignificant at best. We are discussing placing a burden on Minorities to prove Citizenship. It is unjust to single out one group of citizens over another. You being a proud American should see the injustice in such a law, after all you refer to yourself as American. My definition of being an American is to protect the freedoms of all Americans and provide them the same rights as all have.
In fact in March of 1970 at Fort Polk (43 years ago) I took an oath to protect and defend this Nation against all enemies, which to me includes those who would destroy our freedoms from within. I served with Blacks, Latinos, Jews, Italians, Germans, people from every walk of life and ancestry. We all were Americans
This was a time of civil unrest in this Nation and it was over many of the same lack of freedoms for all as some are attempting to impose today. To be treated the same is a right we all have no matter our race or whether we are Natural or Naturalized Citizens. Once we become a Citizen we are assured our freedoms under our Constitution.
Since illegals are your concern (my concern as well) let your Congressman or Woman know that they should act and act now to secure our borders, stop allowing businesses to seek out and hire illegals, and stop certain industries such as hotel chains, farms, etc., from lobbying Congress to relax laws covering illegal workers. But don't punish Citizens who resemble those here illegally from exercising the same freedoms you or I have.
It once was a woman's right to vote, then Blacks, always Jews, Chinese, Asians, Italians, Irish, we discriminated against, and now Latinos who will it be next. If your party doesn't like how people vote; then stop redistricting to all white districts and begin policies that draw in people and not drive them away.
You want to win votes, then respect people; show them they matter. The You in this sentence is not an individual but us all.
I don't know how other states handle voter registration,(except Florida, they seem to have problems no matter whether it's a national or local election), but in my state it is essentially impossible to vote illegally or vote as one deceased. My polling place checks everything but your undies and if they could they would do that.
William Travis, I still don't get why Natural Latino Citizens is a problem with you. What has that got to do with voting or registering?? Each district in every state has checks to assure registrants are who they claim to be, at least they are in my state. I would think that even Arizona can maintain a proper registry of their citizens. This is all about the votes are lack of votes Latinos cast for Republican Candidates. It is indefensible. It is also about the "white" population becoming a minority in the next 10 years or so. That doesn't mean that there will be more Blacks, Latinos, per race than Whites, but that overall we won't be the largest voting block. What would you have us do?? expel any citizen that isn't of European descent.??
William Travis:
My husband's grandfather was Polish. Immigrated to the US shortly before WWII, was still a green card holder when he enlisted and fought in WWII, got citizenship during the war. He's told the story to my sons many times.
See this:
Both Mexican Americans and Mexican nationals who grew up in the United States served in the military during World War II.
http://research.pomona.edu/zootsuit/en/zoot-suit-la/world-war-ii/
Yes, they would, it would be an invasion and they would be subject to be held under the terms of the Geneva Convention and tried by the international community under war crimes for interference in another country's sovereign territory. They would still get due process. The Constitution is perfectly clear on that. The world 'illegal alien' never appears in the Constitution, it does not make the distinction between immigrants, natural born citizens, illegal aliens, permanent residents, terrorists. The Constitution quite clearly says 'No person'. If you disagree with that you're welcome to write your Congressperson and ask that anyone declared illegal be redefined as 'not a person'. Good luck with that.
Yes, they are entitled to due process and have the same rights and protections under our laws. The Supreme Court has ruled so multiple times over the years. See the below cases:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents'.
Have you actually read your Bible?
"Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place."--Jeremiah 22:3
"You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt."
Exodus 22:21
"The alien who resides among you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God."
Leviticus 19:34
I could go on but I trust you get my point.
Of course she said that; she was the white wife of the rich, powerful, influential businessman. Talking to anyone of a lower social class would have been beneath her. This was the early 1900's; the class divide was a lot stronger than it is now.
Also...the other women around her would have talked about the price of grain in the market, whether the oldest boy would be bringing a fish home for dinner that night, whether they would be able to find clothes that fit the baby at the clothing resellers' shop. What would she have to talk to them about? The latest Paris fashions? The rising price of Viennese lace? The relative merits of white Sauvignon vs red Merlot? No, she was right, there was no one with whom she would be able to have a conversation with in the native language about matters that interested her. That doesn't mean that they were dumb beasts with no ability to carry on intelligent conversation, it means she had nothing in common with and no interests in the people and land where she was...or desire to learn anything about the country she was in. It says tome that she was very shallow, narcissistic, and egocentric, couldn't see value in anything she herself wasn't interested in. Such a very limiting worldview, and for that she is to be pitied.
And so are you. You are not that different from that narrow-minded socialite.
The servicemen who attacked Latino youth were wrong, as were the Latino youth who retaliated. Violence is never the answer to a situation.
Death is rarely, if ever, now used as a punishment for espionage.
The quotes you used from the Bible were God's warnings as to what would happen if the Israelites did not obey God's commandments. The quotes I used were God's instructions to the Israelites on how to treat foreigners in their midst.
Of course they didn't want anything to do with her, as she showed no sign she wanted to get to know them or their culture, they simply acceded to her wishes and left her alone.
I'm not Christian and the one guiding tenet of my belief system is that 'there is no one true way'. What worked for her--and what works for you--is your choice, and I am not in a position to say whether your beliefs are right or wrong. My purpose in this conversation with you was to point out that your conclusions are based on incorrect facts. Having seen now this knowledge for yourself, should you still choose to believe that every person of a particular nationality is automatically, inherently evil, that is your right.
And in any case, this article, and this thread, was about the voter ID laws. If I may be so presumptuous as to redirect your attention back to the topic, what are your opinions on the voter ID laws? Is it fair to place a higher burden of proof on a subsection of the American population?Does this act violate our Constitution's tenets on equality for all, and fair laws for everyone? What would you consider to be allowable documentation? Are you for or against it?
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you!
Really, William, that analogy is ridiculous.
William Travis:
This article, and this thread, was about the voter ID laws. What are your opinions on the voter ID laws? Is it fair to place a higher burden of proof on a subsection of the American population? Does this act violate our Constitution's tenets on equality for all, and fair laws for everyone? What would you consider to be allowable documentation? Are you for or against it?
Republicans attempting to deprive citizens of the United States (and Arizona) from exercising their right to vote.
Re-Elect, Nobody is depriving anyone from voting with 11 million illegals in the country it's a legitimate concern to know who ever is voting is in fact a citizen.
exactly right. if youre a citizen in this country, then wheres the problem? you will be allowed to vote.
by taking away some of these registration laws, it means that illegals who DO NOT have the right to vote may find ways of voting. (they already forge IDs and passports to get on welfare and healthcare and get their kids free lunches at school, so whats to stop them from forging voter registration cards)
illegal immigration is a huge problem in this state.
