Immigration Issues

[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.

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.

From what I’ve read, it’s mostly rural people who are poor who will struggle. Every state has its own rules and regs about what is necessary to get a copy of your birth certificate and other legal documents. It only takes a bit of bad luck for anybody to have to try to locate these documents: fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake. Wherever a copy of your documents reside. Yes, it will affect older folks more than younger ones.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Let's look at the broader pattern here. Often, Hair Furor identifies "problems"—sometimes inventing them, sometimes taking an actual issue and exaggerating it. He then proposes "solutions" designed to maximize his own benefit, whether by expanding executive power or boosting his political or financial capital.

The current push to "increase everyone's trust in our elections" follows this trend. Much of the distrust was fueled by Trump’s own rhetoric regarding the 2020 election results.

One of the central conspiracy theories he promotes is that non-citizens are voting in mass numbers. A related claim is that Democratic politicians encourage illegal immigration specifically to inflate congressional apportionment and facilitate illegal voting. While the former is demonstrably false, the latter is a distorted "quarter-truth": Constitutional apportionment is indeed based on total resident counts, not just citizens. Since many immigrants reside in urban, Democratic-leaning areas, these districts naturally reflect those population totals.

Trump’s immigration policies—particularly his focus on ending birthright citizenship, excluding non-citizens from the census, and disappearing undocumented residents, even including legal residents at times—appear designed to shift apportionment in a way that increases his party's grip on government. Again, this goes beyond targeting undocumented immigrants; it impacts legal residents and their representation. And again, this was a problem he chose to exacerbate so that he could "solve" it.

The SAVE Act fits this same pattern. There is no evidence of a widespread problem with non-citizen voting; in fact, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s own database shows that documented cases of non-citizen voting are extremely rare.

The demographic most likely to be burdened by this act would be Black women. The logic is three-fold:

• Infrastructure: Urban areas already face long lines and resource shortages; adding a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement creates a new layer of bureaucracy that exacerbates these delays.
• Socioeconomics: Lower-income voters are statistically less likely to have easy access to multiple forms of expensive documentation like passports, marriage certificates, REAL Id, birth certificates, etc.
• Administrative Barriers: Most married women have different names on their IDs than on their birth certificates. Navigating the paperwork to prove a name change adds a significant hurdle to registration.

While not every Black woman falls into these categories, as a demographic, they are disproportionately affected by these specific logistical barriers. Hispanic women likely face similar scrutiny, often fueled by unfounded suspicions regarding ethnicity.

Ultimately, the Act addresses a statistically non-existent problem by creating very real obstacles for eligible voters. It appears that the changes will affect certain demographics more than others and that those demographics may be more prone to vote Democrat than Republican.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Let's look at the broader pattern here.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the need to do that, here... But I think you're doing this on a single layer when there are at least two layers to examine: let's actually look at the broader pattern HERE on these forums, Emily's broader pattern rather than with Trump's, because this has been an issue longer than Trump has been doing his Antichrist impersonation:

Often, Emily Lake identifies "problems"—sometimes inventing them, sometimes taking an actual issue and exaggerating it. She then proposes "solutions" designed to maximize her own benefit.

She has done this consistently, and this is not a new position nor is this the first time she has offered this excuse knowing full well that it is not "basic" to need to bring a folder of documents proving your identity more than you need to at the DMV to get a primary ID and needing to do this every four years to vote.

That's not basic. Calling it basic at this point is a LIE. It is in direct contradiction to the evidence.

It is not straightforward. Calling it straightforward at this point is a LIE. It is on direct contradiction to over 2 decades of discussion on how it is "rigmarole" rather than "straightforward".

It will not increase trust in our elections saying it will is a LIE. It is in direct contradiction to over 2 decades of both discussion and demonstration of how it does the opposite, and many people who are part of "everyone" rejecting this.

At this point, after 2 decades of repeating these lies in the observation of evidence to the contrary, that repeating these lies, while it does not necessarily mean Emily is a "liar", does mean that her being a "honest in her own way" -- as any useful idiot is to an actual liar -- is not really a possible interpretation: She must either be so stupid and biased that she has disregarded facts all the way to the conclusion, or she must be intentionally lying.

There aren't any other interpretations to follow after a 20 years of the same song and dance.

