Immigration Issues

[TSwizzle]

lol, they don’t get under my skin fella. They amuse me. X is awash with videos of these types getting a lesson in the law. A lesson they probably won’t heed. Thankfully and amazingly, only one tragedy came out of it.

Anyway, plenty more causes for them to get behind that will no doubt keep me entertained!

That’s what everyone says about the thing that’s clearly living rent-free in their head. Maybe try a different move? Your usual eye roll might’ve landed better.

Let's quote me in full. As I said, it really does entertain me to see these fools get dragged away kicking and screaming like the toddlers they are.

It’s a bit like saying comedy is hilarious while voting to shut down comedy clubs. If it’s truly entertaining, then maybe it’s not the moral catastrophe you usually present it as.

Don't overthink it fella. It's some funny shit to see these low IQ twats getting dragged away by law enforcement while screaming about how they know their rights. And the more overweight they are, the funnier it is.

 

[Toni]

Always the same demographic, white suburban cat ladies. lol, pathetic.

It is like you aren't even putting your heart into it anymore. What is next? They have cooties?

If right wing media told him women have cooties, he'd believe it.

Yeah, it would justify his sour grapes attitude.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what exactly is wrong with being a "cat lady"?

*crickets*

Eye roll aside, TSwizzle isn't saying anything new about women that hasn't been uttered for nearly a couple centuries since the Seneca Falls Convention.

 

[Gospel]

lol, they don’t get under my skin fella. They amuse me. X is awash with videos of these types getting a lesson in the law. A lesson they probably won’t heed. Thankfully and amazingly, only one tragedy came out of it.

Anyway, plenty more causes for them to get behind that will no doubt keep me entertained!

That’s what everyone says about the thing that’s clearly living rent-free in their head. Maybe try a different move? Your usual eye roll might’ve landed better.

Let's quote me in full. As I said, it really does entertain me to see these fools get dragged away kicking and screaming like the toddlers they are.

It’s a bit like saying comedy is hilarious while voting to shut down comedy clubs. If it’s truly entertaining, then maybe it’s not the moral catastrophe you usually present it as.

Don't overthink it fella. It's some funny shit to see these low IQ twats getting dragged away by law enforcement while screaming about how they know their rights. And the more overweight they are, the funnier it is.

Oh, I get it. My bad, I can see how it can be hilarious when someone gets hauled away, especially when it’s a supporter of the very policies that made it possible breaking the rules themselves.

Brazilian influencer who defended US immigration crackdown arrested by ICE

Trump supporter Júnior Pena falsely claimed migrants being rounded up, including Brazilians, were ‘all crooks’

www.theguardian.com

Trump's aggressive enforcement rhetoric could suppress turnout in communities that have historically leaned Republican. I say this because if lawful citizens start feeling uneasy about speaking their language in public, it’s not a stretch to think some will avoid the polls if enforcement optics are heavy-handed. What a fucking moron! I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Trump announces he's sending ICE agents to the polls to look for illegal voters.

 

[Emily Lake]

Who do you think has "no right to be in the USA", but did not enter the USA illegally?

Visa overstays

 

[Toni]

lol, they don’t get under my skin fella. They amuse me. X is awash with videos of these types getting a lesson in the law. A lesson they probably won’t heed. Thankfully and amazingly, only one tragedy came out of it.

Anyway, plenty more causes for them to get behind that will no doubt keep me entertained!

That’s what everyone says about the thing that’s clearly living rent-free in their head. Maybe try a different move? Your usual eye roll might’ve landed better.

Let's quote me in full. As I said, it really does entertain me to see these fools get dragged away kicking and screaming like the toddlers they are.

It’s a bit like saying comedy is hilarious while voting to shut down comedy clubs. If it’s truly entertaining, then maybe it’s not the moral catastrophe you usually present it as.

Don't overthink it fella. It's some funny shit to see these low IQ twats getting dragged away by law enforcement while screaming about how they know their rights. And the more overweight they are, the funnier it is.

Oh, I get it. My bad, I can see how it can be hilarious when someone gets hauled away, especially when it’s a supporter of the very policies that made it possible breaking the rules themselves.

Brazilian influencer who defended US immigration crackdown arrested by ICE

Trump supporter Júnior Pena falsely claimed migrants being rounded up, including Brazilians, were ‘all crooks’

www.theguardian.com

Trump's aggressive enforcement rhetoric could suppress turnout in communities that have historically leaned Republican. I say this because if lawful citizens start feeling uneasy about speaking their language in public, it’s not a stretch to think some will avoid the polls if enforcement optics are heavy-handed. What a fucking moron! I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Trump announces he's sending ICE agents to the polls to look for illegal voters.

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

 

[Emily Lake]

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections. I'll happily contribute to community outreach that will help these poor rural women get hold of critical information that everyone ought to have.

Honestly, I get the deep hatred of republicans. But at some point, opposition to something that 83% of americans support seems artificial, or at least disconnected. Even a supermajority of dems support it.