...but illegal voter registration and voting is not. Why would an illegal immigrant take the risk? This stuff is nothing more than a new form of Jim Crow.
So you need an ID to cash a check or rent a movie or buy a 6 pack
but using an ID to vote is a bad thing?
Re-elect is either a troll or an idiot HMMmm Maybe a hybred?
A naturalized citizen is just as much a citizen as one who is born here. How would all these so called defenders of voting rights feel if they were required to show up several times with their original birth certificate in order to register. Many would say it is surpressing their right to vote. But it's not for a naturalized citizen??? Give us a break. They just don't want them voting period.
Illegals are not risking arrest and deportation to attempt to vote. They want to stay under the radar at all costs. You are delusional.
REAL Americans have a right to know who the foreign criminals that steal US resources (illegal aliens) are in their community and federal, state, and local governments have a DUTY to provide that information.
REAL Americans should now DEMAND the right to vote for an American candidate to take over as Mexico's president.
Re-Elect Obama 2012
DePrive My A$$...
What the He!! is wrong with you libs? Is it discrimination and suppression to require a person who wants to drive a car to go and get a driver' license ?
Where is the Suppression? What is Wrong with requiring a person who is voting to prove they are who they say they are?
Try to get a Library Book without an ID... Get a Fishing License without an ID... Cash a Check without an ID... Go to a NAACP Meeting without an ID... He!! try to get into the DOJ Building Without an ID...
But to require a Person to prove he/she is able to vote Legally is WRONG?
Please tell US ALL How that is?
( But then again, without Voter Fraud Obama would have never got re-elected )
an illeagal is not a citizen of this country...period. And, the states have every right to impose laws that the feds don't. read the Constitution, fathead. Also, if one needs an id for banking, to get a drivers license, to buy liquor, cigarettes, to buy tickets to ghet on a plane, what is the big deal. Bu, qwhen it comes to voting, you dems bitch, that, 'rights will be surpressed, taken away, yadda-yadda-yadda!This case is lost to the government.
If a Mexican, living in the US, claims to have the right to vote for a Mexican president, then REAL Americans, of all races, should have that same right!
Bull...They are driving around in a bus proclaiming they are illegal, They are going to college and getting instate tuition, They are in they news constantly claiming they are being discriminated against, We are not deporting them, In fact we are releasing thousands of illegal aliens who have criminal records . In my state I have to provide 6 points of identification just to renew my drivers license, My wife had to make 2 trips to our local voter registration board because of a glitch but did she complain...no. We just followed the procedures because that is what is required.
Reelect you are sincerely mistaken getting a license is a priviledge granted by all 50 states where as voting is a RIGHT bestowed upon every citizen so if a state decides to grant illegal aliens a license that license should somewhere have located on ita huge IA and that is not the abbreviation for Iowa but illegal alien so that they cannot have the right to vote. Also strange is how there are lawsuits about trying to stop having people show idenification before they can vote because you all say that it is an economic hardship that they cant afford the ID but yet they can afford to pay for the license,well which is it can they or can they not afford itand how did they ever get to taste their first alchoholic drink when they turn 18 without proper ID or get on a plane
Netflix doesn't require an ID to stream or receive movies in the mail. I was never asked for proof of identity when setting up the account either. Does Redbox even have a way to check your ID? I can't remember the last time I was carded for beer. I have not used checks in years.
Maybe next time, you'll use talking points that aren't outdated, or have become obsolete. So since I have not had to show my ID for anything in years, should I have to show it to vote?
Actual proved voter fraud is almost non existent and has never affected the outcome of any election. Why are states wasting millions upon millions when that money can actually be used in a productive manner?
Lost,
Voter fraud is almost non-existent. There have also been very cases or illegal aliens voting. It just does not happen except in isolated cases. All this is, is a witch hunt because some Republicans think this is why Obama won (illegal voters).
What we need to be more focused on is not restricting the rights of legal citizens from voting like Rick Scott did, like they tried to do in Ohio four times (each time they got their asses handed to them by the courts), and like they tried to do here in Arizona by trying to get off counting 650,000 early ballots (one of which was mine).
A thousand illegitimate votes is not going to change the outcome of an election, there is no reason to go after them with wide sweeping laws instead of individually unless there was conspiratorial intent behind it (like a Democrat/Republican group registering fake voters intentionally).
The trick for naturalized citizens would seem to be to find a way to streamline or update the way their naturalization documents are made available. Surely a way could be found whereby naturalized citizens could access their documents so that election officials could see them quickly. Why not make naturalization documents available through a federal database accessible on a read-only basis by state/local election officials to quickly confirm citizenship? It cuts down on the burden naturalized citizens face in obtaining their documentation and speeds up registration, so everyone should be able to accept such a thing, wouldn't they?...
Liberals with this endless mantra of Republicans trying to stop people from voting. Liberals don't say much about the Ohio poll worker indicted for voter fraud. The indictment covers the last three elections. She has admitted to voting for Obama at least six times in this past election alone. Yeah, it really appears like voter fraud is hard to pull off. She was only caught because she bragged about what she did to a camera crew. It is time to make an effort to stop voter fraud, and something as simple as proving who you are at the polling place seems more then reasonable.
NYMike - Look at the number of voter fraud convictions in Minnesota during the Coleman/Franken election. There are proven voter fraud cases.
Further to that point, if you were to vote 6 times in 6 districts under six different names and I am not able to actually verify that you are who you say you are, how can I even charge fraud?
Yeah, Rick, because no conservative ever ever EVER committed vote fraud, right?...
Doc S
I think you also need to take a look at the Constitution specifically the Twenty-fourth Amendment
Unless you plan on paying for people to get copies of their birth certificates then paying for people to be bused into a DMV and they giving them free ID's you cant implement a voter ID law. It is essentially charging a Vote Tax. Every person has a right to vote whether they can afford it or not. Even if you are stopping only one person its still against the Constitution. You want a real solution get rid of absentee ballets make everyone show up to a polling station and stamp there hands with permanent ink that cant be washed off like every other country. There is more voter fraud from Absentee ballets then people voting in person yet we are being focused on the latter. This is all about politics and it has nothing to do with getting rid of voter fraud.
Given the handful of voter fraud compared to the thousands of suppressed votes, preventing voter fraud is a false argument.
The GOP likes to conflate voter registration fraud (which is not much of a crime) with voter fraud where the penalties have real teeth.
But suppressing thousands of votes is not a crime at all.
Strange how that works out.
