My, how convenient!
Not that I’d presume to tell them what to do, of course (because of the Otherness), but were it me, I’d probably vote myself some free healthcare, free college tuition, provisional citizenship (keeping alive my free healthcare and tuition), and maybe try to get a ballot initiative together that would require Bexar County, TX to provide me with a new Dodge Nitro. From the WOAI:
Hundreds of illegal immigrants have registered to vote in Bexar County in recent years and dozens of them have actually cast ballots, canceling out the votes of U.S. citizens, 1200 WOAI news will report Thursday morning.
Figures obtained by 1200 WOAI news shows 303 illegals successfully registered to vote, and at least 41 cast ballots in various elections
Bexar County Elections Administrator Jackie Callanan confirmed the figures, but she says a new form of voter registration card, which requires people to swear they are citizens when they register, should help cut the problem, because people who vote illegally can be charged with perjury.
And of course, perjury is a crime. Whereas coming across the border illegally? Not so much.
[…] the county has some sly ways to catch them.
“Maybe they have received a jury summons, the jury wheel relies on registered voters. They send a statement to the jury room that says they are not U.S. citizens and then we get that report immediately,” Callanan says.
Because missing jury duty? That’s a crime. Whereas crossing the border illegally? Well, you get the picture.
What’s so frustrating here is that we can see the bureaucratic “thinking” involved in “problem-solving”—the assumption being that bureaucracies are better gatekeepers than, say, fences or some more pro-active strategy, like increasing the number of legal immigrants granted entry to the country each year in exchange for a broader guest worker program and a corresponding serious crackdown on illegal immigration (the lack of which has been a cheapening of the rule of law).
For their part, Texas Republicans are going the “ID” route, which is unnerving for civil libertarians, but which has its merits in addition to its pitfalls (not the least of which is that it moves the US more toward a state wherein people can be asked for their “papers”—something that, while perhaps Constitutionally permissable, is nonetheless anathema to the spirit of our founding). Ironically, nannystatism—which has long been to province of “progressive” politics—provides the Republicans with a useful argument, one that highlights the slippery slope of silly government interventions quite nicely:
“Considering that a photo ID is required to buy Sudafed, I can’t understand why anyone would argue that the same standard, if not a higher standard, should apply to voting,” Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst said. “Why would any Texan oppose legislation that ensures only U.S. citizens vote in elections?”
[…]
Some Democrats in the Legislature have fought the proposal, saying it would keep the poor and minorities, who generally vote Democratic, away from the polls. A key Democratic Senator and Dewhurst got into an argument on the floor of the Senate over the emotional issue.
Callanan says if an ID law is approved, she hopes a process is in place to allow the Secretary of State, not the individual poll judges at the polling places, to inspect the identification and certify that a voter is fit to vote.
Dewhurst says the legislation has been rewritten to make it as easy as possible for a person to prove their legal citizenship.
“Voters can now present military ID, valid employee ID, citizenship certificate, passport, student ID card, handgun permit, utility bill, bank statement, pay stub, mail from a government entity, marriage license, birth certificate, adoption certificate, pilot’s license, hunting license, or even a library card,” Dewhurst said. “What’s so hard about this?”
It would seem that such a “burden” would not, as “some Democrats” argue, keep the poor or minorities from voting—if those poor minorities happen to be citizens.
And while I deplore the idea of having to show papers proving citizenship, I have to admit that it is the lesser of two evils, if having to do so means that a US citizen’s vote won’t be potentially nullified by a competing vote from an illegal.
Anybody have any better suggestions?
(h/t CJ Burch; Patterico has additional thoughts; see also, Hot Air, where Allahpundit touches on this retrieved Dem memo).
****
update: related thoughts, from Rick Moran.
update dos: Ace is none too pleased with the White House, nor is NRO…
(h/t Bob Owens)
Incidentally, I trackbacked to 3 posts, none of which took.
Part of my traffic problem recently is tied to this kind of thing. Anyone good enough with Expression Engine that they can fix this, the fact that my server clock is always wrong, and the fact that I can’t upload photos anymore?
Because that would be SUPER!
It might also help if somebody can figure out how to get my top post to show up when you click on the comments.
That way, people from other sites might actually consider LINKING my posts—because, you know, their readers would be able to see them.
I need to switch to Word Press or something. Unfortunately, I can’t port my archives over automatically if I do that.
Sorry, can’t help with the computer/server problem but per your post: welcome to a permanent Democrat majority.
I’m having a hard time deciding if I would like living in Switzerland or Australia better. Any thoughts?
Idaho.
Or hell, let’s just start our own country. We can use my subdivision.
Well that’s just great. I already live in Idaho.
Well, I say the burden isn’t big enough! How about we make everyone who shows up factor a simple polynomial before they get a ballot? Citizen or not.
It would sure cut down on the “illiterate moron” factor, and that’s GOTTA be a plus, y’know?
