This is a slippery slope.
Those who are not citizens are using the argument "Non citizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it's only fair they be allowed to vote."
Non citizens? Notice the lack of clarity in the statement. It is against the law for an illegal non citizen to hold down a job, own a business and even serve in the military.
As a side-note: We have noticed that AZ Central recently has started referring to illegals as "Mexican Nationals" instead of their usual "undocumented immigrant". "Mexican National" is probably the latest approved focus group term meant to distract from a person's implied status and blur the line between legal and illegal. Look to see more of this term used going forward.
Fair?
Alexander Hamilton said,
...voting at elections is one of the most important rights...and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.
We have seen a wave of cries to push for easier access to the ballot box and to allow ALL of those who are in our country, including non-citizens, the opportunity to vote in our Country's elections.
This is the same line of thinking as our often mentioned friend, Jason LeVecke,
when he stated,
Immigrants are among the most conservative, family-value oriented freedom-loving folks in our society. The great crime, in my opinion, is they can't vote because if they could, we'd have an even better country.
LEGAL, NATURALIZED citizens CAN vote in our elections. However, Mr. LeVecke obviously is referring to those either in the country illegally or those here as residents but not citizens.
Washington said to Alexander Hamilton,
If a foreign power can tell America 'what we shall do, and what we shall not do', we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.
We have now seen attacks on those states who have dared to introduce laws that would require proof of who you are in order to vote so as to not disenfranchise the vote of others. We can thank groups like ACORN for the need to bring integrity back to our sacred voting system.
Their logic?
Voter ID is discriminatory.
Here is an example of the logic explained:
...(Texas) found that 600,000-800,000 REGISTERED voters didn't have the required ID and those were disproportionately Hispanic.
Moreover, getting that FREE ID would be very difficult. There's a cost to getting the ID and the supporting documents such as a birth certificate. It costs $22.00.
That's a poll tax.
Ari Berman is a writer for
THE NATION, a left-wing propaganda online magazine. He also wrote a piece for Rolling Stone
where he claimed,
Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.
RICHMOND, Va. --
A Richmond grand jury indicted 10 convicted felons on charges of election fraud for allegedly lying on voter registration forms during the 2008 presidential election campaign.
1. Photo ID is equated to a POLL TAX?
By that logic, why aren't these same people claiming that the money someone would pay to become a naturalized citizen would ALSO be classified as a poll tax? After all, one of the privileges of being a naturalized citizen is the right to vote. Which brings us to the point...doesn't someone receive a certificate of naturalization when they go through the legal citizenship process? Isn't this one of the forms of acceptable GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID that these states are daring to require?
2. Why not complain about the cost of obtaining a copy of your birth certificate to the government entity that is charging for the service and ultimately, "disenfranchising" the people? According to the US
Government , your birth certificate may be required when applying for a job.
(Except, evidently, for the job of President of the United States.) A birth certificate in many cases is required in order to obtain or renew a driver’s license. In Arizona, one can receive a State issued ID for $12.00. Do these same people feel inconvenienced when they have to show a government issued photo ID (or ANY kind of photo ID) in order to get on an airplane? Or cash a check? Or buy alcohol? Or get in to a rated R movie? Obama's own
state of Illinois requires a GOVERNMENT ISSUED photo ID in order to buy drain cleaner. But, showing an ID to vote is off limits?
4. Is even FREE ID not acceptable? Somehow, I would imagine that if we held the person's hand, personally drove them to the government office to get their FREE ID, that would not be acceptable enough. Why? Because they don't have anything to document that they are in the country legally? That's really the meat of the matter. It's not the dollar value. It's not even the time that it takes to get to a government office to obtain the ID. It's about taking advantage of and disregarding our country's laws.
Texas is one of the four majority minority states in the Country. Hispanics in particular are a growing political force and what this ID does is that it suppresses the turnout of those minority voters and it tries to make sure that white Republicans rule the state even though Texas is increasingly diverse and increasingly minority.
WHITE REPUBLICANS RULE THE STATE?!?!?
Who are the ones being racist again?
Ari continues...
One rather humorous aspect of the new law that is disturbing is that in Texas, according to the voter ID law, you can vote with a handgun permit, but you can't vote with a student ID.
If you look at who owns guns in Texas, they are more likely to be Republican. If you look at students in Texas, they are more likely to be Democrat or progressive in origin. So this voter law is really about making sure Texas stays Republican for the next decade.
Student IDs aren't acceptable proof of citizenship thanks to the DREAM ACT activists for reminding us that they are not here legally but still want to reap the benefits of LEGAL citizens. Just ask
Daniel. Rodriguez. He admitted at a Saul Alinsky IAF affiliate (Phoenix First Congregational United Church of Christ) that he is an illegal citizen and wants the benefits of in state tuition at ASU. Rodriguez is also organizing a MoveOn.org sponsored Occupy training meeting on April 14th called
Moving Together with the 99% and Immigration.
So here's the logic:
If you are a Republican in Texas = gun toting nut job.
If you are a Democrat in Texas = intellectually educated and smarter than gun toting nut jobs.
I would LOVE to see where he came up with his statistics.
You can view the state-wide Texas election results for the 2010 General election
here. The majority of races were won by Republicans (by 65-85%).
University of Austin:
Asian 17%
Hispanic 16%
White 58%
Austin, TX Ethnicity:
Asian 4.7%
Hispanic 30.5%
White 65.4%
Texas A&M
Asian 3.5%
Hispanic 11%
White 80%
College Station, TX Ethnicity:
Asian 7.3%
Hispanic 10%
White 80.5%
In the 2008 semester, Texas A&M was the seventh largest American university with an enrollment of 48,039 students. Texas residents account for 86% of the student population, and 28.9% are either of international origin or members of ethnic minority groups.
Although Texas A&M is a secular institution, its student body has a reputation for being religious and CONSERVATIVE.
University of Houston:
Asian 20.5%
Hispanic 20.8%
White 36%
Houston, TX Ethnicity
Asian 5%
Hispanic 37%
White 49%
Non resident aliens for the state schools comprised of about 1.5 - 5% of the enrollment. So, a large majority of students were in-state.
How does one come to the conclusion that voting age students in Texas are predominately Democrats and progressive?
Again, The majority of races in Texas were won by Republicans (by 65-85%).
An inconvenient truth:
Poll: More than half of Texas registered voters support Arizona-style immigration legislation
And another.
Paging Al Gore.....