That is bull@!$%#. So far almost all the voter fraud (and voter registration fraud) has been republican. Actual voting fraud is very rare, and when it happens, prosecute it. Otherwise you are just pulling crap out of your butt. And by the way, the biggest election fraud perpetrated on the country was when SCOTUS put GWBush on the throne. What republicans want to do now is stop as many potential dem votes as possible. Voter suppression. And it is subversion of democracy. Racist gits.
I'll never understand the conflicted mind of a liberal....they'll yell from the mountain tops to ensure that there everyone has unfettered access to voting - a right explicitly stated in the Constitution - even if those not authorized to vote, vote. However, they will do anything they can to make law abiding citizens jump thru all kinds of hoops just to own a gun - also a right explicitly stated in the Constitution.
jwilson1234
If you are referring to my post you are dead wrong i support the 2nd Amendment. I dont pick and chose what Amendment to support but just by your post i can see you do. So the same thing can be said with your post you yell from the top of mountains about your 2nd Amendment rights but when it comes to things like voting you want to make law abiding citizens jump thru hoops.
whats the big deal? we have to show proof of who we are all the time. generally its in the form of a drivers license (where in some states, including arizona, you MUST be a citizen to obtain one)
illegal immigration is a huge problem here in arizona, and it appears people in other states just dont know how bad of a problem it is because they dont live here. they assume that our government is just racist against mexicans.
im a citizen of the US, and i have no problem showing proof that i am. why should we make it easier for the illegals just because we dont want to do something we already do many times a day?
showing proof of citizenship will be no big deal for those who are citizens.
You are willing to show up in person several times, let's just say twice, with your original birth certificate in order to vote? Don't be a cowrd give us your answer.
You have to prove citizenship at the MVD in Arizona to get a driver's licence or a state photo ID and register to vote. So if you present your Voter ID card at the polling place (non-photo ID) you have already proven to the state that you are a citizen. If you are registered to vote through MVD (or any other way), your name will appear on the voter rolls at your polling place. There is no need to present a photo ID at the polling place.
Masterq
I think you need more coffee... Who said anything about having to show up with your BC several times or even twice????
if you are going to try and make a Point... then At least think about it before you send it thru.
MasterQ: Yes, if I had to show up with a birth certificate every time I wanted to vote, I would. It's a small price to pay to be able to vote. If the right to vote is that important to you, you will make the effort.
Re-elect Obama: I had to show my birth certificate in order to get a passport, yet that didn't stop an illegal alien from using that same birth certificate that had been stolen, to register to drive in another state, cause a wreck, produce the drivers license showing MY name, and I am the one trying to defend myself against the other insurance company, because the POS disappeared. Probably to steal someone else's identity and start all over again. What would stop that POS from voting?
NM,
That has nothing to do with immigration (except the part where it was an illegal who did it); that is just wholesale identity theft. Anyone could have done that to you. If not that person then someone else probably would have done so.
Geowil, you did not answer my question. Someone who steals your identity, what will stop them from voting? NOTHING, if there is not some kind of better ID system, such as fingerprints. I feel that fingerprints should be REQUIRED when voting. Forget picture ID's, forget drivers licenses, or any other paper form of ID. Look at how many countries around the world use fingerprints instead of a piece of paper that's easily lost or easily copied. You can't copy fingerprints. Then, no matter how many identities you steal, you can't fake fingerprints. Your fingerprints would show up in the database with many different names - red flag.
times, it was an equivalency. For the naturalized citizen, they have to show up in person with the original naturalization documents in order to register to vote. Frequently more than once. It would be equivalent to you (who are presumably a citizen from birth) having to show up with your original birth certificate multiple times in order to register to vote. If you're going to complain about a point, at least try to use reason and logic before you make your complaint.
They don't care about voting, half the time they are spending your money in another country.
Can't have those Latinos voting Democrat in Arizona, man, that would ensure the white folk were thrown out of power... and its about darn time the majority starts winning. Republicans have distorted, changed, and even abrogated democracy in that the majority doesn't rule, they rule (or at least they think they do). Sooner or later Republicans will be taken out of politics FOREVER!!!
im latino, i live in arizona, im a citizen of the US, im not a republican (i actually associate myself more with the libertarian party), and i am very much infavor of laws that make it harder for illegals to vote (as well as get free money from the government)
Tracontech,
Read the story again. They want to stop an illegal activity.
ILLEGAL like against the law . Odd concept for you or what?
Do you have any clue how many dogs and Cats have been
registered to vote with main in forms?
Dog Registered to Vote
By KSEE News
March 5, 2012 Updated Mar 1, 2012 at 8:38 PM PDT
An Albuquerque, New Mexico man says he successfully registered his dog to vote in Bernalillo County.
The dog owner said he saw a voter registration booth on the University of New Mexico's campus a few weeks ago and decided to see how easy it would be to register his dog to vote.
The dogs name is Buddy and is now a registered Democrat but a little different than Trachontech
in the fact that Buddy only lick his own Ba!!s
In the famous words (meaningless, I might add) from Fox News, "some people say ..."
Illegals can't vote because they aren't citizens.
Illegals will not risk arrest and deportation by showing up at a polling place where they may be caught and reported to ICE.
If you don't understand that basic reality, you are delusional.
re-Elect... Answer this:
Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November
She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.
Richardson had admitted on camera to a local TV station, "Yes, I voted twice," claiming she was concerned that her vote would not count. She also said there "was no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud."
"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," she proclaimed in the interview.
Re-Elect Obama 2012:
What about Comrade Obama's DEFERRED ACTION that will allow millions of foreign criminals aka illegal aliens to continue to steal US resources from America's poor?
Bull, Illegals are riding around proclaiming they are illegal and demanding they be given amnesty and citizenship, Illegals are demanding instate tuition at colleges, Illegals have nothing to fear from this administration and thousands of illegals with criminal records have been released. ICE will not do anything about illegals, Yhey have been instructed to ignore the situation.
Re-elect:that is pure nonsense. an experiment was given where three illeagals were given money to take a ride with the researcher. He stopped at a polling place, sent the three in, came back and he asked them, if they voted? In broken english, they said yes, and even said that they were helped into the booths and were told who to vote for. Of couse, they were told to vote dem. Now, here is the thing, they were never asked for an id, nor were their names checked on the rolls.lokm it up on youtube.
In that case it should not be an issue to supply identification to vote, and the ones who have it will easily be allowed to vote with no problems.