Most Americans Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to end mail-in voting comes as a 58% majority of Americans favor allowing any voter to cast their ballot by mail.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Toni]

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections. I'll happily contribute to community outreach that will help these poor rural women get hold of critical information that everyone ought to have.

Honestly, I get the deep hatred of republicans. But at some point, opposition to something that 83% of americans support seems artificial, or at least disconnected. Even a supermajority of dems support it.

Most Americans Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to end mail-in voting comes as a 58% majority of Americans favor allowing any voter to cast their ballot by mail.

www.pewresearch.org

It’s time consuming and expensive for me. For some people, it’s out of reach. You know who those people are? Women. Adoptees. JD Vance.

It represents a de facto poll tax which has been outlawed for more than 60 years.

And it will do nothing to reassure trumpsuckers that elections are free and fair. Trump has been very open that he will only accept election results that favor him.

It seems like a lot of trouble to make voting more difficult for at least half of the population, to ‘solve’ a non-existent problem.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If we're going by Pew Research, it would then make sense to take into account the most important issues recorded by Pew Research, as of last year:

It does not seem most Americans agree that Voter ID is a very important issue.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections. I'll happily contribute to community outreach that will help these poor rural women get hold of critical information that everyone ought to have.

Honestly, I get the deep hatred of republicans. But at some point, opposition to something that 83% of americans support seems artificial, or at least disconnected. Even a supermajority of dems support it.

Most Americans Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to end mail-in voting comes as a 58% majority of Americans favor allowing any voter to cast their ballot by mail.

www.pewresearch.org

Fair point. But does it bother you that this act would not be constitutional? According to the constitution, the states are suppose to decide voting processes, not El Presidentee Trump.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Tswizzle doesn't like what the actual statistics have to say, and he can't understand statistics. As if we needed more evidence of his cherry-picking.

 

[laughing dog]

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections.

It will reduce my trust in the elections by reducing participation.

Moreover the GOP had spent 8 years duping people in mistrusting elections in order to reduce participation. There is NO evidence of widespread or significant irregularities or illegal voting.

 

[Gospel]

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections.

It will reduce my trust in the elections by reducing participation.

Moreover the GOP had spent 8 years duping people in mistrusting elections in order to reduce participation. There is NO evidence of widespread or significant irregularities or illegal voting.

Bruh, you do realize that when an entire demographic fears something, that’s proof enough that it exists, right? Come on man!!!

 

[Gospel]

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections. I'll happily contribute to community outreach that will help these poor rural women get hold of critical information that everyone ought to have.

Honestly, I get the deep hatred of republicans. But at some point, opposition to something that 83% of americans support seems artificial, or at least disconnected. Even a supermajority of dems support it.

Most Americans Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to end mail-in voting comes as a 58% majority of Americans favor allowing any voter to cast their ballot by mail.

www.pewresearch.org

Fair point. But does it bother you that this act would not be constitutional? According to the constitution, the states are suppose to decide voting processes, not El Presidentee Trump.

The Constitution gives states primary authority to run elections, but Congress has the power to regulate federal elections. So if Congress passes a law on voter ID or mail voting, that’s not unconstitutional. It would only become unconstitutional if the executive branch tried to impose election rules without congressional authority.

I don’t blame you for thinking Trump is suggesting the executive branch would do it without Congress, that idiot isn’t exactly known for proper English.

 

[ZiprHead]

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections. I'll happily contribute to community outreach that will help these poor rural women get hold of critical information that everyone ought to have.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to demonstrate that there is a problem that requires the added scrutiny before implementing this plan?

 

[ZiprHead]

From the right wing Cato:

Federal Power Grab On Voting Still Flunks Basic Civics Test By Walter Olson

The Framers greatly feared that a president or ruling national faction might someday gain power over the administration of elections. The Constitution guards against this danger by placing primary responsibility for elections with the states, subject to a rulemaking power that Congress has wisely used sparingly. The proposed SAVE Act, which passed the House yesterday, and the broader MEGA Act would impose rash, perhaps even unworkable, new rules while arming the president with dangerous new powers to harass and menace localities and officials whose decisions on election administration are not to his liking.

There’s nothing wrong with voter ID—most states use it, generally with good results. But the SAVE Act and MEGA Act have little to do with that issue. They are fueled by alarms about supposedly widespread noncitizen voting and voter impersonation that simply aren’t borne out by the evidence. Their new demands for documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) go beyond what almost any state has chosen to enact voluntarily and would impose serious burdens on both qualified citizen voters and administrators.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

It can be time consuming, sure. And it can have a cost, also true. But I really don't understand the strong opposition to doing something really basic and straightforward that will increase everyone's trust in our elections. I'll happily contribute to community outreach that will help these poor rural women get hold of critical information that everyone ought to have.

Honestly, I get the deep hatred of republicans. But at some point, opposition to something that 83% of americans support seems artificial, or at least disconnected. Even a supermajority of dems support it.

Most Americans Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

President Donald Trump’s recent pledge to end mail-in voting comes as a 58% majority of Americans favor allowing any voter to cast their ballot by mail.

www.pewresearch.org

Fair point. But does it bother you that this act would not be constitutional? According to the constitution, the states are suppose to decide voting processes, not El Presidentee Trump.

