Dream Act

[Zeitgeist]

I want people to succeed, I really do. If a young person, whoever they are and from wherever they come, are genuinely driven to improve themselves and want to contribute to society, then I'm all for that.

That said, there are some significant problems with this bill, or at least the idea behind it. One it puts the cart before the horse. It completely ignores the larger issue of illegal immigration. The fact that there are people here as a result of their parents bringing them over the border is symptomatic of the larger problem. We are addressing the symptom rather than the real problem. Its politically expedient to vote for this measure because it's a "feel good" gesture that ignores the larger problem. It is indeed immature to argue for its passage while ignoring what's really going on.

Secondly, how in the hell are we supposed to verify the age of participants at the time when they were brought here, after the fact? They came over illegally and are undocumented. Are we supposed to just take their word? Isn't that naive? And won't this only encourage people to migrant here in larger numbers, more often than not illegally?

No, what this is is a means for Democrats to secure votes from Hispanics in future elections. Says something doesn't when a political party has to turn to foreign immigrants for their base votes.

Opposition to this bill doesn't mean someone is cruel and uncaring about the plight of innocent young people. There are some real and practical problems with the idea. To vote for and pass a bill like this solely on the idea it feels good is irresponsible. And yes, of course there are benefits one can imagine down the line, a more educated populous is less likely to turn to crime and drugs. I get that, but you can't ignore all the practical problems there are with implementing the program either.

[Jude]

Even though I feel like we'd have a largely differing opinion on Immigration, I completely agree with your assessment of this bill.  It doesn't solve the real issue, and it's just the Democrat's last-ditch effort on pleasing their base in hopes of an electoral rebound in the future.

If it gets passed it certainly won't be the end of the world, but it's far too open to exploitation in order to justify the marginal level of good it will do.

[RubySlippers]

Most went to our public or private schools, so we can figure if they entered Kindergarden at 6 years old at the oldest and graduated high school they were here the majority of their lives. If born here there would be a proof of birth the signed and registered birth certificate.

My problem here is simple they make allowances for the college bound that get a degree, for those entering the military but what about those of adult age that are gainfully employed with no criminal record or attend a trade school or vocational two-year degree. I consider anyone productive who lived here all their lives or most of their lives as someone we should let stay. Just bar them from helping anyone else but a child of their own get into or stay in the US. But I don't understand the military demand they already let non-nationals that serve become citizens and give a strong benefit to immediate family under existing programs.

[Zeitgeist]

Most went to our public or private schools, so we can figure if they entered Kindergarden at 6 years old at the oldest and graduated high school they were here the majority of their lives. If born here there would be a proof of birth the signed and registered birth certificate.

That's a good point, I hadn't considered that. On the face of it I like the idea, it promotes good citizenship and combats crime and gang activity. I just don't have a whole lot of faith in the government's ability to manage a program like this competently and with an ability to minimize abuse of the program.

I wonder too, if by participating in this program someone isn't 'outing' their parents as illegal immigrants? And if the bill forbids such follow up, doesn't this support the amnesty argument?

[Noelle]

Says something doesn't when a political party has to turn to foreign immigrants for their base votes.

Are you confusing "foreign immigrants" with "illegal immigrants"? I really hope so, because stigmatizing immigrants alone as unworthy of our attention and "below" the average natural-born citizen is, to say the least, a very unrealistic and frankly kind of disgusting attitude. Even marginalizing illegal immigrants and referring to them in ways that make them less than human and ignoring the greater problem is disturbing on its own.

But really, I don't know -- What does it say about a political party that is doing things to benefit a group of people that comprise a significant number of our population and continue to drive, influence, and shape the present AND future of our country's demographics and workforce whether or not we like it? Do tell.

[Zeitgeist]

Are you confusing "foreign immigrants" with "illegal immigrants"? I really hope so, because stigmatizing immigrants alone as unworthy of our attention and "below" the average natural-born citizen is, to say the least, a very unrealistic and frankly kind of disgusting attitude. Even marginalizing illegal immigrants and referring to them in ways that make them less than human and ignoring the greater problem is disturbing on its own.

But really, I don't know -- What does it say about a political party that is doing things to benefit a group of people that comprise a significant number of our population and continue to drive, influence, and shape the present AND future of our country's demographics and workforce whether or not we like it? Do tell.