Why are you required to show ID when getting alcohol. To prove you are over 21, why a picture ID? To add an additional layer of evidence of who you are. Walking in with a ballot, not to mention the already shady voting polls, doesn't mean that the person with the ballot is the same person voting. This law would exceed that of illegitimate citizens, and plain fraudulent voting practices in general. But then maybe that is what the establishment is trying to avoid, a legitimate and accurate vote to see who really wins an ellection. They might not be able to put in office whoever they wish anymore.
Melowese Richardson is a citizen, not an illegal. Her alleged offense is that she voted absentee in the name of some of her family members. If she's found guilty she should serve her sentence.
Illegals should be granted legal residency recognition in order to secure the taxes that they are not already paying into the system. Face it, they aren't leaving, we can't deport all of them and if we continue to pretend they aren't there we will create a permanent underclass operating in a black market which will continue to undermine the legitimate system.
Time to bring them out of the shadows and take advantage of the fact that they are here and bring them into the system where they can fully participate.
Any American citizen of latin desent has every right in the world once they close the voting curtain to vote out every republican if they chose or the democrats if that is the preference but to say that any latino can vote even if illegal is preposterous
Re-elect Obama: It's time we start ENFORCING the laws that state it's ILLEGAL to hire an undocumented worker. The penalties are fines and jail time for the owner or hiring official of the business. But, ICE won't enforce that either. The U.S. has laws, already in place, yet refuse to support those laws because the illegals are screaming that they aren't "right". It's not the RIGHT of the illegal aliens to tell US what laws we want to have. I can't go to some other country and stand in public, telling a foreign government their laws are not right, without risking going to jail immediately. What RIGHT do these foreign invaders have to tell ME, an AMERICAN CITIZEN, the laws of MY country, are not "right"?
Illegal alien arrested, charged with voter fraud:
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110317lakecounty.htm
Previously deported criminal alien pleads guilty to voter fraud, illegal reentry and falsely claiming US citizenship:
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1209/120907sandiego.htm
So, Jon, any comment about Ann Coulter being caught in a vote fraud attempt?
*crickets*...
Has she been found guilty?
Illegals can't vote because they aren't citizens.
Illegals will not risk arrest and deportation by showing up at a polling place where they may be caught and reported to ICE.
You might want to research into Reid's last election in Nevada in conjunction with the SEIU.
If you don't understand that basic reality, you are delusional.
And you're a @!$%#ing brainwashed ignorant liberal, but we won't hold it against ya.
I think it's time to change voting laws on a national basis now. First, get rid of the electoral college and base the count of the popular vote. Some swing states run by republican state houses and governors, have wanted to change their state rules from winner take all in the college to giving them apportioned to percentage, or worse yet by districts. Since gerrymandering still happens, which should be banned, a presidential candidate can win the state popular vote, but lose the majority of electoral votes based on the districts won. It seems republicans can't win the popular vote on their ideas, so they have to keep trying to change (err, "rig") the system.
Second, anyone running for president and US Congress should be held to a standardized federally controlled voting system where everyone has the chance to vote. I don't care that senators and congressional members represent their respective states, because the bills and laws they pass have national implications that affect other states that may not want the effects their laws to apply to them. If they want to change state voting laws, then do it so it only affects state candidates for their respective state houses and their governors.
Such a move would require a Constitutional amendment, Tommy, because voting is controlled by the states. The change to federal control would have certain advantages, but on the other hand would create a dual-tiered system if the states still held control of state and local elections. It's a cure that could be worse than the disease...
Liberals hate to be told that they can't lie and cheat
That would be because it is in fact the conservatives who are always doing the lying and cheating...you know, the swiftboatings, constant Fox News distortions, birthers, Donald Trump, the incessant filibustering to bring congress to a standstill, Romney's 47% fiasco, vaginal probe anti-abortion laws, claiming and forcing creationism as a science rather religious subject in schools, weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq War, claims that the American public is right center and conservative when clearly it is not, it's endless really. All politicians lie and cheat from time to time...but conservatives are especially apt at it because they have to be since they represent such a minority of the population.
cul
You Funny.... I see you have read the left's play book and remembered every word...
Have you ever had a thot of your own?
libs don't have thoughts, they are mindless, robots programmed to respond to answer all questions in a positiuve manner that suits the programmer.
@MarxistMayhem
You mean, like in Ohio, where the SoS tried to change the voting hours and rules several times only to be shot down by federal judges at each attempt. He actually tried change the voting hours and days for typically democratic areas (namely the metro areas), by removing extended hours and Sunday voting. But he wanted to keep those rules for the predominantly republican counties intact. Each effort that failed, he tried other shenanigans; http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/11/federal_judge_rips_husted_for.html
Remember 2004 in Ohio, where urban areas were not given enough voting machines and Bush barely won the state because of that and the long lines, then they change the rules to make voting more accessible and when Obama won Ohio handily in 08, that wasn't an acceptable outcome. So 2012 comes along, and Husted proved again that republicans use dishonest attempts to rig the vote.
Pennsylvania tried changing the rules and they were shoved aside by ethical judges each time. Even the republican leader of the state house declared their new voting law would give Romney the win. Florida, after the 2000 ballot scam and 2004 debacle with long lines, fixed their system for 2008 and Obama won Florida easily. Then they reversed all of the rules and shut down extended voting hours for 2012 as they didn't like that outcome. Some people waited for 10 hours in lines, and Romney still couldn't win the state. Like I said before, the republicans can't win on their ideas, so they rig the system anyway they know how and they still lost big. If they'd stop gerrymandering, they'd be in a world of hurt even the electoral college were maintained.
How dare they prevent undocumented alien democrats from voting!
MM, Doc, and TRO aren't even worth trying to have an intelligent conversation with. They act as though "liberals" are some kind of faceless bloc, or even a separate species from themselves. I try to avoid stereotyping conservatives as a whole because I know plenty in this very red portion of a very blue state, but have no sympathy for RWNJ's like the three aforementioned, who give conservatives a bad name by their idiocy. These clowns are worth nothing but mocking...
Conjuring Cat
Wow. Pot meet Kettle, because you went from "I don't name call", to doing exactly that...
But, then most liberals are hypocrites, especially on this site.
And when those three above called liberals everything but human beings, you obviously had no issue with that, Angela, so I guess the "hypocrisy" cuts both ways. If you want to argue issues, fine, but when an opening position is essentially "lib'ruls are eeevil," I'm not disposed to just sit there and take it. Don't like it? Too bad...
Let's see all you cons have are a few isolated examples while igorning how your fellow Rebs have admitted their goal about voter ID laws are to keep people for voting for Democrats and we're the ones trying to cheat? They're not trying to prevent illegals from voting. They want to leep legal US citizens from exercising their right to vote because they don't like what they say. And when confronted with the truth the cons just continue to lie more and say we're mindless robots, just like their masters at Faux News tells them to do.