Since she will not quit supporting these PRATTs, I can only assume she not here in good faith.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 read the same thing in the Natural Science forum about increase everyone's trust in vaccinations. It is presented a false premise that there is concern about the legitimacy of the election in the first place. There is one person making a stink about elections, Trump (the guy who conspired to commit election fraud). The GOP was the one responsible for expanding access to voting in the '00s, at least in my state. Other individuals have gone to great lengths to find a dozen or two people guilty of voting fraud.

 

[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.

From what I’ve read, it’s mostly rural people who are poor who will struggle. Every state has its own rules and regs about what is necessary to get a copy of your birth certificate and other legal documents. It only takes a bit of bad luck for anybody to have to try to locate these documents: fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake. Wherever a copy of your documents reside. Yes, it will affect older folks more than younger ones.

It can be done, but if you don't live near the place where you were born, you might have to use vitalchek, which charges a fee for each document you need. That is what I had to do to get my marriage certificate from my first marriage. If I hadn't had my birth certificate, if would have been a big hassle as well, regardless if I used Vitalchek or was able to get it through the town I was born. Vialchek isn't cheep and it's frustrating to deal with, at least it was for me. Plus, it took several weeks to get the documents, so it might be best for anyone who needs an original copy of their birth certificate etc. to work on it now. Not everyone still lives in the city where they were born. Some of us live over a thousand miles from the city where we were born, regardless of our age or whether we live in an urban, or rural area. I agree it may be harder for older adults if the courthouse in their original city burned down, but I would hope that such documents were kept in fire proof safes and are now also online. It was easy getting my birth certificate. I think I had to go through the state capital of NJ, but I got that about 20 years ago. It's often the state capitals that hold all that information, although it may vary by state. I'm not sure.

https://www.vitalchek.com/v/faqs

 

[robnisch]

A big part of the problem started with this.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Do you ACTUALLY AND FOR REAL think that half the US population is currently unable to verify their citizenship and get an ID?

Don't exaggerate things just to demonstrate how much you hate the current president.

 

[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

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.

Section. 4.​

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The act wouldn't be unconstitutional, as the constitution expressly permits congress to make rules regarding the manner of voting. If the constitution did NOT afford this ability to congress, only white men would be allowed to vote.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

No. It suffices only to demonstrate that an exploitable loophole exists.

There are a whole lot of laws and regulations on the books that are intended to *prevent* harm from occurring, even if the risk of such harm is very low.

 

[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?

No. It suffices only to demonstrate that an exploitable loophole exists.

There are a whole lot of laws and regulations on the books that are intended to *prevent* harm from occurring, even if the risk of such harm is very low.

W#hat loophole is that? Citizenship is tested when you register to vote.

 

[crazyfingers]

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.

Do you ACTUALLY AND FOR REAL think that half the US population is currently unable to verify their citizenship and get an ID?

Don't exaggerate things just to demonstrate how much you hate the current president.

She said "make it more difficult for at least half of the population". She did not say that they are unable to verify their citizenship.

I think that you are exaggerating things just to demonstrate that you disagree.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Do you ACTUALLY AND FOR REAL think that half the US population is currently unable to verify their citizenship and get an ID?

“More difficult “ is not equivalent to “unable”.

To paraphrase someone in this thread, don’t exaggerate things just to demonstrate how much you hate to admit when you’re wrong.

 

[ZiprHead]

Unpacking Myths About Noncitizen Voting — How Heritage Foundation’s Own Data Proves It’s Not a Problem - American Immigration Council

A close examination of the evidence put forward by critics shows just how extraordinarily rare noncitizen voting truly is.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

Over the last decade, many politicians have called for overhauling the United States’ election systems by mandating strict voter ID for both registering to vote and actual voting. Many have justified this stance by either claiming the U.S. election system is vulnerable to fraud, or that fraud is already a common occurrence. In May, House Speaker Mike Johnson even said that, despite a lack of evidence, he knows “intuitively” that “a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections.” Throughout the Republican National Convention in July, similar claims abounded.

However, a close examination of the evidence put forward by proponents of these strict limitations on voting shows just how extraordinarily rare noncitizen voting truly is—and how there is no burning need to impose new restrictions on access to voting.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has campaigned hard against “voter fraud.” It proudly championed legislation passed by the House in July which would mandate the use of photo ID for all voter registration. Importantly, it also maintains a database of 1,546 “proven instances of voter fraud,” where Heritage researchers have collected criminal cases which have been brought against people who have committed some kind of electoral fraud, either registering to vote or voting when ineligible.