The Constitution gives states primary authority to run elections, but Congress has the power to regulate federal elections. So if Congress passes a law on voter ID or mail voting, that’s not unconstitutional. It would only become unconstitutional if the executive branch tried to impose election rules without congressional authority.

I don’t blame you for thinking Trump is suggesting the executive branch would do it without Congress, that idiot isn’t exactly known for proper English.

True. And the bill has been passed in the house along party lines. It has no chance of getting the required 60 votes. It will die in the senate. And many of the republican reps who voted for it will get their butts booted in 26.

 

[Gospel]

Considering voter fraud is statistically minimal, the argument for strict voter ID laws sounds a lot like the gun control debate. The same people who say gun laws only burden law-abiding citizens seem comfortable with election laws that primarily affect lawful voters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Considering voter fraud is statistically minimal, the argument for strict voter ID laws sounds a lot like the gun control debate. The same people who say gun laws only burden law-abiding citizens seem comfortable with election laws that primarily affect lawful voters.

I find it interesting how voter fraud impacted Trump's performance, yet he doesn't speak about anyone else being impacted.

 

[southernhybrid]

lol, they don’t get under my skin fella. They amuse me. X is awash with videos of these types getting a lesson in the law. A lesson they probably won’t heed. Thankfully and amazingly, only one tragedy came out of it.

Anyway, plenty more causes for them to get behind that will no doubt keep me entertained!

That’s what everyone says about the thing that’s clearly living rent-free in their head. Maybe try a different move? Your usual eye roll might’ve landed better.

Let's quote me in full. As I said, it really does entertain me to see these fools get dragged away kicking and screaming like the toddlers they are.

It’s a bit like saying comedy is hilarious while voting to shut down comedy clubs. If it’s truly entertaining, then maybe it’s not the moral catastrophe you usually present it as.

Don't overthink it fella. It's some funny shit to see these low IQ twats getting dragged away by law enforcement while screaming about how they know their rights. And the more overweight they are, the funnier it is.

Oh, I get it. My bad, I can see how it can be hilarious when someone gets hauled away, especially when it’s a supporter of the very policies that made it possible breaking the rules themselves.

Brazilian influencer who defended US immigration crackdown arrested by ICE

Trump supporter Júnior Pena falsely claimed migrants being rounded up, including Brazilians, were ‘all crooks’

www.theguardian.com

Trump's aggressive enforcement rhetoric could suppress turnout in communities that have historically leaned Republican. I say this because if lawful citizens start feeling uneasy about speaking their language in public, it’s not a stretch to think some will avoid the polls if enforcement optics are heavy-handed. What a fucking moron! I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Trump announces he's sending ICE agents to the polls to look for illegal voters.

The SAVE act will almost certainly do that for female voters in red states which typically have a higher poverty rate. Many rural people still rely on family bibles for records of births, deaths, marriages. It’s further away fur many such folks to go to courthouses to seek out official records which might not exist anymore—fires/floods and other natural disasters. It can be complicated and expensive and time consuming.

This is very true because I had to pay over 100 dollars to get a copy of my marriage certificate to my first husband in order to get a driver's license in Indiana and it took over a month. I already had a real ID, which had required a birth certificate, but that wasn't good enough since my name was changed twice since my birth. I already had an official state copy of my birth certificate and marriage certificate to my current husband and although I had copies of every nursing license in the many states where I practices that included all of my pervious names, those weren't good enough.

Luckily for me, if the goddamn SAVE act actually becomes law, I have what I need, but all those poor rural white Republicans and plenty of poor urban minorities may not have these documents. It's discrimination against women as men rarely change their names. When I married the first time I had to take my husband's name. When I married the second time, I didn't want to keep my former husband's name, and I really didn't want to have my father's name, so I took my current husband's hame. Still, if I had changed my name back to my birth name, it would have been easier to get a driver's license in Indiana. We moved back to Georgia before I even got the license so at least I had a valid driver's license when we got back home. Still, it was a stressful, expensive, frustrating ordeal getting the original marriage certificate, which was from 1970. And get this. A hospital birth certificate, no matter how official, isn't accepted as as a birth certificate for legal reasons. It must come from the state. I hope my son hasn't lost the one I gave him when we were in Indy. I had saved it since his birth over 55 years ago.

It's insane that a real ID may not be enough for people to vote. Everyone going to vote with their birth certificate in hand is an insane idea. Still, I doubt there's anyone still alive who only has their birth certificate in a Bible. That was true about 50 years ago, but even my late mother who was born in 1925 had an actual birth certificate. A few of my former patients, when I worked back in the 70s did not, but they were mostly born in the late 1800s in the Southern US. Does the felon even realize that such legislation will hurt Republicans as much or more than it will hurt Democrats? Oh wait. I forgot that women statistically vote at a higher rate for the Dems and the dumbass SAVE Act will make it hard for women to vote. Now I get it. Sexism raises its ugly head again. Still, we survived the McCarthy Era so if we fight the powers that be, we can survive this too. ( hopefully ) We can't back down.