Switzerland for the chocolate
or
Australia for the Beer and Sheep (although I hear the Aussie ladies are hot enough to write home about)
…or me. Really, why bother with the GOP? What’s the point?
And I thought that the Italian government, with its intention to give legal immigrants the right to vote in local elections after 5 years residence, was taking a step too far…
Wait, so what exactly do I get for being a citizen?
Ah, at this time (18 May 2007, 19:20 CET, summer time) I can see the post when clicking on “comments”.
Rosie O’Donnell as a compatriot.
Fabio. I just put up another post, which bumped this one down.
Given that at the time of the Founding, there were property requirements to vote, I can’t really see that requiring proof of citizenship for the act of voting, which is naturally restricted to citizens – and where such proof is given for free to citizens who can’t afford to pay – is contrary to American principles.
Requiring “papers” for and only for that specific activity, which is Constitutionally limited to the very group the “papers” are there to enforce said restriction to, well, sorry – I don’t really see any accurate echoes of either the Gestapo or the NKVD.
When you need “papers” to walk down the street, or buy groceries (with cash), we can talk oppression, though.
(And preemptively contra moonbats, no, the Supreme Court decision upholding Nevada’s requirement that people stopped by police identify themselves, is not a requirement to carry “papers”. At least, if one bothers to read the decision, that is.)
It’s nothing short of amazing to be told that despite the crisis for funding social security, we just got millions of more leeches to feed all so Bush can try to the Mexican version of Abraham Lincoln.
Thanks for selling my family down the river, ass clowns.
Sigivald —
Yes, and women didn’t have the vote, and blacks were chattel.
But those were distinctions made about who was considered a free person. I don’t mean to compare any of this to NKVD or the Gestapo—and I don’t think I did—rather to suggest that the civil libertarian part of me feels uncomfortable with such measures.
However, I do recognize it might be a necessary “evil”—and I’m not sure it amounts to anything more than an inconvenience, practically. It’s just the symbolism that bums me out a bit.
Still, if there are no better solutions… I guess that’s why I asked.
I think a key distinction is that regardless of the left’s continual harping about voting being a right, it is not according to the Constitution. It is a responsibility, and should be treated as such. There is no legitimate reason I can see to object to a real voter ID card. If you can’t manage to be responsible enough to get a card, you are not responsible enough to be making decisions affecting those of us who are.
This is one of those hot-button issues, I think. I plan to remain calm. The status quo sucks, and there’s nothing to prevent revisiting provisions of the bill once its flaws are made manifest. Democracy is messy, and all the people who were waiting for a perfect little immigration policy to spring from Athena’s empty little head are are all bitter and angry. Well, I for one am not sticking my head out the window to do the mad as hell bit. I’m just not.
Maybe after breakfast.
Jeff:
You can export to Movable Type export format and then import that into a WordPress blog.
I’m available for free consult if you need it.
I can barely fix the much smaller annoyances my own copy of EE throws at me. All I could suggest is getting the latest build of the latest version, and/or bugging EE tech support for help.
That sounds wise because there’s no guarantee that a different platform will have the block-quotey thing. And as we have learned with immigration policy, change can be very unsettling.
I’m sorry, but before the 2006 elections (remember those?) congressional Republicans were blocking legislation like this, and actually dragging Bush their way on the issue.
I was saying before the election that anyone who was genuinely pissed at Bush for his squishiness on illegal immigration, shouldn’t take it out on the good guys.
But they did. Nobody ever listens to me when I’m right. It’s gotten to be the only way I know I am right.
And I totally think McGehee is right, not just in substance but in attitude also.
Living in Southern California, I guess it is my turn to assimilate into the Latin culture. No one is illegal any longer right?
That’s the spirit, T. Have you ever been to the subway station at Universal City? It’s covered in murals with accompanying text that explains how you acquired your imperialist oppressor status, and offers tips on how to go about acknowledging just whose land this is.
You do realize that, by listening to me, you just proved me wrong?
That is a paradox, but you are completely right about how foolish some of the logic in 06 was. That Ponnuru guy comes to mind.
Fuck it. We’ll just give the Dems control over the ship of state and let them run it aground on a big-ass shoal of socialism. That’ll solve the problem; no one will want to come here.
ding, ding, ding!
as far as “requiring papers” there are so many things that already require this (driving, showing I can legally work in the US, etc.) I’m not sure why requiring it for voting would be any more onerous.
I’ve said it before, but I enjoy repeating myself: the Federal Government has made it a disadvantage to be a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. We’re on the hook for jury duty, taxes, and the draft (when there is one). Illegals are not.
Illegal immigrants are a drain on social services. They are a drain on the prison system. I want them deported, and a fence built. I don’t care what it costs. In the long term, it will be cheaper than allowing them to stay.
A tax bill.
“They are a drain on the prison system.”
Very true, California’s prison system is filled illlegal immigrants or children of illegal immigrants. The big joke here is the point system regarding your education level or skill set. What the F$%#!!!!! I guess the INS will save money on diesel fuel, no more buses full of illegals headed south to the border…..
