Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Nov 3, 2007, 03:30 PM
    Illegal emigrants voting
    Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com Staff Writer reported:
    “New York Democratic Gov. Elliott Spitzer pushed the policy, enacted last month, as a "common sense change" to give illegal aliens "the opportunity to obtain a driver license in a responsible and secure manner."
    But opponents of the plan immediately cited homeland security concerns, recalling that 9/11 hijackers had obtained phony driver's licenses.”

    Licenses-for-Illegals Faces Court Challenge in New York -- 11/02/2007

    However what he didn't report was that the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
    This brings another serious problem that a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, “This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier” by John Fund does bring to light and, that is voter fraud. I wonder if this will pass the “Bull Test.”

    OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail

    Who, he asks, are for granting a drivers license to illegal emigrants?
    Democrat's, he answers and uses Hillary Clinton as an example along with New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

    Meanwhile Arnold Ahlert a columnist for the NY Post for the past seven years enters the fracas, or farces, which is yet to be determined; with the question.
    “What could be more threatening to our democratic republic than voter fraud? Nothing. What could be more threatening to the ambitions of the American Left–MoveOn.org, Code Pink, George Soros, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, et al–than fraud-FREE elections? Nothing.
    In the 2008 election, two political parties will be vying for your vote. It is worth remembering which party is willing to make a complete mockery of your one opportunity to participate in our democratic process. As a conservative, it is somewhat annoying to realize that a liberal “cancels out” my vote.
    That an illegal alien–or a terrorist thug–could do the same thing is an absolute outrage.

    Political Mavens » 9/11 Terrorists–Registered to Vote

    How many of the 12-20 million illegal aliens in the country do you want voting?
    Choux's Avatar
    Choux Posts: 3,047, Reputation: 376
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Nov 3, 2007, 04:02 PM
    This is all bureaucratic bs. A drivers license does not need to be some sort of *official identification card*!! That is ridiculous!

    Every American needs a "passport" or some sort or "legal ID" for that purpose. This id can be processed through the police stations in every town village and city in America.

    We need to know who are citizens and who aren't. The immigration situation is a mess and BUSH DID **NOTHING** TO ADVANCE A BETTER SITUATION.
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Nov 3, 2007, 04:26 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Choux
    This is all bureaucratic bs. A drivers license does not need to be some sort of *official identification card*!!! That is ridiculous!!

    Every American needs a "passport" or some sort or "legal ID" for that purpose. This id can be processed through the police stations in every town village and city in America.

    We need to know who are citizens and who aren't. The immigration situation is a mess and BUSH DID **NOTHING** TO ADVANCE A BETTER SITUATION.
    The immigration issue began long before Bush came into the picture. I whole heartily agree that he has not done what is needed to fix it. One problem is in immigration law that makes it too expensive and troublesome for the poor immigrant from Mexico and South America with relatives already here. But my concern in the OP is them voting.
    Choux's Avatar
    Choux Posts: 3,047, Reputation: 376
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Nov 3, 2007, 04:41 PM
    Bush has been president for seven years and did nothing... offered no leadership. So what how long this has been a problem, everyone who reads knows it has been a terrible problem for a long time.

    The election isn't until 11-08... Bush can institute a national ID card for citizens... citizens vote, citizens have birth certificates and other documents.

    There is no reason why drivers licenses should be an important id. Haven't you seen the kind of people who work at the Department of Motor Vehicles??
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Nov 4, 2007, 02:37 AM
    Choux ; Bush supported the foolish comprehensive legislation that the Dem. Controlled Congress tried to ram down our thoats in the spring. His only problem on immigration is he's got priorities screwed up;just like the Dems. He wants amnesty before enforcing the laws.
    Choux's Avatar
    Choux Posts: 3,047, Reputation: 376
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Nov 4, 2007, 12:09 PM
    Tom, reading comprehension please! I know you are anxious to lie about my comment, but PLEASE!! My comment:

    "This is all bureaucratic bs. A drivers license ***does not need to be*** some sort of *official identification card*!! That is ridiculous!

    I stated I was in favor of an identification card for **citizens**, all citizens of America, if that wasn't clear.

    Drivers licenses *SHOULD BE JUST FOR DRIVING*... for example, I have no driver's license and hence no picture id. I have nothing but a library card and a medicare card. THAT'S NOTHING IN THIS DAY AND AGE!! I SHOULD HAVE A TAMPER PROOF CITIZEN IDENTIFICATION CARD, AND SO SHOULD ALL CITIZENS.

