danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Funny, you did not correct RickyP with his error, and I used the same spelling and put a "?" after it.

To be honest, I barely read what ricky writes these days. Too much hard work for little reward ;-)

Ouch

dan

To be honest, I barely read what ricky writes these days. Too much hard work for little reward ;-)

you read well enough to comment here

dan

When it comes to immigration there are always ways around ID and documentation, and the main impact of strict enforcement will be that employers won't want to have to spend time (and money) being agents of the state.

But haven't replied to being called on your dopey rationale. here.

The law currently says that employers cannot hire illegal aliens. In effect, employers would be protecting themselves from prosecution for hiring illegal aliens. Just because some people will find ways to beat the system, doesn't mean you don't make the effort to improve the system.
What other laws aren't worth making, and enforcing because some people may successfully break them Danivon? Taxation? Burglary? Must perfection be attainable or is significant improvement not worth the attempt

?

sass
Ricky, the number of Americans who have a passport is irrelevant

then why did you bring it up?

Sass

The way you're talking it's as if all these employers out there really want to conduct thorough background checks on their staff but they just can't do it because they lack a handy online verification system. the reality is that if you're employing a foreigner you know full well that you're doing it, and so if you don't demand to see their green card before hiring them it's because you don't really want to check too closely.

Actually I think you're close to being right. The employers don't really want to check employees. But by eliminating the excuses, by providing a simplifed ID system, you nail them inexpensively. Right now, all the problems of undocumented and inadequately documented Americans (including mostly legitimate citizens) simply gives them a way to game the system.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:In order to register to vote in the first place, one has to provide documentation which proves identifications, citizenship, and residency.

I can say that this is not true, at least in Michigan. I was a deputy voters' registrar in the 1990s (which is just someone who can register others to vote) and at that time you asked for the applicant to swear that the information that they provided was true. No ID required, and in fact, if memory serves, registrars were not allowed to ask for ID.

Side story: here I knew how easy it was to register, and I remember one time I was going into Canada, back before the days you needed a passport, and I was pulled out of line and asked to go to one of the dreaded further inspection buildings at the border (Canadian side). And all I had was my drivers license, which was customary at the time. And there I was scolded by the Canadian border officials that I should carry something that proved my citizenship, like a passport, birth certificate or voters registration card. I am grateful that I suppressed the eye-rolling, because they let me go on my way with that warning, but how absurd. Anyone can get a voters registration card, without ID, yet it was proof of citizenship to Canadian border officials.

As long as the medical situation victim shows ID, I would be fine with the situation of them not showing the face. I would need to see picture ID with a face showing on the ID, however.

Goejanes reminded me of a cross Canada trip my wife and I took. We went from Seattle to Edmonton, and I was inspected coming into Canada. They asked at least 10 times where my weapons were, since I was in the military and transferring to the East Coast. (Being the good law-abiding citizen, I had them shipped.) On the return trip, my wife and I were asked if we bought a lot of stuff. I replied no, we were just visiting. My wife said "what are you talking about? We bought a lot of stuff!" Needless to say, I glared, the Border guard smiled and waved us through. I then had to explain that anything over $400 is taxed.

Now she understands...

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Head to head one fraudulent vote is far worse than a disenfranchized vote,

I would say that they are equivalent. The former is that someone not entitled to vote does so (so affecting the result to the tune of 1 vote), the latter is that someone entltled to vote does not (so affecting the result to the tune of 1 vote).

The exception, of course, is where the fraud results in someone losing their vote, which is a combination of the two.

because the latter is a fable, a lie told to propogate the myths of the past, and permanently play the politics with race and class envy. There has yet to be one single rational example of how asking for proof of identiy of the voter is disenfranchising anyone.

First of all, while we're talking about fables and lies, where's your evidence that the Democrats are paying for people to vote? You have been asked twice already on that one.

Secondly, I don't know how far back the 'past' is to you, but there are clear examples in the last couple of decades. For example, this page lists people who in 2000 were unable to vote, despite being entitled to: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

The issue is wider than just implementing ID requirements. But in a nation where a lot of people (typically older people) don't necessarily have normal forms of ID, that is not always so simple.

One of the prevelant examples of voter suppression is robo calling known committed voters for the opposite candidate and informing them that the poll has changed locations...or some otehr misinformation to dissuade them from voting.
They can make false warnings about violence at the polls etc. Anything to dissaude voting.
Thats the most prevelant form of voter fraud. It has nothing to do with identity cards, and its not reported on much. (We're going through a scandal here in Canada regarding this voter suppression tactic in the last election.)
Turning up and voting more than once, by impersonation or other is rarely reported. Consider how the risk/reward equation works. Why would someone take any risk for the reward of an additional vote or two? And wouldn't it be the industrious sole who impersonated more than a couple of people?
Still, its amazing that the greatest nation on earth can't manage to create an effective common identity system that wouldn't cost its poor and which could end the propogation of the myth of voter fraud and make a contribution to ending illegal immigration.

Germany, Spain and whole host of other countries all have compulsory national ID cards. In the case of Spain it's mandatory for all citizens to carry their card at all times and you can't even make a credit card transaction without presenting it. Guess what, both Germany and Spain have rampant illegal immigration. France also has an ID card system which is currently non-compulsory but in the past and for a long time it was a mandatory document and you were required to renew it every ten years or every year in the event that you changed address during that time. France also has ahuge amount of illegal immigration. Are you noticing a pattern yet ?

A piece of plastic with a photo on it is not a magic bullet for solving illegal immigration. You can repeat the same unsourced claim as often as you like, it won't make it any more valid.

sass

A piece of plastic with a photo on it is not a magic bullet for solving illegal immigration. You can repeat the same unsourced claim as often as you like, it won't make it any more valid

.

magic bullet?
quoting myself...

and make a contribution to ending illegal immigration

.