And that’s enough to make the Infant Deity of Your Choosing cry.
Voters should be required to show a copy of their W-2 before voting.
To save my sanity, I’ve decided that what you proved me wrong about was that nobody listens to me when I’m right.
Now, of course, I have no way of knowing when I’m right. I’ll just have to wing it from now on, I guess.
One of the other issues with the Senate bill is that it includes the DREAM Act: an amnesty for illegal alien students + in-state tuition for them.
That results in illegal aliens being able to take college discounts from U.S. citizens, and that would be a wonderful thing to point out to amnesty supporters at their public events.
They had a press briefing on the DREAM thing today. My rep Howard Berman sponsored it. Can’t see where it’s been written up yet.
What’s so frustrating here is that we can see the bureaucratic “thinking†involved in “problem-solvingâ€Â
The thinking i’m not seeing is how they know these people are not citizens, or even here illegally.
They get a report, Chris.
Well that is easy, the brown skin is a dead giveaway.
That and the beady eyes and suspicious behavior.
Chris, besides B Moe’s incisive technique, I find that Reading The Complete Post also helps.
Revolution?
Seriously, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. These bureaucrats are looking for ways to avoid confronting anyone about citizenship status now like they have for years. On the federal level, there has been no enforcement for six years and there will be no enforcement in the future.
What we have here is end stage Jacksonian democracy. Whether we can survive this torrent of riotous humanity is another question.
Chris, besides B Moe’s incisive technique, I find that Reading The Complete Post also helps.
I noticed that. That means they’re not US citizens. Not that they’re illegals. It also said ‘maybe,’ so I took that to mean it was speculative.
I know from your previous discussion with Pablo that you are functionally illiterate, but we are not chris. Go learn to read and maybe take some troll lessons then come back and see us, because you are way out of your league here.
Like I said, It also said “maybe,” which leads me to believe this is not how they have determined they are all not us citizens. Which is why I asked how they did this. If they did this for all of them, then no “maybe” is required, and that answers 1 part of my question. They have part of my question answered, at best. Aren’t you curious how it is that radio stations determine someone’s immigration status?
Pablo thinks that when someone is pregnant there isn’t a mother and father. Go sort out literacy in that la-la land. Go have your wife or daughter get pregnant and not concern yourself with who the father is because, according to Pablo, there isn’t a father.
No, I think children have a mother and a father. You seem to think that a pregnancy doesn’t involve a child, except for when it suits your rhetoric to argue it the other way.
As I said, which confounded you so:
Argue that if you like (which I know you don’t because you can’t do it), but realize that you’re going to have to sell your spiel to those nutjobs who write dictionaries. Or, you can simply explain how a condition has a father.
Squishy mind, squishy language. I could make a fortune on mental Viagra.
Think real hard chris, maybe something will come to you.
Also, the “maybe” you are obsessed with was wielded by the County Elections Administrator, not the radio station, and “maybe” she only gave one example because “maybe” she didn’t want to tell the criminals how to avoid getting caught.
Its not clear where they got the figures from. Or what they say—like if the figures just say the conclusion or if the radio station had to put them together to figure out the numbers. Or how an elections official determines someone immigration status.
I know the maybe came from the administrator, not the AM radio station. It came from the only source that is revealed as a possible source or confirmation of the figures. If they don’t want to say how they got their data, how they sorted out who is a citizens and who is illegal, fine.
Pablo, I think the resolution is this: if someone is pregant, do you wonder or care who the father is? Thats all I’m talking about when I talk about fathers and mothers and pregnancies. Apparently this is some language problem.
Amazing. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone as utterly oblivious to context.
But it is clear that the Bexar County Elections Administrator confirmed them.
Yes, and I care what his rights and obligations are and whether he has any comparable privacy interest to that of the mother.
Yes, it is. And the problem is that you want to refer to in the context of a father’s obligation to a pregnancy, when in fact the obligation is to a child. But when it comes to rights, you want to spin it as something that is not a father’s child to be disposed of, but solely a Mother’s body issue. It can’t be both, and the term pregnancy indicates a condition which has also long been referred to as being “with child”.
Then you get bent out of shape at the notion that killing the child in utero is opting out of parental responsibility. You insist that it is nothing more than “terminating a pregnancy”, and bristle at any other description, no matter how factually accurate it may be. Using the proper terminology clears up this distinction which you have muddied with squishy language and the misuse of terms. That clarity is anathema to your argument.
Well, there was actus. But chris is making an impressive run at his title.
Chris, the “maybe” means that Callahan is illustrating one of the methods that they learned of illegal voters.
That you choose deliberately to Not Read The Complete Post is very indicative. It means that you will ignore whatever data it takes to avoid having your worldview affected by reality.
And if your particular worldview is that Democrats don’t stuff ballot boxes that takes ignoring alot of fucking data.
No job too big, no job too small.