Congress goes after Illegals again

[NorthSideSox72]

House passes measure to require voters to show photo ID at the polls. Senate is talking 700 mile fence....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060920/ap_on_...o/immigration_4

 

My thoughts...

 

The ID thing, which has been struck down by more than one state Supreme Court, won't survive judical review. Its unconstitutional, for multiple reasons - most importantly, it is disenfranchisement by way of economics. You CANNOT CHARGE THE PUBLIC FOR A RIGHT. Voting is a right. Driving is a priviledge. You cannot treat them the same way. Its basic Con Law. So it will either fail in the Senate, or be struck down in court.

 

The fence is just plain stupid, as I have detailed before. I'm all good with putting troops there, setting up electronic surveillance of all sorts, beefing up border patrols, etc. Stiff penalties are good too. But the wall is a PR, environmental and BUDGET disaster. Its the expensive way to do it - just like Congress likes.

[EvilMonkey]

I'm all for having to show ID to vote. Contrary to the popular liberal belief, just about everybody of voting age has an id. You can't get into a bar without id, can't write a check without id, can't get on an airplane without id and so on. There are also provisions in several states to subsidize state idcards for those who "can't afford the $20". So if the id's are free, do you still have a problem with them?

[samclemens]

northside, you would not have an objection if cards were subsidized for people who cannot afford it, right? showing ID to vote isnt so unreasonable, I for one support it just so that we dont have non-citizens voting and to prevent double and triple dips, as we all know happens.

 

as for the fence, if it decreases the amount of illegals crossing the border, i support it. i dont remember your earlier post that details why a fence is such a stupid idea, but i think it would supplement all the ideas you list. i got no problem with either of these.

[southsider2k5]

What a surprise, since Congress is too afraid to actually do what needs to be done to solve illegal immigration, they find the easy way out yet again. There is one easy solution to solving this and it is removing the incentive for illegal labor. Ideally you make it a disincentive for both the workers and the employers to be using illegal labor, but even if you just made it unpalatable for employers to hire illegals, the illegal market would dry up quickly if there were no jobs for them. There also needs to be a smart fluid program originating outside of the US to hire the people who want to come to the US and work BEFORE they get here, instead of after risking their's and their family's lives to do so. Another thing that would go a long way towards helping things is if the Mexician government could get their own house cleaned up, fix the still omnipresent levels of corruption, and make people actually want to stay there, instead of needing to come here.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm all for having to show ID to vote. Contrary to the popular liberal belief, just about everybody of voting age has an id. You can't get into a bar without id, can't write a check without id, can't get on an airplane without id and so on. There are also provisions in several states to subsidize state idcards for those who "can't afford the $20". So if the id's are free, do you still have a problem with them?

 

northside, you would not have an objection if cards were subsidized for people who cannot afford it, right? showing ID to vote isnt so unreasonable, I for one support it just so that we dont have non-citizens voting and to prevent double and triple dips, as we all know happens.

 

To answer these questions: yes. If ID's were available for free in some way, then I would be 100% OK with this. I am all for reducing voter fraud. Just as long as we aren't charging for a right.

[NorthSideSox72]

as for the fence, if it decreases the amount of illegals crossing the border, i support it. i dont remember your earlier post that details why a fence is such a stupid idea, but i think it would supplement all the ideas you list. i got no problem with either of these.

 

Well, one of the things I suggested is what SS2K5 has eluded to above. Dealing with the demand side of the equation.

 

Here is what I'd like to see to reduce the flow of illegal, undocumented immigrants...

 

--Set up a special division within the Border Patrol, whose singular role is to investigate, prosecute and fine business who hire illegals.

--Fines should be hefty, for two reasons... One, its a better deterrent. Two, we'll need the income as you will see in a moment.

--Use the money from the fines to fully fund the investigative division, and send the overage to the Border Patrol's tactical units.

--Budgeted money for actual border security should not go to a wall - a wall will be hideously expensive (the terrain along the border is difficult to access and mountainous in many areas), it will require a lot of maintenance money, its an environmental disaster (causes water flow problems, disallows any kind of migration or range expansion for species), it is a PR nightmare (makes the US look even more cowboy), and it will STILL require a lot of man power to patrol. Plus when you eventually don't need it, what do you do with it?

