rhaig 0 #51 July 2, 2010 Quote>If you don't think that the possibility of adding several MILLION voters to >the party doesn't make Ried and Pelosi wet their pants, you're living in a >dream world. Yep. Makes the GOP wet its pants too. There's also the sympathy vote; legal Mexican immigrants will tend to vote against people who they perceive to be against Mexicans. some of the legal mexican immigrants I know are the most vocal against immigration reform.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #52 July 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote I don't understand that thinking by politicians. Illegals are not going to vote... period! They will do anything to avoid being tracked-down and sent back home. To them, voting leaves a 'paper trail'. Besides, illegals don't give a crap about voting or our politics, they just want all they can get and not be found. Chuck I agree. But I also know that employers looking for cheap labor will hire these illegals whenever possible to do the work that we legal americans probably wouldn't think of doing. You bet! Thinking back, In my younger years, I DID some of those jobs that some folks won't do now. You know what the problem is? Those folks who won't do certain jobs, just haven't been hungry enough. I've stocked grocery shelves, swept floors in a truck garage, worked in warehouses, mucked stalls and some others. Chuck Know why they are not "hungry enough"? Because and entitlement generation has seen to it there are enough governmental agencies to bail out deadbeats.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 July 2, 2010 QuoteMoreover, once an amnesty is granted, the former illegal aliens would have a strong incentive to keep their noses clean. So, if anything, you might see a small drop in Democratic voters, because people who have been voting illegally would stop voting until they became citizens. Without some way to verify if they're who they say they are when they come to vote, how are they going to get caught, pray tell?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #54 July 2, 2010 QuoteJust because you don't LIKE the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. If you don't think that the possibility of adding several MILLION voters to the party doesn't make Ried and Pelosi wet their pants, you're living in a dream world. What you haven't answered is why Democrats would think that way, but Republicans wouldn't. That was the implied part, and the part that you apparently can't answer. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #55 July 2, 2010 Quote I liken illegal immigration to illegal prostitution. Is it illegal? Yes. Should it be stopped? Yes. Is there other crime associated with it? Yes. Are people directly injured by prostitution? No. don't confuse voluntary sex workers in Nevada with the sex slave trade. Women are certainly being directly injured by it. They make arrangements to get smuggled into the country, often under the premise they will be doing cleaning work. They get here, are told they owe 2 or 3X as much, and then are locked away to do sex work. It's one aspect of crime associated with illegal immigration. So is the higher unemployment and lower wages, measured against the potentially lower prices for consumers. While some here want to claim this is a Democratic ploy, the Republican governors of California have been happy to do the two step, decrying illegals while insuring that agriculture has plenty of cheap labor to pick the crops. The counter claim is always that this is work people won't do here. They won't for that wage. But if we want cheap fruit, we get the negatives of illegal immigration as well. Maybe we would be better off paying the true price up front. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #56 July 2, 2010 QuoteWithout some way to verify if they're who they say they are when they come to vote, how are they going to get caught, pray tell? When you apply for US citizenship, it can be denied if it is found you have ever voted illegally. So it's not just a question of whether the state catches them now, but also a question of whether the feds will catch them years from now, possibly using much more advanced future technology. Right now illegals have little to lose by voting illegally. If you put them on a "pathway to citizenship" you give them something to lose. People with something to lose usually try to keep within the law especially on major issues. Maybe their illegal voting will remain forever under the radar and out of reach of even more advanced future technology. Maybe not. At least some of them won't take the risk, though, once they've got something to lose and this will reduce the pool of Democratic voters."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #57 July 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote I don't understand that thinking by politicians. Illegals are not going to vote... period! They will do anything to avoid being tracked-down and sent back home. To them, voting leaves a 'paper trail'. Besides, illegals don't give a crap about voting or our politics, they just want all they can get and not be found. Chuck I agree. But I also know that employers looking for cheap labor will hire these illegals whenever possible to do the work that we legal americans probably wouldn't think of doing. You bet! Thinking back, In my younger years, I DID some of those jobs that some folks won't do now. You know what the problem is? Those folks who won't do certain jobs, just haven't been hungry enough. I've stocked grocery shelves, swept floors in a truck garage, worked in warehouses, mucked stalls and some others. Chuck Know why they are not "hungry enough"? Because and entitlement generation has seen to it there are enough governmental agencies to bail out deadbeats. True enough. We're a spoiled, wasteful nation of people. I'm not saying everyone here is like that but we do have enoughto get our attention. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #58 July 2, 2010 QuoteKnow why they are not "hungry enough"? Because and entitlement generation has seen to it there are enough governmental agencies to bail out deadbeats. Another change is that in past generations women didn't work (in paid work) nearly as much. When you have two incomes it often allows both partners the luxury of being much more picky about what kind of jobs they will accept. If one partner still has a job they can and often do offer a "bailout package" for a period of time to the other partner. Back in the days of sole breadwinners that breadwinner had to take whatever work they could find just to feed their family."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteJust because you don't LIKE the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. If you don't think that the possibility of adding several MILLION voters to the party doesn't make Ried and Pelosi wet their pants, you're living in a dream world. What you haven't answered is why Democrats would think that way, but Republicans wouldn't. That was the implied part, and the part that you apparently can't answer. Because the Reps know the voting record of the demographic just as well as the Dems do. Are you really that unaware, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Is it the only reason? Of course not. Do they still consider that aspect of it? Damn straight, they do.