    All this can be accomplished fairly easily by Bush speaking out on this subject and having a law passed in Congress... each police station in America can issue the Citizen's ID after the bureaucratic stuff is worked out.

    I guess Bush doesn't want that despite all his talk about war, terrorist attacks, be very afraid speeches... we don't know who the heck is in our country or entering our country through porous borders!
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Nov 4, 2007, 12:31 PM
    Political Mavens » OUT OF THE DARKNESS

    Why such hostility to foreigners?

    Statistics.

    Until there's an eruption, the chattering classes of Paris, Antwerp, Lisbon, Copenhagen etc. don't see the trouble in the slums where Muslim youth smolders. Beltway politicians rarely glimpse the barrios of the West Coast where Latina illegitimacy has become an epidemic, and gang violence is spreading by the day. Nor do they care to make too much of the Islamic threat at home and abroad.

    But the people know what the journalists and politicians don't. They express themselves inside the voting booth, when the curtain is drawn and they don't have to fake their enthusiasm for an inclusive curriculum.

    When the November 2008 rolls around, that unpublicized feeling will have a profound effect on the American elections. As in Europe, the party that refuses to acknowledge reality is condemned to defeat, or to a short and ineffective rule. The cuckoo clock is ticking.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Nov 5, 2007, 03:24 AM
    Choux I am opposed to giving illegals any form of official ID . Regardless if you think the driver's license should or should not be legit form of ID for voting... in NY it is .So Spitzer's move to get illegals licenses is an attempt to enfranchise them.

    President Bush supports real id. Where have you been ? ;Bush supports most of the Democrat immigrant initiatives . This is where he gets in trouble wth his own party.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #9

    Nov 5, 2007, 07:58 AM
    And once again, Chou weighs in on the wrong side of the issue.

    Chou, what piece of ID do you use when you get on an airplane for a domestic flight?

    What piece of ID do you use at your local bank?

    What piece of ID do you use when you fill out a government form?

    What piece of ID do you use when applying for a job?

    What piece of ID is at the top of Column B on the I-9 tax form, the list of legal foms of identification.

    What piece of ID is the most often used form for voter registration?

    The drivers license.

    Issuing a drivers license to illegal immigrants essentially grants them citizenship status. It gives them a legal ID with which they can register to vote. It gives them ID with which they can apply for jobs that they are not legally entitled to. There is no way to change that fact. Saying that a drivers license "doesn't need to be some form of identification card" completely ignores the fact that that is exactly what it is... exactly the purpose for which it is intended by the government, in fact.

    A drivers license IS an ID card. It identifies the cardholder as a person having legal status in the state of issue. A drivers license in the hands of illegal immigrants is a statement that the holder has legal status in that state... a fact which is NOT TRUE. And the fact is that in many states, possibly in most states though I am not sure, a person with a drivers license can register to vote, either on the spot or before the date of election. There is no feasible way to keep illegals with drivers licenses from being able to vote. Ergo, the only way to stop that from occurring is to keep them from getting drivers licenses.

    Spitzer is dead wrong on this issue... and so is Chou.

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #10

    Nov 5, 2007, 09:35 AM
    Hello:

    We need comprehensive immigration reform. That's problem "A". Instead, we had a congress who wouldn't/couldn't do the job.

    Whether illegals have a driver's license or not, or whether they vot or not are problems "J" or "K". They're WAY down the list. Trying to fix problems "J" or "K", or even "B" or "C", without FIRST fixing problem "A", is not only impossible, but kind of stupid.

    I do agree that in the absence of a national solution, the states are trying to fill in. But they can't, because it's a NATIONAL problem. Therefore, EVERY state remedy is going to be the WRONG remedy.

    excon
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Nov 5, 2007, 09:44 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon
    Hello:

    We need comprehensive immigration reform. That's problem "A". Instead, we had a congress who wouldn't/couldn't do the job.

    Whether illegals have a driver’s license or not, or whether they vot or not are problems "J" or "K". They're WAY down the list. Trying to fix problems "J" or "K", or even "B" or "C", without FIRST fixing problem "A", is not only impossible, but kinda stupid.

