56 thoughts on “Non-Citizen Voters”

  1. Let me channel Baghdad Jim:

    “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. All you have is people claiming to have been illegal and voting, but no proof. Show me prosecutions. And since nobody was actually prosecuted for illegally voting for Democrat candidates by the Democrat voting officials and Democrat legal apparatchiks in these Democrat bastions, that’s proof nothing illegal happened.”

    1. “And since nobody was actually prosecuted for illegally voting for Democrat candidates by the Democrat voting officials and Democrat legal apparatchiks in these Democrat bastions, that’s proof nothing illegal happened.”

      That truly is Jim’s basic argument.

      That plus the strawman that voter ID doesbnt’ solve every form of voter fraud.

      1. I’d much rather read what Jim actually has to say; the above are almost by definition strawman arguments. It’s hard to fisk something he hasn’t said.

        1. “I’d much rather read what Jim actually has to say; the above are almost by definition strawman arguments. It’s hard to fisk something he hasn’t said.”

          But he has said the above….Countless times.

          Jim has said that the issues have been under investigation for years without finding anything. Therefore there’s nothing to find.

  2. New Yorker, now Californian, making a stink about voter ID because she fails to follow Texas law to prove residency to register to vote. She brought her birth certificate (from NYC) and her California Driver’s License, and was upset when she was informed such information does not prove residency in Texas.

    Voter ID didn’t prevent this woman from voting, but MSNBC seems to think it did. If so, then it seems the law prevented at least one fraud from being able to vote in Texas.

    1. But ID wouldn’t solve the problem of illegals voting because in many states you do not need to be a citizen to get ID.

  3. We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

    Not a surprise. Voter ID is to prove that you are the person you say you are, not to prove that you are eligible to vote.

    An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.

    I.e. non-citizens vote because they don’t know they aren’t allowed to. That’s a far cry from organized, deliberate fraud.

    1. Jim blathered, “I.e. non-citizens vote because they don’t know they aren’t allowed to.”
      Accepting that for the sake of argument, voter ID plus proper ID standards would catch and prevent it.

      1. Voter ID means checking ID at the polls, to confirm that you are the registered voter you claim to be. The problem here is that non-citizens are getting registered in the first place, despite the fact that ID is already required for registration. Voter ID at the polls isn’t the solution for that.

    2. “I.e. non-citizens vote because they don’t know they aren’t allowed to. ”

      Complete and utter bullshit. No way these people don’t know. They’re just lying so they don’t get in trouble.

      “Oh, voting when you’re not a citizen is a crime? Of course I didn’t know that!” Can you name a country where non-citizens can vote?

      1. Rick asks ” Can you name a country where non-citizens can vote?”

        I can. Look at the very long list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote and check to see if various countries on the list allows (or allowed) the kind of voting you are interested in or not. Since the list is definitely a case of “too long, didn’t read”, I picked two adjacent countries almost at random to quote — here are the entries for Chile and Columbia (the list is in alphabetical order):

        “Chile
        The 1980 Chilean Constitution states in its article 14 that “Foreigners residing in Chile for more than five years and who comply with the requirements prescribed in the first paragraph of Article 13, may exercise the right to vote in the cases and in the manner determined by law.”. Article 13 states that “Citizens are those Chileans who have reached the age of eighteen years and who have never been sentenced to afflictive punishment.”.[37] A 2012 constitutional reform introduced a second line to article 14, by which eligibility rights of naturalized citizens to run for office only occur 5 years after being granted a naturalization card.[38]

        Colombia
        In 1991, the constitution was changed to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, but the changes were not immediately implemented.[13] On July 31, 2006, Colombia approved voting by foreigners for mayors and city council elections. To vote, foreigners must have been residents of Colombia for 5 years and must register with the electoral authorities. Voting is not compulsory and voting aliens have the same voting-related privileges citizens would.[39]

        And the list of such countries goes on and on and on.

        1. I suspect this is only for foreigners allowed legally in the country, not mere border-crossers. Non-citizen residents allowed to vote in local elections under strict conditions, does not bother me. A far cry from foreigners voting illegally and swaying national elections.

          1. It’s only recently that the simple act of moving from one place to another made a person a criminal (with one notable exception).

            For a long time, the only people stopped at borders were criminals, invaders, and those with infectious diseases: the people who now get through because our Border Patrol is too busy looking for people who merely want a job.

            The original Republic of the Founding Fathers had the type of open immigration that modern “conservatives” consider unthinkable. The first immigration restrictions did not occur until the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

            As I said, however, there is one historical exception: There was one class of people who were bound to the land and not allowed to migrate. They were called “serfs.” The modern state represents a partial return to that system.

            (No, I’m not implying that we live in a literal state of seldom. For one thing, the Church placed strict limits on how heavily lords could tax their serfs. Modern taxation systems go far beyond those limits.)