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #60 July 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Just because you don't LIKE the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. If you don't think that the possibility of adding several MILLION voters to the party doesn't make Ried and Pelosi wet their pants, you're living in a dream world. What you haven't answered is why Democrats would think that way, but Republicans wouldn't. That was the implied part, and the part that you apparently can't answer. Because the Reps know the voting record of the demographic just as well as the Dems do. Are you really that unaware, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Is it the only reason? Of course not. Do they still consider that aspect of it? Damn straight, they do. So basicly if the GOP can disenfranchize a group of voters its all good then... You Betcha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteWithout some way to verify if they're who they say they are when they come to vote, how are they going to get caught, pray tell? When you apply for US citizenship, it can be denied if it is found you have ever voted illegally. So it's not just a question of whether the state catches them now, but also a question of whether the feds will catch them years from now, possibly using much more advanced future technology. And how are they going to do that, if they're not required to identify themselves when they vote? QuoteAt least some of them won't take the risk, though, once they've got something to lose and this will reduce the pool of Democratic voters. Supposition.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #62 July 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Just because you don't LIKE the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. If you don't think that the possibility of adding several MILLION voters to the party doesn't make Ried and Pelosi wet their pants, you're living in a dream world. What you haven't answered is why Democrats would think that way, but Republicans wouldn't. That was the implied part, and the part that you apparently can't answer. Because the Reps know the voting record of the demographic just as well as the Dems do. Are you really that unaware, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Is it the only reason? Of course not. Do they still consider that aspect of it? Damn straight, they do. So basicly if the GOP can disenfranchize a group of voters its all good then... You Betcha What group of voters would that be? Illegals?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #63 July 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Just because you don't LIKE the answer doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. If you don't think that the possibility of adding several MILLION voters to the party doesn't make Ried and Pelosi wet their pants, you're living in a dream world. What you haven't answered is why Democrats would think that way, but Republicans wouldn't. That was the implied part, and the part that you apparently can't answer. Because the Reps know the voting record of the demographic just as well as the Dems do. Are you really that unaware, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Is it the only reason? Of course not. Do they still consider that aspect of it? Damn straight, they do. So basicly if the GOP can disenfranchize a group of voters its all good then... You Betcha What group of voters would that be? Illegals? No the usual groups that the GOP "conservatives" seek to keep away from the polls as I posted a link above. Quote The difficulty is that the poor and minorities are least likely to own motor vehicles and possess a driver’s license—the most commonly accepted form of identification. Indeed, in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice found that African-Americans in Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned photo ID than white residents. As a result, the Department denied pre-clearance for that state’s proposed photo ID requirement because it “would lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The evidence continues to mount. A June 2005 study by the University of Wisconsin. found that less than half (47 percent) of Milwaukee County African American adults and 43 percent of Hispanic adults have a valid drivers license compared to 85 percent of white adults outside Milwaukee. One Arizona county reported in February that it was forced to reject nearly 75 percent of new voter registration forms for failure to provide adequate proof of citizenship. Furthermore, for those who do not have the kinds of up-to-date non-photo ID necessary—and many minority and urban voters, for example those who live in multiple family dwellings simply will not—getting identification from the government will present costs and burdens for voters who simply want to exercise their constitutional right to vote. A certified copy of a birth certificate costs from $10.00 to $45.00, depending on the state; a passport costs $85.00; and certified naturalization papers cost $19.95. It may not be so very easy for people who work more than one job or have small children to take the time during business hours, drive to a Department of Drivers Services, and wait on line to get necessary identification. Indeed, most of the state’s offices are open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Has the state researched the potential disparate impacts on getting non-photo ID? If not, it has not met its burden under the Act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 July 2, 2010 Uh huh - so, how are these people functioning in the REST of their daily lives without ID, then?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #65 July 2, 2010 QuoteUh huh - so, how are these people functioning in the REST of their daily lives without ID, then? I think you are missing the point.... I would seek to be inclusive of ALL voters and potential voters to join the process. As the article pointed out by making the poor pay high fees for the priveledge of getting ID they are being exclusive, which is the intent of those laws. Many people do indeed manage to live their daily lives without having to "you vill show me your papers" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #66 July 2, 2010 >so you're assuming those women are prostitutes? It's a pretty good bet that the ones arrested and convicted of prostitution are, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #67 July 2, 2010 Quote>so you're assuming those women are prostitutes? It's a pretty good bet that the ones arrested and convicted of prostitution are, yes. oh well yes... you just didn't mention anything about that when you brought it up QuoteDrive around any city late at night; they seem to have had just as much luck preventing prostitution as they've had preventing illegal immigration. you seem to imply that you can see women on the streets and know (or assume) that they are prostitutes.