    I do agree that in the absence of a national solution, the states are trying to fill in. But they can't, because it's a NATIONAL problem. Therefore, EVERY state remedy is going to be the WRONG remedy.

    excon
    You miss the point in the OP. Are some Democrats trying to make it easy for illegal immigrants to vote because most would vote for Democrats? The issue is not immigration but voter fraud.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #12

    Nov 5, 2007, 09:53 AM
    Hello again, DC:

    I also missed the nexus between getting a drivers license and voting. When I was in the slam, I had a driver's license. It was stamped in big red letters 'FEDERAL PRISONER".

    Wouldn't you think that the driver's license Spitzer is talking about would have something stamped on it, like "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT"? Uhhh, I think that would stop them from voting.

    But, I suppose you think Democrats are too stupid to think of that.

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #13

    Nov 5, 2007, 09:57 AM
    The problem, excon, is that there is no consensus agreement on what "A" is. Or rather there is a consensus, but the majority of politicians aren't interested in following that consensus.

    The disagreement lies in whether "solution A" lies in cutting off the flow of immigants and enforcing borders and employment laws, or whether it lies in legalizing immigrants who are already here.

    The consensus of public opinion is that the first step to dealing with illegal immigration is to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. 80% of the country (a consensus by any measure) supports that idea, but the politicians (and apparently you) seem to disagree with that being "solution A", for varying reasons (cheap labor, votes, immigrants' rights, whatever). From the perspective of most Americans, you can't fix the busted pipes until you first cut the water flow.

    But if the politicians aren't going to go along with that consensus opinion, then we are at a standoff as to what "solution A" actually should be. What form should "comprehensive reform" take? What does it look like?

    The Kennedy plan that was supported by Bush, called the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill" was anything but comprehensive or reformative. It didn't address such issues as enforcement (the major one that the people want to see), criminal deportations, law enforcement's right to check immigration status, the status of LEGAL immigrants awaiting entry into the USA, or the status of foreign relatives of illegal immigrants who would be legalized by the bill.

    So the fact that Congress voted the bill down is a GOOD thing, since it would have screwed up more than it fixed.

    I agree that we need comprehensive immigration reform. I think the process should indeed be streamlined, and I believe that the system needs better monitoring as well. But I also believe that in order for an immigration bill to be truly COMPREHENSIVE it needs include enforcement of immigation laws and border security. Anything else is just a band-aid measure on a major wound that really needs a pressure bandage and trauma care, not a band-aid.

    Elliot
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #14

    Nov 5, 2007, 10:01 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon
    Hello again, DC:

    I also missed the nexus between getting a drivers license and voting. When I was in the slam, I had a driver’s license. It was stamped in big red letters 'FEDERAL PRISONER".

    Wouldn't you think that the driver’s license Spitzer is talking about would have something stamped on it, like "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT"? Uhhh, I think that would stop them from voting.

    But, I suppose you think Democrats are too stupid to think of that.

    excon
    Nothing is said in the policy that was enacted; that is part of the reason for the law suit. So yes, I think he is that stupid, and so is Clinton for agreeing with him. In fact, she is taking a lot of heat for it.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #15

    Nov 5, 2007, 10:16 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    The problem, excon, is that there is no consensus
    Hello again, El:

    I agree. And, your point is??

    I didn't say the solution is going to be easy. It's not. And, it's because congress did NOTHING about it for 50 years. The problem festered. The solution is going to be painful.

    So what?? That does NOT absolve congress. They don't need consensus. They need leadership and balls. I think we should throw the bums out.

    I'm not going to agree with whatever solution they come up with. You aren't either. On THIS subject, however, I agree with BUSH. He's a wonderful man.

    excon
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #16

    Nov 5, 2007, 10:22 AM
    Interestingly enough all of Europe is rising up against immigration.

    The anti-immigrant push is the untold story of politics all over Europe and the U.S.
    In Portugal the Popular Party won 14 seats by promising to introduce tighten laws against immigration and immigrants.

    In the Netherlands, where an anti-immigration politician was murdered for his views, the late Pym Fortuyn's party won 26 parliamentary seats.

    In Norway, where theft and rape committed by immigrants has become a regular news item, the far right Progress Party also won 26 seats by promising to cap immigration at 1,000 people per year.
    In Denmark, the Danish People's Party is now the country's third largest. It advocates harsh policies against those seeking political asylum, as well as a demand to curb aid to the third world.