Seems to me at one time, when you showed up to vote they checked your ID and your voter registration. I don't see how this is discrimination. And as far as registering you should have to prove your citizenship.
It's not having to show the ID to register that people are complaining about , it's the sudden changes in types of ID required and the hoops and costs that it forces some people to go through to get it. How can you rationalize that it is ok to use a gun permit ID but not a university student's card?
The Texas SB14 law was struck down because it was deemed to be biased against the poor and minorities:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/federal-court-blocks-controversial-texas-voter-id-law/
cul
What part about the ID being FREE don't you understand?
I guess the part where it isn't actually free...let's use Pennsylvania as an example:
What is it you do not understand about reality?
If you can't afford a 12 dollar ID card, than you might have bigger problems than trying to vote. No offense, but I'm not sure I'm interested in seeing what a person without 12 dollars would vote for, free benefits, free health care, free services for their children, free housing.... neverending free services provided from the state for what reason, because your here? I see the dilema but there is also the dilema of why can't everyone get everything free. Everything I have my family and I have had to work for.
I think I've heard of the state offering all its citizen's everything for free. Just give up all your freedoms and the state will have no difficulty in giving you what it has available. I think they call it N. Korea. The U.S. is quite unique, or used to be. We declared independence, freedom from tyranny for the opportunity and chance to make it on our own. Strangely we call these principles self-reliant means of private ownership of land, the ability to protect ourselves, and the pursuit of and not the handout of happiness.
Will some fail? Probably. Will everyone succeed? Probably not. Is it fair? Since when is anything fair? But then that is the risk of independence and liberty. How this works now with the rampant exploitation of welfare and state charity? Remains to be seen because the system is in such a disaray from all the free loaders and communistic liberal agendas that the system may be broke permanently. And that is before we get to out of country immigrants, who I'm quite certain wil work just as hard for 12 dollars to vote if they are as honest and determined as they say they want to be.
All Americans are immigrants so don't be giving me that racist BS because humanity is not subdivided by race, it is divided by hard work, integrity and honesty. To which point I say that immigration reform is at the bottom of the list of my concerns. I'm still more concerned with the supposed legal residents and multinational corporations, traders and bankers, which receive billions for making fraudulent mistakes and counting on Americans to pay for their corrupt schemes and payed off corrupt polititians.
No more bailouts and blank checks. Hold your government accountable and demand transparency. Stand up for liberty and stop giving it away.
Costaire, it depends on your particular state as to how much it costs to obtain a photo ID. In addition, there is the cost associated with obtaining the documents in order to get the photo ID. If you can't afford to pay for the certified birth certificate AND the photo ID, why should that block you from voting?
So what you are saying is that if you can't afford to pay for the documents that are REQUIRED by state law as well as the photo ID you shouldn't be ALLOWED to vote? Sorry, but the Constitution says that if you are a citizen you have a RIGHT to be able to vote. The Constitution and Supreme Court say that a POLL TAX (which is what requiring someone to pay money in order to vote - either directly to the elections commissions or via requirement to pay for documents in order to vote) is ILLEGAL. The "photo ID" people can't seem to understand that requiring someone to PAY in order to exercise their RIGHT to vote is against the law. Until and unless the states provide free copies of birth certificates and free photo ID's to all citizens, requiring a state-issued photo ID in order to exercise the RIGHT to vote is ILLEGAL. If someone can not afford to pay those fees, that does not give elitist JERKS the right to decide that their votes shouldn't be counted because of what they fear the people might vote to support. I don't agree with the politics of some people, but if they are citizens then they have a right to vote for people who will support their self-entitled wet dreams. No offense, but your comments seem to indicate that there may be some elitist feeling behind them when you advocate that the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Absolutely nailed it, Cat! What Costaire is essentially saying is that if you're too poor for his tastes, you should not be allowed to vote. That is unconscionable on so many levels that it is truly disgusting...
And while I'm at it, wasn't it Herman Cain (or someone else) who suggested with a straight face that rich people should get more than one vote?...
Or it could be, Conjuring Cat, that he is disgusted at working hard, but knowing of people playing the poor card, and getting freebies, via his tax dollars. Including illegals. I don't know, but "illegal" must have a different meaning than what I learned when I was growing up. "Illegal" BEGINS outside the law. What rights should an "illegal" have? to be found by the law enforcement officers, and processed, until he/she is "legal.".....or out.
Still doesn't address the obvious point, hiker. Why should some people get one vote, and others more than one, except that certain segments of the population want to count more than others? Or is that not a problem for you?...
hikeinmts, what about the people who work hard but still don't make enough money to afford rent AND food AND transportation to work AND medications/doctor's visits since their employers don't offer them health insurance? You and costaire seem to assume that if you're working hard you MUST be above the poverty line. Especially in today's economy, where some employers are trying to get their workers to work only part-time in order to avoid paying health insurance or a fine, some people work hard and still barely manage to scrape by. Working hard doesn't mean that you automatically are a salaried employee with lots of benefits and can afford everything and anything you want. Our society will still and will forever need people who work in the service industry, people who dig ditches, people who farm ... in other words, people who work for minimum wage. Yet I'd be willing to bet that you two would be against RAISING the minimum wage. I also bet you two have never truly known a day of want in your lives. I have personally worked with no benefits and no sick pay, hoping and praying that I didn't get sick because I couldn't afford to go to a doctor, I couldn't afford medications and I certainly couldn't afford to stay home and be sick since I needed every penny I made just to pay the rent and utilities. I personally almost DIED because I couldn't afford to go and see a doctor until I was so bad that I had to go to the ER because I couldn't breathe. But I couldn't afford to be admitted to the hospital for my pneumonia, so I left against medical advice with a prescription I couldn't afford for antibiotics, a steroid, and an inhaler. I also couldn't afford to take time off from work (which is how I ended up so freaking sick to begin with) so I stayed home for ONE DAY and tried to go back to work only to be sent home by my manager because I was too sick to work.
So the government should not require a ID to vote if it cost money but they can require me to purchase insurance.
My right to be free is as important if not more important than my right to vote, Further the very same people that are complaining about the cost to acquire a voter Id are the same ones that want to place heavy costs in the way of those of us who wish to exercise our second amendment rights.
No one is trying to deprive any US citizen of the right to vote, All that is asked is that the person is actually a citizen and that they only vote once!
When you make it impossible for some people to prove their citizens or charge them money to do the same, that is illegal.