How about foreign illegal immigrant? Last time I checked Mexico is a foreign country. And yes, if a political party has to turn to appealing and appeasing an immigrant population for votes, that's pathetic. Their first and foremost concern should be the natural born, legal citizens they were voted to represent.

I'm not suggesting they be discarded out of hand, but if that is where you go to get the lion's share of your votes and support, who the hell do you represent anyway?

If you think illegal Mexican immigrants are on par with other legal citizens, well then perhaps we should just merge the whole country of Mexico in as a state and appoint them representatives and senators. At least then it would be legitimate.

[Jude]

You seem to think that natural born citizens deserve more consideration from your posts.  Are you saying we should treat foreign-born citizens like second class citizens then?  That's the jist of your comments, but I want to be sure I'm not taking you out of context.

[Zeitgeist]

You seem to think that natural born citizens deserve more consideration from your posts.  Are you saying we should treat foreign-born citizens like second class citizens then?  That's the jist of your comments, but I want to be sure I'm not taking you out of context.

If they've come here by illegal means, I'm not so sure they should automatically be presumed to have all the same rights, and privileges as people who are here legally, be they natural born or or otherwise legal citizens.

The responsible and humane thing to do would be to properly secure the borders, as well as reform (enforce) employment laws. Many of these immigrants are used, abused and otherwise taken advantage of along the border crossings and border towns.

[Noelle]

How about foreign illegal immigrant? Last time I checked Mexico is a foreign country. And yes, if a political party has to turn to appealing and appeasing an immigrant population for votes, that's pathetic. Their first and foremost concern should be the natural born, legal citizens they were voted to represent.

I'm not suggesting they be discarded out of hand, but if that is where you go to get the lion's share of your votes and support, who the hell do you represent anyway?

If you think illegal Mexican immigrants are on par with other legal citizens, well then perhaps we should just merge the whole country of Mexico in as a state and appoint them representatives and senators. At least then it would be legitimate.

No, I was making the distinction because "foreign immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" are not interchangeable terms. By its very nature, the word 'immigrant' tends to be synonymous with 'foreign', and the absence of the word 'illegal' would probably suggest that they are green-card-holding citizens. I cannot with good conscience say that we need to create some kind of socio-political hierarchy of which American citizen is better than the other based on whether they were born here or were naturalized and given a green card. There's a reason that naturalized citizens with a legal green card have all the same rights as you or me -- it's because they have been granted equal status as you or me and not any kind of skewed notion of "separate but equal". Take your castes elsewhere.

Is it okay to pander to the religious and fear-monger for your votes, but target immigrants who can legally vote and it's sad? Terrible logic.  And what kind of "lion's share" are we talking? The Hispanic population is by no means the majority in the country and you have to also take into account how many of them actually go out and vote when it counts, which further cuts their minority figures. If neither party represents them, then do tell, who will?

All of this isn't even touching on illegal immigrants. I'm not suggesting that they be given the same rights as a natural-born or card-holding citizen, I couldn't agree to that at all, and I even agree that there should be steps taken to not only reduce the amount of illegal crossings, but to make the legal method easier and more accessible -- but there's a big, glaring hole in your 'concern' for their well-being. Yes, you talk about "responsible and humane" and how they're "taken advantage of", but then you shove distaste on those who are trying to represent them. Who do you think is going to if it's dirty and distasteful for politicians to?  The reality of it is, rounding up the millions who are already here is impossible, impractical, and frankly unhealthy for the state of our economy. If you want to talk about basic responsibility and showing some humanity, I would first suggest considering the worth of the individuals who have already established a life here and have contributed positively instead of dehumanizing them.

Acting in the interest of the minority has never been pathetic -- in fact, it's exactly one of the reasons that America does so well as a place of diversity not just in race, but in orientation, financial status, basic beliefs, etc. I don't agree with all of the ideas Democrats have had, I am certainly with you that they need to ensure that any loopholes in bills like this are sealed so they can't be exploited, but speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves is a far more compassionate and responsible and realistic and humane thing to do than to pretend that you can build a wall or give people more guns or round them up in a giant truck and send them back. Illegals probably aren't voting -- and neither are the homeless, those deeply in poverty, the unborn, or animals, but there are still parties trying to act in their interest to create a more stable, responsible, and humane society.