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #68 July 2, 2010 >don't confuse voluntary sex workers in Nevada with the sex slave trade. >Women are certainly being directly injured by it. Agreed. Like I said, there is crime _associated_ with both. (Pimps abusing prostitutes is another problem, as is drug usage by prostitutes.) >But if we want cheap fruit, we get the negatives of illegal immigration as >well. Maybe we would be better off paying the true price up front. Very good point. I think one of the basic contradictions inherent in this problem is that often the same people who decry illegal immigration will ignore the more expensive produce from 100% US-worker farms in favor of the cheaper stuff. That, in turn, effectively destroys any business that does NOT use illegal immigrants. Fining the owners doesn't address the underlying problem; it just means that the most clever evader wins. If people started refusing to buy produce from farms that employed illegal labor (perhaps via a voluntary "seal of approval" organization) a lot of this problem would go away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteUh huh - so, how are these people functioning in the REST of their daily lives without ID, then? I think you are missing the point.... I would seek to be inclusive of ALL voters and potential voters to join the process. As the article pointed out by making the poor pay high fees for the priveledge of getting ID they are being exclusive, which is the intent of those laws. Yeah, they keep saying that, but seeing as how the states that require some sort of ID have proofs as simple as a paycheck, bank statement, social security card or utility bill, I'm not convinced that the problem of insufficient ID is as widespread or as severe as is claimed. QuoteMany people do indeed manage to live their daily lives without having to "you vill show me your papers" They're REALLY going to be fucked when they have to bear the expense of that passport card you keep advocating, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #70 July 2, 2010 QuoteAnd how are they going to do that, if they're not required to identify themselves when they vote? If the state does voter registration by mail then they at least need a valid address. If they use a real address, but a fictitious name, even present day software technology (let alone future developments) could easily smoke them out as a potential illegal voter. I'm not aware of any state where an unregistered voter can simply walk in on election day, provide zero information about themselves, and walk out having cast a valid ballot. There's always some form of paper trail created although it is more rigorous in some states than others. Most people in the process of legalization are going to want to avoid creating a paper trail based on lies."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #71 July 2, 2010 >Yeah, they keep saying that, but seeing as how the states that require >some sort of ID have proofs as simple as a paycheck, bank statement, >social security card or utility bill, I'm not convinced that the problem of >insufficient ID is as widespread or as severe as is claimed. Uh, how is a bank statement proof of citizenship? Anyone can open a bank account here without any proof at all of citizenship. Some let you do it on line with nothing more than a check made out to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #72 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteUh huh - so, how are these people functioning in the REST of their daily lives without ID, then? I think you are missing the point.... I would seek to be inclusive of ALL voters and potential voters to join the process. As the article pointed out by making the poor pay high fees for the priveledge of getting ID they are being exclusive, which is the intent of those laws. Yeah, they keep saying that, but seeing as how the states that require some sort of ID have proofs as simple as a paycheck, bank statement, social security card or utility bill, I'm not convinced that the problem of insufficient ID is as widespread or as severe as is claimed. QuoteMany people do indeed manage to live their daily lives without having to "you vill show me your papers" They're REALLY going to be fucked when they have to bear the expense of that passport card you keep advocating, then. That is an EXCEEDINGLY easy fix make them free to all citizens as they should be anyway as a benefit to being a citizen of our great country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 July 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnd how are they going to do that, if they're not required to identify themselves when they vote? If the state does voter registration by mail then they at least need a valid address. If they use a real address, but a fictitious name, even present day software technology (let alone future developments) could easily smoke them out as a potential illegal voter. Doubtful - people move within a city/precinct and forget to change their address with the voting commission. I've received registration cards for previous tenants at a couple places that I've lived. I sent them back with a note stating that the person no longer lived at the address. QuoteI'm not aware of any state where an unregistered voter can simply walk in on election day, provide zero information about themselves, and walk out having cast a valid ballot. There's always some form of paper trail created although it is more rigorous in some states than others. Most people in the process of legalization are going to want to avoid creating a paper trail based on lies. In several states, a non-identified voter can swear an affadavit on the spot and vote. Are you claiming those people are later re-verified by the workers at that polling place, or do you have evidence of what these various paper trails you claim actually entail? Something more involved than a spreadsheet with a tick mark showing that John Doe of 123 Main Street showed up to vote, that is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #74 July 2, 2010 Quotethere will always be illegals - in every country, in every part of the world. It's all about how you manage it. Just another thing in the USA that has been completely gutted by lowering taxes to a point where law enforcement cannot do their job. LAW ENFORCEMENT wants it done - POLITICIANS ARE NOT LETTING THEM. Fixed it for you I know you are right, but there are more cases of police having the money, manpower, and legal reasons, but are getting cock blocked by Obamites Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 July 2, 2010 Quote>Yeah, they keep saying that, but seeing as how the states that require >some sort of ID have proofs as simple as a paycheck, bank statement, >social security card or utility bill, I'm not convinced that the problem of >insufficient ID is as widespread or as severe as is claimed. Uh, how is a bank statement proof of citizenship? Anyone can open a bank account here without any proof at all of citizenship. Some let you do it on line with nothing more than a check made out to you. You'd have to discuss that with the states that allow it. I know that in Texas, I had to show proof when I opened an account.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