Its very Santorum of you to exagerate what I'm assertng....

The absence of solid identification aids employers who want to take advantage of illegal imigrants. DO you dispute my claim that certain industries have flourished over the last two decads by paying less and less per hour and hiring more and more illegals? following from wikipedia

In October 2006, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought by Tyson employees who allege that Tyson's practice of hiring illegal immigrants depresses wages 10–30%. The suit further contends that the company violated federal racketeering laws by conspiring with National Council of La Raza and League of United Latin American Countries not to question the employment applications of anyone with a Hispanic surname.[20][21][22

If you compare illegal immigration in the European countries versus the US, you'll find that the numbers and impact are much greater in the US. Mostly because the European nations make a greater attempt at enforcing the laws they have and part of that is having a national ID document that makes enforcement easier.
The reason you don't have such in the US. in the US. Primarily political will. No politiican really wants to take on the large employers who benefit most from illegal immigration. And the illegal then becomes a great rallying cry for the ignorant who require a boogie man to focus their various resentments upon... following from wikipedia

In 2007, President George W. Bush called for Congress to endorse his guest worker proposal, stating that illegal immigrants took jobs that Americans would not take.[130] The Pew Hispanic Center notes that while the number of legal immigrants (including LPRs, refugees, and asylum seekers) arriving has not varied substantially since the 1980s, the number of illegal immigrants has increased dramatically and, since the mid 1990s, has surpassed the number of legal immigrants.[131] Penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants range from $2,000–$10,000 and up to six months' imprisonment.[132] However, penalties for employers go largely unenforced

The attitude that moving to a national identity system is useless ..... reminds me of the fat old man sitting on his couch complaining about his fate with that clarion call..."Yeah, but waddya gonna do?"

apropos

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 6014.story

The Justice Department on Monday rejected Texas' new voter identification law, saying it could disproportionately harm Latinos under the federal Voting Rights Act.

"Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card," Assistant Atty. Gen. Thomas E. Perez, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote in a letter to Keith Ingram, director of elections for the Texas secretary of state.

Perez noted that state data showed nearly 800,000 people lacked driver's licenses and personal identification cards issued by the state Department of Public Safety, two key forms of identification required under the new law. More than 38% of those lacking the ID were Latino, he noted.

But because of past voting rights violations in 16 states or portions of states, certain jurisdictions — including Texas — must first obtain "preclearance," or permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before changing election procedures.

I thought Napolitano had very good commentary on this matter and it's manifestation in the Texas dispute http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/1504940949001/

I love how both the Fox news interviewer and Napolitano make the claim that there is voter fraud. Is it any wonder that some people believe there is voter fraud, if people on "news" reports keep repeating the meme. Has Fox ever actually presented actual corroborated and documented evidence of how wide spread voter fraud is?
Napolitano also doesn't offer the reason that the the state law is rejected. That State recognized ID costs money. And as such affects those who cannot afford the ID, especially if the ID would serve them no other use than in voter ID. (They don't drive for instance.)
Napolitano's appeal to the "right to sue to protect one's rights, is the usual contrivance by a conservative. The suit will not protect one's rights. You sue only after your right to vote has been taken away. It may provide restitution, and it may deter the government from the same actions in the future but it doesn't guarantee that the government wouldn't repeat the offence. Only preventitive action can protect the rights of the voter immediately and guarantee the right to vote.
As a state that has a rich history in racial discrimination in its governance, Texas has earned the over sight in the statute that Napalitano condemns. His complaint seems to be that the federal government has no role to serve in protecting the rights of citizens. Thats odd for a libertarian. Even Paul seems to think thats the fundamental role of government.

Here's a different view (with some different facts).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 89616.html

Bear in mind that 31 states have voter ID laws, which passed under Republicans and Democrats alike. It would take a distinctive kind of naivete to believe there is no voter fraud in America.

In September, Texas compared its then-12.7 million voter registration list to the driver's license and photo ID lists maintained by its Department of Public Safety. Justice says that 6.3% of Hispanics registered to vote don't have a driver's license versus 4.3% of non-Hispanics. This is a small difference, but Justice claims this means a "Hispanic voter is 46.5 percent more likely than a non-Hispanic voters to lack" an ID. But the voting database used by the state contains no racial information.

...

Justice plowed forward and forced the state to produce another set of numbers. So in January Texas compared the registered voter database with a new dataset of driver's licenses and voter IDs, but Hispanics have only been able to self-identify as Hispanic since 2009. The data are incomplete and there are other problems, such as the inability of the state to weed out Italian names that sound Hispanic. In any event, Texas offers election ID cards for free.

What interest me is that even if you ignore the Hispanics (which could easily be tied to illegal immigration) in Texas, it appears that up to nearly half a million non-Hispanoc people in Texas do not have the ID that the law mandates.

It is indeed naive to believe that 'no' fraud exists. But the question is really how much, and is it worth the disenfranchising of hundreds of thousands of people to try to reduce it?

To me this is a basic issue of rights. But with rights there are responsibility. You have the right to vote if you are a US citizen. You have the responsibility to get up and go to the polls. You have the responsibility to fill out the voter registration card. You have the responsibility to fill out the absentee ballot if that is what you need.

Where are all the "disenfranchised voters" out there saying that they cannot vote because they are too lazy to go to the polling station?

Is ID that big of a hassle to somewhat ensure that the person voting is who they say they are? You have to have ID to write a check, open a bank account, and get a license. Is voting more or less important than those?

I am ALL for people voting. I even believe it should be mandatory for goodness sakes! (like that would ever happen...) However, I want the people who are voting to be those who they say they are.