[Jude]

I wasn't asking about illegal immigrants.  I was asking about foreign born citizens, and your statements seem to imply that you feel that foreign born citizens should not be given equal importance as natural born citizens.  I don't feel like you've answered my question.

[mystictiger]

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but surely imigrant already includes the word foreign? As in - you can't have a domestic imigrant.

[Oniya]

A better set of terms would probably be 'legal immigrant' - those who are seeking to become naturalized citizens through the existing channels, 'illegal immigrants' - those who have chosen to bypass the existing channels, but want to remain permanent residents, and 'foreign nationals' - those who are in the country for legitimate reasons (school, employment, etc.) but have not gone through the process of becoming naturalized citizens, and may decide not to.

[Silverfyre]

Socio-political hierarchy.  Yeah, no thanks.  I'm a Canadian born immigrant who came to the U.S. when I was five and have lived here ever since.  I am a green card carrying member who has been trying to get citizenship for ten years solid.  The system and the bureaucracy is so choked and full of red tape, let alone incredibly expensive, that becoming a citizen through the legal methods is amazingly awkward.  I honestly quit trying after they lost my paperwork for the third time.

I don't care to be labeled a second class citizen just because I was born in another country.  I pay my taxes, I do my civil duties, and I contribute to society positively.  What you are saying about immigrants as a whole is both a rash generalization of the multitude of cultures and people coming into the U.S. in search of a better life and unfairly inhumane.  People are people, folks.  We need to find a better system so people can be make the leap to citizenship legally instead of having to come here illegal.  Do I support illegal immigration?  No.  Not at all.  I just think we need to offer more avenues to people of other nationalities before throwing a fence around our borders.

Perhaps we should focus on fixing the system first before just trying to slap another band aid on it.  That's really what seems to be happening here.

[Zeitgeist]

I wasn't asking about illegal immigrants.  I was asking about foreign born citizens, and your statements seem to imply that you feel that foreign born citizens should not be given equal importance as natural born citizens.  I don't feel like you've answered my question.

No, I wouldn't suggest foreign born citizens here legally be treated any differently than a natural born citizen of the US.

But if you are here illegally, i.e. a Mexican immigrant who crossed the border, you should not be given the right to vote or state resident tuition rates, for example. The issue is obviously rather complex and out of control, so there are very few good solutions. I'm all for diversity and our country as a melting pot, I just think it needs to be above board.

Noelle - I don't know if we are as far off from one another as it may seem. For sure we want to protect and look after minorities and people at disadvantage. Insofar as immigrants, illegal ones, I just don't think it is an unreasonable position that we insist people come here in an orderly and legal fashion. The realities of the situation, as I say above, is complex and out of control, so it's going to be a generational process and no one bill out of Congress will resolve this.

[Jude]

I'm confused as to why you expressed these two opinions then:

No, what this is is a means for Democrats to secure votes from Hispanics in future elections. Says something doesn't when a political party has to turn to foreign immigrants for their base votes.

And yes, if a political party has to turn to appealing and appeasing an immigrant population for votes, that's pathetic. Their first and foremost concern should be the natural born, legal citizens they were voted to represent.

Why include the bit of "natural-born" if you don't consider natural born citizens superior.  You seem to generally resent immigrants, legal or not.  Illegal immigrants can't vote, so...

[Zeitgeist]

I'm confused as to why you expressed these two opinions then:Why include the bit of "natural-born" if you don't consider natural born citizens superior.  You seem to generally resent immigrants, legal or not.  Illegal immigrants can't vote, so...

Perhaps I've failed in expressing myself with the 'correct' terms, contributing to confusion.

1. If you're here legally, regardless of your birth place, I have no problems or issues with them or those politicians who might champion their causes.

2. If you are here illegally, while recognizing the complexities of the issues, I don't believe you should be given the same rights (i.e. voting and such) as legal citizens.

3. If you're a politician, and the lion's share of your support and votes comes from illegal immigrants, I believe that is problematic.

I hope that's clear. I muddied the waters up a bit not being specific enough.

And I should emphasize further, I've never suggested these people be corralled up in buses and shipped back. Nor have I suggested their plight be completely ignored. I recognize the complexities and nuances of the illegal immigration issues. Problem is, we keep punting the issue down the road. The Dream Act in part does this, it 'feels good' and sounds warm and fuzzy, but doesn't address the larger issue.