@lost
You are wrong. The cons are trying to deprive millions of Americans the right to vote by making it next to impossible to get the required IDs.
Boy, you really don't have a clue, do you? First of all, nobody lives 'the free good life' like you imagine. That would be in your imagination. Second, many people, especially single moms, barely make enough to cover shelter and food and that is working 40/hrs/wk. $12 for her would feed her family for a couple of days, or put a little gas in the tank. No wonder republicans are know for being the party of greed and ego, they don't even have the capacity for empathy.
Alverant and lib50
If it is "next to impossible to get the required IDs" why are the number of people voting increasing in states like Indiana? Indiana has had its Voter ID law declared CONSTITUTIONAL in 2008.
I cant believe anyone would have a problem with the requirement, except for illegal people wanting to vote and commit voter fraud.
I am a US citizen born in California. I had to PROVIDE a legal copy of my Birth Certificate to prove I am a US citizen, just to get signed up for a health care program. This happened to me just this month. I am 58 years old and had to spend about 10 hours searching in the Los Angeles County Hall of records to find my birth record, because it had been misfiled by the state over 15 years ago. My birth record didn't show up in the computer systems records due to the misfiling. After actually finding my records, I obtained my certified copy and was able to provide the proof for the health care insurance I wanted.
I could yell and complain about how I was being forced to endure hardship just to acquire my birth certificate, but you know what, that would be childish. If you cant take the time and effort to Prove you are a citizen in order to vote, then maybe you should rethink being a US citizen and voting in the first place.
We don't need more voter fraud.
Lets all stop voter fraud and demand proof of Birth before being allowed to vote.
There IS NO voter fraud of any consequence whatsoever.
How many times does that need to be said and proven by investigations and FACTS?
cul:
Look at it this way... ONE BAD Vote Cancels out YOUR VOTE. So now whatever it is that you believed in and the reason you voted No Longer MATTERS because SOMEONE cast an ILLEGAL VOTE...
You No Longer Matter.
Claiming there is no voter fraud because there is no way to know who is and who is not voting fraudulently does not mean there is no voter fraud.
This is to Cul: Your nuts you putz! right now in Ohio, there are trials going on for voter fraud. what, your mainstream media doesn't do the proper reporting? better get to fox and get the real news.
Well, it seems like a birth certificate isn't enough for some people. Ask Donald Trump.
Doc, Fox News has admitted they are not a news organization, they are an entertainment channel. So if you're getting your information from Fox News, you would be better off watching CNN (which has been proven to be an impartial source).
Indeed, John. If the new ID laws don't cull out enough of the "wrong" types of voters for their tastes, expect the RWNJs to promote even new schemes to make sure that only the right people actually get to vote. Seen this movie before...
Doc, did Fox report about the voter fraud the GOP committed in Maine when one of their golden boys was caught? How about Coulter's crimes? How about when the cons in Penn admitted they wanted to keep legal voters from voting because they wouldn't vote for the "right" canidate? How about the Ohio voting machines that changed votes for Democrats to Republicans? Or how the AG of OH decided not to prosecute voter fraud by the cons.
I'm an immigrant to this country and have been a citizen since 2004. Prior to that, I couldn't vote and didn't try to.I was born in Canada and when we vote, you need to provide ID. Why is that such a probem here? Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Most states allow multiple forms of ID to vote including utility bill in your name at your address, passport, College ID, non-photo-ID Voter ID card, State photo ID or State driver's license.
The problem is legislation requiring State photo ID ONLY, which presents various barriers for those who don't drive or otherwise don't have easy access to obtain a State approved photo ID for whatever reason - even though they may have all of the other forms of ID.
Jamie
To Many Crooks.... They know they cannot make the grade without cheating.
Please, Posters like 'Re-Elect Obama 2012' are all up in arms that voters would have to spend a lousy $12 dollars to obtain a ID card, if they don't already have a drivers license (which MOST people already have), to vote with.
You need a ID to write a check at the store, buy alcohol, get into a night club or bar, I had to show mine to go to college, get a job, obtain insurance, and much much much more.
My triple A card cost three times more than my license did.
But, they also claim that illegals don't vote, which is a lie. Ask anyone who's ever sat at a polling station. WE have seen it first hand. Especially, those of us in the states where the most illegals congregate.
Angela, why should people have to pay any money for their first ammendment rights? Buying alcohol is not a right. Getting into a bar is not a right. Going to college is not a right. Free speech IS a right. You don't have to pay money to have your choice of religion so why should you have to pay money to have your legal voice heard in how the government is run?
Times: That why the cons are engaging in so much voter supression.
How do you know they were Illegals? Are you just assuming that based on the color of their skin, or that they might not be speaking english in front of you, that they are illegal? Did you actually ask them to show you proof if they were legally in the country or not?
I don't have a problem with people having to show an ID to vote. I think everyone should have to show some sort of documentation to prove they are a allowed to vote. The problem is that there needs to be more than one singular solitary form of identification that is allowable and the regulations need to be on a national level, not just the state (when you are voting for president, that is a national election so why not have the same standards for voting across the country?)
Also I have a problem with everyone focusing on one group of people. Why is it that every time anything regarding immigration people start going off on the mexicans and ONLY the mexicans? People immigrate here from all over the world and the folks from Mexico aren't the only ones that come here illegally. It's this mentality that creates racial profiling and the violation of people's rights.
When voter fraud is prosecuted and proven, then use as an example. Otherwise you are just pulling @!$%# out. The recent attempts by republicans to try to deny some citizens the right to vote is far more egregious than voting fraud. When Billy-Bob can use his gun id but a soldier can't use his military id (or student id....) that is a problem. And the id's should be free if they are required for voting. $12 may not seem like much to some, but it everything to others. And voting should not cost money.
Is that why the respondents in yesterdays oral arguments were unable to produce more than one case were an eligible voter that could potentially be disenfranchised? To register all that is required is a SS#, a driver's license, you can write down a naturalization number, you can write down an Indian tribal identification number. Why is there a "box #6" on the Federal voter registration form?
From yesterdays oral arguments:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-71.pdf
Voter fraud is not a big issue as there is very little voter fraud occurring. But acts of voter surpression are breaking out all of over the country.
MasterQ,
Using your logic then maybe bank robberies or school shootings are
really OK then. Yep is is a crime but not really happening in large numbers?
Voter registration fraud isn't happening at all. So your argument makes little sense Instances of voter fraud is low(and most of that accidental) that it would have no effect whatsoever on any election results anywhere. There simply is no history of evidence of it.