    In France, the rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen lost in the final elections. Nevertheless, it was his best showing. Some six million French men and women voted for him, underscoring the popularity of his anti-immigration policies in the wake of Muslim riots.

    This suspicion and hostility to foreigners is not exclusive to the other side of the pond. The Bush administration crashed and burned when it announced that a United Arab Emirate company was in line to guard U.S. ports.
    New York governor Eliot Spitzer recently announced plans to grant undocumented immigrants their own drivers' licenses. This plan to “bring illegals out of the darkness” was pitilessly mocked, pilloried and hooted down. Spitzer's remarkable rise came to a full stop. It will be very difficult for him to restart the engine.
    Hillary Clinton's John Kerry moment (“I voted for it before I voted against it”) came when she ambiguously defended Spitzer's move. Her rivals for the Democratic presidential candidacy made much of this; she is still in the recovery room while her aids administer oxygen and adrenalin to a once-confident campaign

    Political Mavens » OUT OF THE DARKNESS
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #17

    Nov 5, 2007, 11:06 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    Interestingly enough all of Europe is rising up against immigration.
    Hello again, DC:

    To some, there's always a "them" to blame.

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #18

    Nov 5, 2007, 12:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    Interestingly enough all of Europe is rising up against immigration.

    The anti-immigrant push is the untold story of politics all over Europe and the U.S.
    In Portugal the Popular Party won 14 seats by promising to introduce tighten laws against immigration and immigrants.

    In the Netherlands, where an anti-immigration politician was murdered for his views, the late Pym Fortuyn’s party won 26 parliamentary seats.

    In Norway, where theft and rape committed by immigrants has become a regular news item, the far right Progress Party also won 26 seats by promising to cap immigration at 1,000 people per year.
    In Denmark, the Danish People’s Party is now the country’s third largest. It advocates harsh policies against those seeking political asylum, as well as a demand to curb aid to the third world.

    In France, the rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen lost in the final elections. Nevertheless, it was his best showing. Some six million French men and women voted for him, underscoring the popularity of his anti-immigration policies in the wake of Muslim riots.

    This suspicion and hostility to foreigners is not exclusive to the other side of the pond. The Bush administration crashed and burned when it announced that a United Arab Emirate company was in line to guard U.S. ports.
    New York governor Eliot Spitzer recently announced plans to grant undocumented immigrants their own drivers’ licenses. This plan to “bring illegals out of the darkness” was pitilessly mocked, pilloried and hooted down. Spitzer’s remarkable rise came to a full stop. It will be very difficult for him to restart the engine.
    Hillary Clinton’s John Kerry moment (“I voted for it before I voted against it”) came when she ambiguously defended Spitzer’s move. Her rivals for the Democratic presidential candidacy made much of this; she is still in the recovery room while her aids administer oxygen and adrenalin to a once-confident campaign

    Political Mavens » OUT OF THE DARKNESS
    DC,

    This article is turning the issue into an "anti-immigration" issue. That's not what it is or what it should be. This is an anti- ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION issue. There's a major difference. I don't think that there is anyone who is seriously saying that we should stop immigration into the USA. What pro-enforcement people are arguing is that we need an end to people coming here ILLEGALLY. We NEED immigration. It brings new blood and new ideas. But it needs to be done LEGALLY to prevent crime, terrorism, disease, weak border security, increasing taxes, poverty, etc.

    Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution. Letting NOBODY in is not the solution either. What most people advocate is streamlining of the legal immigration process, and better enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration. There's a huge difference between that and what a guy like Le Pen supports.

    Elliot
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #19

    Nov 5, 2007, 01:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    DC,

    This article is turning the issue into an "anti-immigration" issue. That's not what it is or what it should be. This is an anti- ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION issue. There's a major difference. I don't think that there is anyone who is seriously saying that we should stop immigration into the USA. What pro-enforcement people are arguing is that we need an end to people coming here ILLEGALLY. We NEED immigration. It brings new blood and new ideas. But it needs to be done LEGALLY to prevent crime, terrorism, disease, weak border security, increasing taxes, poverty, etc.

    Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution. Letting NOBODY in is not the solution either. What most people advocate is streamlining of the legal immigration process, and better enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration. There's a huge difference between that and what a guy like Le Pen supports.

    Elliot
    Elliot, it is an anti-immigration problem here, in the sense we have always been against immigration of one class of people over another, and the laws have changed over time depending on circumstances. There is no way to stop illegal immigration or it would have been done, that’s the problem…what to do with illegal immigrants is another. If one is found to be here illegally they are deported. To be anti-immigration is to be anti against certain classes of people.