          2. I suspect the catch in the list is the naturalization process in those countries allowing foreigners to vote. The 5 years residence seems a bit of a tale. A foreigner can come to the US, live here 5 years, and be allowed to vote if they state a desire to live with their actions by becoming a citizen. Migrant workers don’t necessarily live with the results. So countries have no problems allowing foreign workers, perhaps provide them the right to vote after 5 years, but may only allow citizenship by birth. For example, you can become naturalized in Chile after… 5 years.

    3. Hey Jim, do you think the military and police will continue to think the civilian government is legitimate if that government is run by foreigners?

      1. Did the military and police think the civilian government was legitimate for the first century of our country’s existence, when there were open borders and foreign-born residents made up a much bigger share of the electorate?

    4. I.e. non-citizens vote because they don’t know they aren’t allowed to. That’s a far cry from organized, deliberate fraud.

      Which is why Democrats and Obama support Amnesty. Lawful immigrants to any country know the laws of those countries before entering them lawfully, and are held to follow those laws. Jim claims it is the ignorance of illegal voters and not organized deliberate fraud, while Obama enticed thousands of illegals to cross the border with the promise that nothing would be done to them with respect to the law. It is a very deliberate and organized fraud.

      1. Yep. The fix is in. One wonders what the payoff must have been to the top Republicans, for them to support what’s happening at the southern border.

        When the end comes, I fear it will be especially ugly.

          1. So, you sending me a Wikipedia link isn’t lazy?

            Jim threw a comment about “growth” and I threw a demand for proof back. I don’t need a wiki page for background material.

            I’d like to know how millions of illegal immigrants, who use our hospitals, and don’t pay insurance, helps growth.

            I’d like to know how taking away jobs from Americans is “growth”. And please don’t give me the pablum about those jobs being ones that Americans won’t do. Many of these jobs are good ones, such as construction jobs.

            I’d like to know how sending all of the money back to their home countries, instead of being used here for investment, is “growth”.

            I’d like to know how a porous border that allows terrorists into it is considered “growth”.

            I’d like to know how using illegals to smuggle drugs into this country, and get our kids hooked on meth, is “growth”.

            I’d like to know how filling schools without paying the taxes to educate them is considered “growth”.

          2. “I’d like to know how millions of illegal immigrants…”

            People who are anti-illegal immigration are pro-legal immigration. They just want the laws followed by people who want to be Americans and they want our politicians to manage the system competently. Notice how none of the discussion on immigration ever talks about actually reforming the system so more people can come here legally. It is always about amnesty, open borders, and putting up road blocks to prevent immigrants from assimilating into American culture..

    5. Jim cackles as he types. He must, to feed us this absolute bullshit, knowing it is and it’s working.

      Solution? Election day, anybody with a hand votes dipping there fingers in the purple ink. Anybody found to have voted illegally has both hands cut off. I expect the word would get out real quick.

      If you’re not sure… do not vote.

    6. “non-citizens vote because they don’t know they aren’t allowed to.”

      What part of the question “Are you a citizen of the United States of America? __ Yes __ No” is so difficult to understand on a voter registration form? If a non-citizen doesn’t see that question, which is required, then they also have to agree to an affidavit, one line of which reads “I am a United States citizen.”

      Those statements are on the FEDERAL Voter Registration form. Each state’s form has the same question and affidavit, though perhaps worded slightly differently (“I am a citizen of the United States.”, for example).

      And those same questions appear on the non-English forms, as well.

      Those statements/questions stand in stark contrast to the assertion that “non-citizens vote because they don’t know they’re not allowed to.” They’re either lying under oath on their registration forms, or someone isn’t bothering to check how that question is answered before they process registration applications. I leave it up to each individual to decide whether the latter is willful ignorance or not.

      I’ll grant the idea that some non-citizens may be unaware of the citizenship restrictions prior to registering to vote; I hear quite often about exchange students who are caught off-guard when they fill out a registration form. But to say that those who take the time to register to vote are unaware that there is a citizenship restriction before they cast a ballot is specious, at best.

  4. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

    Not a surprise. Voter ID is to prove that you are the person you say you are, not to prove that you are eligible to vote.

    So getting 25% is a bad thing? If you found your software had 25% of buggy code, would you send it out?

    You see, Jim, we’ve learned a bit from you progressives. We’ve learned incrementalism. We’ll start with, “Oh, we just want IDs for everyone”. Next, we’ll make sure there are citizen/non-citizen IDs. You see how this works? Of course you do, it’s how you’ve been getting millions on the dole to make sure they vote for the democrat party.

    1. You see, Jim, we’ve learned a bit from you progressives. We’ve learned incrementalism. We’ll start with, “Oh, we just want IDs for everyone”.

      When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.

      As Heinlein said, when a society begins to require IDs, it’s time to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, there aren’t many places left to go.

      I can remember when Republicans cared about protecting freedom, rather than just maintaining political power. Unfortunately, it seems that such a political party cannot survive for long.