It’s this database—created and maintained by Heritage itself—that helps reveal how there is no crisis of noncitizen voting.

A close review of the cases in Heritage’s database reveal that the organization has documented just 68 total cases of noncitizen voting going back to the earliest cases documented in the 1980s. That’s less than 5% of the cases in their database, total. The remaining cases all involve U.S. citizens.

 

[scombrid]

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.

Do you ACTUALLY AND FOR REAL think that half the US population is currently unable to verify their citizenship and get an ID?

Don't exaggerate things just to demonstrate how much you hate the current president.

Dumb. Non sequitor. Looks deliberate.

 

[Toni]

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.

Do you ACTUALLY AND FOR REAL think that half the US population is currently unable to verify their citizenship and get an ID?

Don't exaggerate things just to demonstrate how much you hate the current president.

I think that a very large contingent of women will have to jump through a lot of hoops, invest a lot of time and money in order to prove they are the person on their birth certificate. Could also be problematic for adoptees. Or anyone who has undergone a name change. This would include some immigrants who have become citizens and who Americanized their names, as at least one of my friends did.

Men rarely change their names while many women—most of my generation and earlier—changed our names if we married. Plenty of younger women as well.

This creates an additional expense and plenty of extra work almost exclusively for married women and adoptees and some immigrants who became citizens. For some the burden will become too great. Which is the intention.

There is NO problem with non-citizens voting. The largest group of people discovered to have voted illegally is felons who have completed their sentences because the eligibility to regain the vote after a felony conviction varies state by state and people are not necessarily aware that their sentence carries a life long penalty, aside from being a felon. Even that group is quite small.

Trump and now what is left of the Republican Party is now a party who can only hold onto power by fear mongering and intimidation—and violating the US Constitution and plenty of other laws.

 

[crazyfingers]

Trump and now what is left of the Republican Party is now a party who can only hold onto power by fear mongering and intimidation—and violating the US Constitution and plenty of other laws.

And lying with the help of right-wing media.

 

[laughing dog]

Unpacking Myths About Noncitizen Voting — How Heritage Foundation’s Own Data Proves It’s Not a Problem - American Immigration Council

A close examination of the evidence put forward by critics shows just how extraordinarily rare noncitizen voting truly is.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

Over the last decade, many politicians have called for overhauling the United States’ election systems by mandating strict voter ID for both registering to vote and actual voting. Many have justified this stance by either claiming the U.S. election system is vulnerable to fraud, or that fraud is already a common occurrence. In May, House Speaker Mike Johnson even said that, despite a lack of evidence, he knows “intuitively” that “a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections.” Throughout the Republican National Convention in July, similar claims abounded.

However, a close examination of the evidence put forward by proponents of these strict limitations on voting shows just how extraordinarily rare noncitizen voting truly is—and how there is no burning need to impose new restrictions on access to voting.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has campaigned hard against “voter fraud.” It proudly championed legislation passed by the House in July which would mandate the use of photo ID for all voter registration. Importantly, it also maintains a database of 1,546 “proven instances of voter fraud,” where Heritage researchers have collected criminal cases which have been brought against people who have committed some kind of electoral fraud, either registering to vote or voting when ineligible.

It’s this database—created and maintained by Heritage itself—that helps reveal how there is no crisis of noncitizen voting.

A close review of the cases in Heritage’s database reveal that the organization has documented just 68 total cases of noncitizen voting going back to the earliest cases documented in the 1980s. That’s less than 5% of the cases in their database, total. The remaining cases all involve U.S. citizens.

In the 2020 POTUS election, over 155 million votes were cast. The Heritage Foundation’s forty year total of 1546 fraud cases ate 0.001% of that total.

 

[TSwizzle]

Trump and now what is left of the Republican Party is now a party who can only hold onto power by fear mongering and intimidation—and violating the US Constitution and plenty of other laws.

The Democratic Party putting up unelectable candidates more like it.

And lying with the help of right-wing media.

lol, cackling Kamala couldn’t win with the full weight of the MSM behind her.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

lol, cackling Kamala

LAUGHING IS BAD.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

lol, cackling Kamala couldn’t win with the full weight of the MSM behind her.

Sure, Jan.