Consider how stupid it would be for a non-citizen person to put themselves at risk of discovery and deportation just to cast a vote that would not make a difference? We should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder. Now if you look at who is calling for these voter ID laws, it becomes perfectly clear what is behind them. Take Texas:
Since there is no voter fraud that can be demonstrated anywhere this push for stricter voter registration ID can only be seen nativist hysteria and an attempt at voter suppression of specific groups of people.
Actual voting fraud, when it does happen, occurs on both sides of the political spectrum and is so rare that it never influences the outcomes of elections.
Fear mongering about voter fraud is a conservative lie.
Allowing Communists from Latin America to take over the US government is the main job of OBAMA's party.
Q
Look at it this way... ONE BAD Vote Cancels out YOUR VOTE. So now whatever it is that you believed in and the reason you voted No Longer MATTERS because SOMEONE cast an ILLEGAL VOTE...
You No Longer Matter.
cul
Vote Fraud doesn't happen????
What is this then?
Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November
She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.
Richardson had admitted on camera to a local TV station, "Yes, I voted twice," claiming she was concerned that her vote would not count. She also said there "was no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud."
"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," she proclaimed in the interview.
Melowese Richardson is a citizen, not an illegal. Her alleged offense is that she voted absentee in the name of some of her family members. If she's found guilty she should serve her sentence.
Regardless, it made no difference to the outcome of the election.
re:
Hey Butt Head... FRAUD is FRAUD doesn't matter if an illegal or legal committed it.
What part of "she should serve her sentence" did you not understand?
The point is that true fraud occurs on both sides of the political spectrum and is so rare that it never affects the outcome of elections.
Time,
two votes, wow; thats going to fk over the whole system....
If all you have is one example, or even fifty, you have no case. There are tens of millions of votes cast. Once they find voter fraud that scales into the hundreds of thousands give me a call and we shall talk then.
Hey Geowil: If there is one murder in the country, you have no example. or even fifty, you have no case right? ONCE THEY FIND MURDER that scales in the hundreds or thousands, give me a call and We will talk about it then.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.UUcR9RyTiXl
Doc,
Murder is worse than voter fraud. A vote is worth much less than someones life.
The last case I heard about voter fraud was an elderly woman with dementia who accidentally voted twice. The prosecutor in the case said she was charging her for fear of losing her job. The problem with the voter fraud argument is the number of people who actually commit voter fraud is astronomically small. You have to up to the voter place, and bring a form of id to vote. It takes thousands of votes to swing elections so that would mean you would need thousands of volunteers you actually pull it off.
Other ways the GOP has pushed voter suppression is limiting the number of days you can vote and limiting the number of booths in areas where they KNOW a high percentage of minorities vote. Look if I'm and illegal immigrant the last place i am going to show up is some place where they require multiple forms of ID.
Dome
One Example....
Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November
She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.
Richardson had admitted on camera to a local TV station, "Yes, I voted twice," claiming she was concerned that her vote would not count. She also said there "was no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud."
"I'll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama's right to sit as president of the United States," she proclaimed in the interview.
No surprises here.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2012 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
• Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
• Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice
• Attorney General Eric Holder
• Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
• Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
• President Barack Obama
• Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
• Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
• Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
Judicial Watch is a right wing nut job conservative organization.
They are not to be taken seriously.
I disagree. I think any attempts at voter suppression is to be taken very seriously indeed. I think it is vital to expose the roots of financial and political basis such organizations represent.
I'll agree with taking voter suppression seriously. I only meant that their assessment of corruption is laughable...
The "handle" you are using says all that needs to be said about your post!
awww still bitter about losing the election huh?
lol
Marxist Mayhem, After reading your list, I just had to see how non-partisan this organization was, so I went to their web page, and, sure enough, a big banner announced that JW announced a major sponsorship of CPAC. Nothing like citing sources who don't have a dog in the hunt.
So as in post 4.2 you register your dog and he gets a write in ballot?
The only people that have a problem with a voter ID requirement are those that have been cheating the system.
Only a dupe would accept that reasoning. I have a problem with it and I'm a white, 64 yr old natural born American citizen who can recognize Jim Crow and attempts at voter suppression in an instant. The loud resistance to these recent attempts at it is happening because there are a lot of people just like me who are not being fooled by the rationales being foisted by the conservatives and racists involved.
culheath
"...but illegal voter registration and voting is not. Why would an illegal immigrant take the risk? This stuff is nothing more than a new form of Jim Crow"
Oh, as much as some people like to assign the non-burden of proving you're a citizen to vote, the identification requirements are nothing like Jim Crow laws, they are not even in the same league for concern. regardless of the twisting of facts and crocodile tears coming from the rights groups! If these "disenfranchised" voters have no problem producing an ID to rent a car or buy beer or cash a check, where is the added burden in producing an ID for something that has so much implications to who is elected to represent whom as voting!
If you want a prime example of how it is possible for illegals to vote, just look at Raul Grijalva's district in Arizona!
I lived in Tucson, Arizona for 16 years and it is common knowledge that his District is heavily populated with illegal aliens (ooops! I mean "undocumented" crossers), and, surprise, surprise, he manages to get elected in that District EVERYTIME there is an election that he is up for, no other Candidate has come close to defeating him since they redid the lines to preserve his District's predominant Latino constituency.
I am Liberal by registration but I think there is ample reason to be concerned about non-citizens voting in certain dense ethnic areas of the Country!
Then it should be easy to prove. You are assuming there is fraud why exactly?
I'm left-of-center myself and I rather agree, although I'd drop the "dense ethnic areas". Proof of citizenship should be required across the board simply because the "penalty of perjury" is a joke. Assuming they actively enforced that policy (which the government clearly doesn't), it would cost the government millions every election year just to end up with a bunch of slap-on-the-wrist penalties to offenders.
Swearing "under penalty of perjury" is really nothing more than a glorified honor system that has no real checks and little legal teeth. "I'm an American, honest! I sign paper!"
Not requiring proof of citizenship in a country as large and populous as the US is just silly.
No one is saying ID should not be required to vote. We are complaining about the TYPE of ID being required.
culhealth, with the number of stolen identities in this country, http://business.time.com/2012/11/20/study-10000-identity-theft-rings-in-u-s/, 9 MILLION US citizens per year, including MINE, providing a picture ID isn't good enough! You claim why would a illegal alien risk deportation by going to vote? What deportation? ICE already released thousands who are at "risk" of deportation; the illegal aliens ride around in buses, while proclaiming to the world they came here illegally and nothing is done about them; ICE refuses to investigate businesses that hire illegal aliens, even though there is a LAW requiring them to fine and jail any employer who hires illegal aliens. Why shouldn't an ILLEGAL ALIEN make the effort to vote? If enough of them did get together, say in California, it COULD actually skew the voting. Do I need to go on?