      1. Mr. Wright:

        Your views on this topic align with mine, but it seems there is a party platform that appears to have settled the matter of voter ID. I don’t remember much discussion prior in Web space on this — it seems the consensus emerged from state-level Republican conventions, and now it has become a litmus test of agreement with party principles.

      2. I would certainly have less of a problem with ID and allowing foreigners to vote if the conditions today resembled the time of the founding. But when people vote benefits to themselves, they certainly need to prove citizenship.

        1. Are you under the impression that 19th century voters did not vote benefits to themselves? The form of the benefits has varied over time (e.g. tariffs and land grants vs. Social Security and Medicare) but self-interest has always been central to American voting.

        2. But when people vote benefits to themselves, they certainly need to prove citizenship.

          How does a magic citizenship card confer a right to vote oneself benefits from the public till? I don’t find that anywhere in the Constitution.

      3. I can remember when Republicans cared about protecting freedom

        Today’s Republican coalition includes voters who prize liberty, along with voters who prize sanctity/purity. Immigration pulls the party in two opposite directions.

        1. It is also a coalition with a significant number of people who believe in acting ethically and lawfully. This is a cultural trait that was passed down in immigrant families. IMO, this is one of the cultural peccadilloes that our nation should adopt from this immigrant community. And I don’t think Democrats should attack this cultural value by claiming people who have this culture as being racists.

  5. Are you under the impression that 19th century voters did not vote benefits to themselves? The form of the benefits has varied over time (e.g. tariffs and land grants vs. Social Security and Medicare) but self-interest has always been central to American voting.

    Tarrifs and land grants vs entitlements? Are you serious? As you always do, you equate A to B when A and B are nowhere near equal.

      1. Of course not. But equating corruption of the 1800s to trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities is stupid.

  6. Are you under the impression that 19th century voters did not vote benefits to themselves? The form of the benefits has varied over time (e.g. tariffs and land grants vs. Social Security and Medicare) but self-interest has always been central to American voting.

    Laudanum was popular in the 1800s, so I guess we should legalize heroin.
    Cocaine used to be in Coca-Cola, so I guess we should legalize cocaine.

  7. Of course if you don’t have a voter ID law in effect and scrupulously enforced then you get no data on how many votes were illegally case. In Jim’s world, lack of data due to the lack of a law or study means no law has been broken. He similarly uses that ploy where data has been hidden and stonewalled by the government.

    However, in the real world, we have La Raza helpfully tweeting which states have no voter ID law:

    La Raza Promotes Washington Post Guide On Where People Can Vote Without An ID

    The pro-amnesty Hispanic activist organization the National Council of La Raza helpfully promoted a Washington Post article explaining which states people can vote in without having to use a photo ID.

    “Voter ID laws are at-issue across the country, with newly Republican-controlled legislatures having passed them in numerous states after the 2010 election,” explained The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. “Most states still request some form of ID, but don’t require it. Another 20 states don’t require identification. In case you’re wondering where your state is at in all of this, a helpful (sic) graphic from the Post’s graphics team.”

    So who ended up using the Post’s helpful graphic? The country’s foremost pro-amnesty Hispanic immigrant organization.

    …………

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/la-raza-promotes-washington-post-guide-on-where-people-can-vote-without-an-id/

  8. But…but…there is NO illegal voting going on!!!!!

    Non-Citizens Are Voting
    James O’Keefe documents the problem in North Carolina, where the Senate race is close.

    A new study by two Old Dominion University professors, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterms. Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic, they cite Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race as one likely tipped by non-citizen voting. As a senator, Franken cast the 60th vote needed to make Obamacare law.
    ……….
    O’Keefe had a Brazilian-born immigrant investigator of his pose as someone who wanted to vote but was not a citizen. Greg Amick, the campaign manager for the Democrat running for sheriff in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), was only too happy to help.
    …………..
    Greg Amick: Here’s a couple of things you can do. You do not have to have your driver’s license, but do you have any sort of identification?

    Project Veritas investigator: But I do have my driver’s license.

    Amick: Oh, you do. Show ’em that and you’re good.

    PV: But the only problem, you know, I don’t want to vote if I’m not legal. I think that’s going to be a problem. I’m not sure.

    Amick: It won’t be, it shouldn’t be an issue at all.

    PV: No?

    Amick: As long as you are registered to vote, you’ll be fine.

    But North Carolina officials shouldn’t be “fine” with Amick, who appears to be afoul of a state law making it a felony “for any person, knowing that a person is not a citizen of the United States, to instruct or coerce that person to register to vote or to vote.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391474/non-citizens-are-voting-john-fund

    1. The correct response, which I hope Republicans would give in a similar situation, is, “Thanks for your support. You can do a lot of things to help your favored candidate get elected but if you are not a citizen, voting isn’t one of them. Let me give you some contact numbers for people who can get you involved.”

      What ever happened to ethics and integrity?

Comments are closed.