--Instead of a wall, set up a surveillance network. This would be made up of cameras and sensors, aircraft and helicopter patrol with FLIR, and just a handful of small tactical teams (border patrol or national guard, I don't care which) that can respond directly to the location of people crossing. Think about money here - which is more expensive for a given 100 mile stretch? A handful of cameras and senors, a helicopter on patrol, and one 4 man tac team? Or 100 miles of hardened wall that STILL requires the cameras and sensors and patrol units anyway?

--And with the surveillance plan, you get two nice side benefits. One, if/when the tide slows, its easy to staff down without dismantling much. And two, the data collected from the sensors that will also pick up animals, can be used by the scientific community to study.

--One caveat - in urban areas, a wall may be a necessity. With too much in the way of buildings and heat bloom near the borders, a fence is probably the only alternative.

 

So there it is, my platform for border security. Enjoy.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well I'll be damned. They are indeed doing what I wanted them to do with the border, more or less.

[southsider2k5]

Well I'll be damned. They are indeed doing what I wanted them to do with the border, more or less.

 

yeah this was all over the Chicago news this morning, problem was that was at 4:30 am, and I forgot about it until you posted this link again

[Balta1701]

northside, you would not have an objection if cards were subsidized for people who cannot afford it, right? showing ID to vote isnt so unreasonable, I for one support it just so that we dont have non-citizens voting and to prevent double and triple dips, as we all know happens.

So a quick question...and it can be answered by anyone who has knowledge...

 

Is there actually evidence that people voting who aren't actually U.S. citizens is a real problem? Is it such a severe problem that it is worth disenfranchising actual U.S. voters who don't get the message about needing a photo ID or how to get one free?

[southsider2k5]

So a quick question...and it can be answered by anyone who has knowledge...

 

Is there actually evidence that people voting who aren't actually U.S. citizens is a real problem? Is it such a severe problem that it is worth disenfranchising actual U.S. voters who don't get the message about needing a photo ID or how to get one free?

 

From the sounds of the rhetoric of the last two President election cycles, apparently voter fraud is rampant.

[Balta1701]

From the sounds of the rhetoric of the last two President election cycles, apparently voter fraud is rampant.

I'll grant that...but this only deals with one specific type of voter fraud. Is there actually evidence that this type is a major problem?

 

I mean, if one of your big problems is that voting machines don't work right and poll workers aren't trained well, you fix the voting machines and train the poll workers better. You don't go find something else to do that actually makes the poll workers' jobs harder while ignoring the bigger problems.

 

If someone can show me conclusively that this is a problem, and it's a problem on a bigger scale than the disenfranchisement it will cause, then I'd be happy to support it.

[SadChiSoxFanOptimist]

So a quick question...and it can be answered by anyone who has knowledge...

 

Is there actually evidence that people voting who aren't actually U.S. citizens is a real problem? Is it such a severe problem that it is worth disenfranchising actual U.S. voters who don't get the message about needing a photo ID or how to get one free?

 

 

 

It is not as rampant as organized, systematic voter repression activities initiated by the RNC specifically targeting demographic groups that traditionally vote Democratic. Republicans are very good at that.

[samclemens]

It is not as rampant as organized, systematic voter repression activities initiated by the RNC specifically targeting demographic groups that traditionally vote Democratic. Republicans are very good at that.

 

oh, for god's sake. both parties have been doing it forever. its not a republican or a democrat idea. like the federalists, anti-federalists, whigs, bull moose party, and yes DEMOCRATS havent done it either. the point is to stop voter fraud, and I think ID cards a step towards that. stop trying to interject crap into a legitimate discussion.

[mr_genius]

It is not as rampant as organized, systematic voter repression activities initiated by the RNC specifically targeting demographic groups that traditionally vote Democratic. Republicans are very good at that.