I think you should be required to provide fingerprints for EVERY ID you get, i.e., drivers licenses, bank cards, VOTER REGISTRATION, and THEN, when using those forms of ID, you must provide your fingerprints to use them.
You want national registration cards? Papers please!
What happen to the 4th amendment in your estimation?
No one, including our government, bothers to follow the Constitution, until they drag it out to support their "position". Everyone claims it must be time to change it, so why not now? You don't think a Social Security card, isn't "national registration"? The government REQUIRES everyone, when born now, to apply for a social security card. If that's not "national registration" I don't know what is.
Well, the, NM, is your SS card is in effect a national ID, then why not accept it as proof of ID, as several states refuse to do? Culheath's issue, as I've read it, is that there is no uniformity in which forms of identity are required to obtain a valid voter ID. His most egregious example is Texas' acceptance of gun permits as acceptable ID while refusing college and other forms of ID. It makes Texas look like it has an agenda about which kinds of person get to vote there...
Conjuring Cat
Precisely.
politics is trying to figuare out how to stay in or get power. in some states now everyone has to show proof of citizenship to get or renew your license. that law while a pain in the a-- was not litigated but requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote or an i.d. to vote well that's just not fair, really?
re-elect says illegals hide "under the radar". I guess you weren't here last summer when thousands of them were demonstrating across this country.
lol
Citizens all of them. There are at least 52 million Hispanic U.S. Citizens as of the 2010 Census.
Illegals won't risk arrest and deportation.
Re-Elect , How can you speak for all illegals unless your one of them?
Bull-chit: They were telling the reporters, they were illegal. A bus load was even travailing from town to town, to get attention.
You do realize how much of a stretch that example of voter fraud is right? One old lady? C'mon dudes, if you've got evidence show it. The fact is you can't because study after study on both state and federal levels has clearly demonstrated voter fraud is almost non-existent.
You might find these articles instructive:
Who Created the Voter-Fraud Myth? : The New Yorker
Voter ID Laws Study: Voter Fraud Even Rarer Than The Odds of Winning Mega Millions
Study finds voter fraud nearly nonexistent
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer
Looks like Arizona will lose another GOP state law. In the last 4 years they have lost every case that went in front of a court except one. Look at SB1070. The courts took the guts right out of that one.
The AZ. GOP even tried to change the voting districts after they were drawn up because they felt they lost the advantage. Then they turn around and try to restrict voting by making it more difficult to vote for the people that often vote against them.
Anyone see a pattern?
They will not lose this case, it is only common sense if a state asks for a photo I.D. then you will need to show it. This is so much B.S.
The issue, as has been pointed out by culheath numerous times, is what passes as acceptable documentation to obtain that voter ID card. When Texas accepts gun permits as legit documentation but not other similar forms, a perception is created (which might be true, but might not) that they only want certain types of people voting in their state...
lol PA lost their case because when challenged, they could not provide a single case of voter fraud where an illegal had signed up to vote. I expect this will not change with this case either. Its purely to disenfranchise minorities. Fun fact: more Dems got votes in the House than GOP, yet the GOP has the majority..anyone else see the problem there? Gerrymandering districts perhaps?? Dont try and tell me the GOP isnt cheating with elections.
I had to show my I.D. to get in the Seminole Hard Rock Casino Sat. nite. I guess the Indians don't trust us
It is harder to buy a can of beer then it is to vote, yet I don't see people complaining about being carded for that. Maybe we just need to say I am legal so I can buy a gun, drive a vehicle, buy booze, and vote, no proof required.
Buying beer is not a right. Voting is a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
cat: Owning a gun is also a right. Buy one at a gun shop without ID.
Times, You asked if it is discrimination to require a license to drive a car, while at the same time that's exactly what you scream when asked to do the same to own a gun. It's all good to demand responsibility from others, but I can do whatever I please. In some cases it does occur, but so does voter suppression. Is one worse than the other? Republicans always whine about voter fraud, while they use every trick in the book to slant elections in their favor, from limiting voting machines in heavily Democrat districts, to intimidation of potential voters, to gerrymandering, to refusing a voter's right because he has the same name as a convicted felon. 2000 and 2004 both, many eligible voters were denied for being confused with felons. This was in Florida, which, with the help of the Supreme Court, gave the election to Bush in 2000. Campaign workers working for Tom DeLay of Texas were instrumental in that Florida decision. Wonder what Texas campaign workers were doing in Florida, trying to influence that vote? But Republicans never try to influence elections.
Unadulterated bullchit.
One has to be a citizen to vote in the United States. So why is it that you libs have such an issue with requiring people to prove they are citizens when registering? As long as the requirement applies to all people who register, it is not discrimatory.
The problem is one of documentation. What documents are accepted as proof of citizenship? If you're accepting gun permits on the one hand, but denying driver's licenses on the other, you honestly don't see how that could be perceived as a problem? If there was one easily understandable and accessible source of information on citizenship in order to obtain ID, then there would indeed be no problem. It's when the state's requirements turn out to be a shell game that problems arise...
conjuring:
Gun permits are not required in Arizona. Open or concealed, is legal here.
They are in Texas, apparently, and are accepted as proof of citizenship. Now why would they be acceptable as a form of ID and not other types of documentation like driver's licenses (which are not accepted in some states)? Do you see the point that we need some kind of consistent standard for voter ID documentation, or should states be allowed to set whatever "standard" they see fit, even if it's to suit a partisan agenda?...
The article is about Arizona.
Indeed, and if a naturalized citizen were to move to AZ from some other state with different requirements, can you not see how that would be a burden to him or her? A national standard eliminates that problem...
I nor my state NEED the feds control.
Folks like you want someone to always be there to tell you what you must do.
When voting you should be required to show the same ID that anyone purchasing a gun from a gun dealer shows.
That can bring up a lot of voting fraud.
Harry, you're missing the entire point.
No one is against citizens registering. It's the ridiculous degrees that is at issue.
It's time for Congress to step in and take control over federal elections that will create a reasonable and standarized requirement to manage its own elections. Sates should not have the right to establish rules or guidelines for national elections.
We have enough proof that when "certain" states are left to their own devise they get ridiculous depending on the current ruling party and their chances in elections.
Yeah, like 59 districts in Phila. not having a single Rep vote... not event the Rep district chairmen... that is ridiculous.... guess they figured out a better way than having Black Panthers chase away conservative voters... just stuff the ballots....