    “Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution” is a straw man; it is not even an issue because it is not being advocated. So far as stopping all immigration I can see where that might be a viable option for some countries at one time or another, including the U.S.

    What I believe should be investigated is the concept of an Western Hemisphere passport that would freely allow travel between the different countries
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #20

    Nov 7, 2007, 07:21 AM
    DC,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    Elliot, it is an anti-immigration problem here, in the sense we have always been against immigration of one class of people over another, and the laws have changed over time depending on circumstances. There is no way to stop illegal immigration or it would have been done,
    Respectfully, that is simply not true. It has been done. It was done rather well prior to the 1960s. Illegal immigration was minimal because border security was TOUGH and because the government enforced employment laws. It is only since the 1960s and the rise of the political power of the far left with the civil-rights and anti-war movements that enforcing our borders became "too difficult". So I don't buy the argument that it can't be done, because it has been done.

    that’s the problem…what to do with illegal immigrants is another. If one is found to be here illegally they are deported. To be anti-immigration is to be anti against certain classes of people.
    Agreed. That is why I am not illegal immigration, but rather anti-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. In fact, I can't think of any major political figure that is calling for an end to all immigration. You are putting forth a staw man, an argument that nobody who is anti-illegal immigration and pro-border-enforcement has argued for. Even the Minute Men, the citizen border enforcement group, does not advocate such a position. Who do you know of that supports such a position?

    “Simply letting people in regardless of how they get here or who they are is not the solution” is a straw man; it is not even an issue because it is not being advocated.
    Please see excon's various posts on the subject. He seems to be advocating exactly that. As are the various open-border supporters (including some presidential candidates) who claim that we need open borders in order to obtain a cheap labor supply. Essentially their argument (like excon's) is that all they want to do is wash our dishes and blow our leaves, so we should let them in, regardless of who they are. My argument is not a straw man. It is, in fact, the mainstream argument coming from the open borders crowd.

    So far as stopping all immigration I can see where that might be a viable option for some countries at one time or another, including the U.S.
    I can't. Nor is that what I see anyone advocating. Some people are advocating LIMITS on immigration, and lots of people support border enforcement and employment law enforcement. But I don't see anyone advocating a complete stop on immigation.

    What I believe should be investigated is the concept of an Western Hemisphere passport that would freely allow travel between the different countries
    Why? What is wrong with national passports? In what way would a "Western Hemisphere Passport" be a better solution to the illegal immigration problem? In what way does such a passport enhance our nation's border security? Why would you trust a passport issued by some nebulous multi-government entity, or worse, a non-government entity, more than one being issued by a recognized government? Who would we hold accountable if terrorists get ahold of such a passport and use it to travel to places that they then attack?

    In the global arena, a multi-national passport SOUNDS like a great idea. But when we look at it more closely, it doesn't actually solve any of the issues that plague our current system, and in fact makes accountability harder.

    You can't solve the illegal immigration/border security problem by creating a new bureaucracy. ENFORCEMENT is the key.

    Elliot

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Dual citizenship us/europe / voting [ 4 Answers ]

Hi, I'm a dual citizen by birth. I was born in america when american citzenship came by default by having been born there and both of my parents are english citzens. I grew up in america but moved to london when I was seventeen and have been working here now for 8years. As the american...

Voting [ 5 Answers ]

Hello: I'm an exconvict. That notwithstanding, I wish to be a productive and participating member of society. Toward that end, I vote. Now, I really don't know if I'm legally allowed to vote, and I don't want to commit more crimes. However, I've tried to research it, but I've come up with...

Voting For The President [ 1 Answers ]

Who directly chooses the president? The electoral college? The congress? Or voters?

Voting [ 11 Answers ]

What do you think is the best way to get people to go and vote? I'm not talking about any particular candidate or any particular age group, gender or background. I'm just talking about generally getting people to vote. What do you think is the best way to go about it?

Voting in two separate countries electin [ 1 Answers ]

I am a US citizen with dual nationality (Antigua and Barbuda) living in the US Virgin Islands, can the USVI Board of Election Office make laws saying it is against VI election laws for me to vote in elections in Antigua and Barbuda if I vote in the Us Virgin Islands? Are there any US Federal Laws...


View more questions Search