 

 

yea right. you can't figure out how to bunch a "butterfly" ballot that the democrats themselves set up? blame the republicans! show up to the poll 3 hours after it closes and you don't get to vote? obvious racism.

 

really, how much control does the RNC have in voting districts that show heavy support towards the Democrats? if you don't know i'll tell you; the answer is little, if any.

 

the main reason democrats don't want people to show an ID is because they know for a fact that many of their constituants aren't legitimate voters.

[NorthSideSox72]

the main reason democrats don't want people to show an ID is because they know for a fact that many of their constituants aren't legitimate voters.

I'll take issue with this part. The reason the Dems don't want ID shown is because their constituents tend to include the very poor and the transient, who are less likely to have IDs. I'd say that neither party lays sole claim to illegitimate voters or questionable voting tactics.

[mr_genius]

I'll take issue with this part. The reason the Dems don't want ID shown is because their constituents tend to include the very poor and the transient, who are less likely to have IDs. I'd say that neither party lays sole claim to illegitimate voters or questionable voting tactics.

 

 

do think a potential voter should be able to show any ID, proof of residence or social security number to register? IMO, allowing someone to just give a name and then be registered to vote is almost asking for fraud.

 

i support any reasonable solution to curbing both Rublican and Democratic voting fraud.

Edited September 21, 2006 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

do think a potential voter should be able to show any ID, proof of residence or social security number to register? IMO, allowing someone to just give a name and then be registered to vote is almost asking for fraud.

I answered that questions a few posts ago. I am OK with requiring ID as long as ID's can be had in that state (or at a federal level) free of charge. I will never accept the idea of charging for a right.

[mr_genius]

I answered that questions a few posts ago. I am OK with requiring ID as long as ID's can be had in that state (or at a federal level) free of charge. I will never accept the idea of charging for a right.

 

i agree.

 

 

ps.

i didn't see your earlier post,

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I answered that questions a few posts ago. I am OK with requiring ID as long as ID's can be had in that state (or at a federal level) free of charge. I will never accept the idea of charging for a right.

 

 

If Im not mistaken, this latest bill includes funding to help defray the cost of getting these people state IDs. With all the accusations of fraud that Democrats make you would think they would welcome something that helps stop election fraud.

 

Oh, wait,

 

This means no voting 3 times and no illegal aliens voting either so we cant have that now can we?

[Balta1701]

do think a potential voter should be able to show any ID, proof of residence or social security number to register? IMO, allowing someone to just give a name and then be registered to vote is almost asking for fraud.

 

i support any reasonable solution to curbing both Rublican and Democratic voting fraud.

I think there may well be reason to require people to show ID, proof of residence, or something in order to vote. But first of all, there's no reason why it should be done nationally, because certain areas are going to have specific problems. Areas with a lot of homeless people will have a much bigger problem and much bigger cost associated with providing those sorts of ID's than areas with very limited homeless populations, and so on.

 

The reality we have to face is this; if you require people to show some form of ID, whatever form of ID it is or however easy it is to get them, it is going to mean that some people will be denied the legitimate right to vote.

 

This is why I keep harping on this point. If you are in an area where there is absolutely no evidence that you have any problems with voter fraud due to non-resident voting, then there is equally no reason to spend the money and the time to and cost some number of legitimate voters the ability to vote by instituting one of these sorts of ID systems. However, if there is an area where there is strong evidence that this has happened, then there may well be reason to be concerned.

 

Either way, you are going to run into a finite margin of error. If you toss out anyone who has an ID, you will toss out legitimate voters. If you don't have an ID, you leave the system open to the possibilty of people voting who shouldn't be. The question you have to ask yourself is...which way will give us the most accurate system?

[NorthSideSox72]

If Im not mistaken, this latest bill includes funding to help defray the cost of getting these people state IDs. With all the accusations of fraud that Democrats make you would think they would welcome something that helps stop election fraud.

 

Oh, wait,

 

This means no voting 3 times and no illegal aliens voting either so we cant have that now can we?

I'll say again, I don't think those sorts of activities (voting fraud) can be attached to one party. Nor do I think it is terribly widespread.