[Jude]

How exactly would an illegal immigrant vote and support candidates?  They tend to be very poor, they can't legally vote, etc.  I'm sure there are a few cases of voter fraud, but your use of "the lion's share" makes me think you believe that there are candidates who are largely supported by illegal immigrants.  What do you believe the mechanism behind that is?

[Zeitgeist]

How exactly would an illegal immigrant vote and support candidates?  They tend to be very poor, they can't legally vote, etc.  I'm sure there are a few cases of voter fraud, but your use of "the lion's share" makes me think you believe that there are candidates who are largely supported by illegal immigrants.  What do you believe the mechanism behind that is?

Harry Reid for example, his causes and his support comes from largely illegal and legal Hispanic immigrants. You don't think illegal immigrants who have settled here, melded into society aren't voting? I suspect they are, especially in the Southwest. Am I just completely off base for thinking that?

[Jude]

I don't know, what makes you think that is happening?  I haven't seen any statistics that make me inclined to agree that such a thing is happening.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, if legal Hispanic immigrants are voting for the politician’s cause then these people are exercising their rights as citizens of the United States.  Claiming that their rights and ability to vote are somehow less important or less trustworthy than anyone else is kind of off base.  I would have a hard time believing that any votes made illegally are in a sweeping majority for this man’s political base, let alone the political base of the Democratic Party. 

[Zeitgeist]

I don't know, what makes you think that is happening?  I haven't seen any statistics that make me inclined to agree that such a thing is happening.

I doubt there would be statistics on illegal immigrants voting. Which of course undermines my own position, I recognize that. I just think it's likely happening. Do states, namely Nevada, require proof of US citizenship to get a driver's license? Do all voting stations require more identification other than a utility bill with an address that falls within the district?

[Zeitgeist]

Well, if legal Hispanic immigrants are voting for the politician’s cause then these people are exercising their rights as citizens of the United States.  Claiming that their rights and ability to vote are somehow less important or less trustworthy than anyone else is kind of off base.  I would have a hard time believing that any votes made illegally are in a sweeping majority for this man’s political base, let alone the political base of the Democratic Party.

Not what I'm saying (bold), please read my clarification.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Harry Reid for example, his causes and his support comes from largely illegal and legal Hispanic immigrants. You don't think illegal immigrants who have settled here, melded into society aren't voting? I suspect they are, especially in the Southwest. Am I just completely off base for thinking that?

Then be more clear on your meaning.

[Zeitgeist]

Then be more clear on your meaning.

Already have. And I'm tiring of this game of semantics.

[Silverfyre]

How are illegal immigrants voting?  The voting system is pretty iron clad (well, for the most part...) when it comes to who can vote and who can't.  No voter card?  No voting.  No ID showing you are a legal citizen?  No voting.  Yes, these things can be faked but I doubt it's in the numbers where it would make any sort of difference.  You seem to be standing on false data that is only spurred on by paranoid conservative voices who think that the illegal aliens are everywhere and are controlling everything.

Seems kind of silly to me.

[Zeitgeist]

And you all are putting words into my mouth, and incorrectly characterizing me, despite multiple posts explaining, and re-explaining myself. It's clear you're uninterested in that, and would rather cast me in light that only supports your own falsely held beliefs.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, unfortunately you have not been very clear on pointing out the possibility of illegal votes being used by a major political party to gain advantage over another.  The accusation you have made without supporting evidence is quite severe.  That you then go on to make a statement regarding illegal and legal Hispanics, mind you this ignores the multitude of other immigrants in this country in favor of a particular ethnic group, which makes an implication of an insidious movement to affect the political system.  So one can see why clarification of a statement may be required, especially since the person issuing the statement has said they meant something else.  Also, semantics would be if I was arguing over your statement because of the definition of words but your statement is simply confusing to me in its implications.

As for the voting system, the voter has to be registered.  Which means that they must possess some form of identification that links them to a person in the voter database.  This person has to be in the correct district and possess valid identification to match the person in the registry.  The only way the illegal immigrants could vote then would be to assume the identity of a registered voter who they know will not vote, such as a dead person.

[Zeitgeist]

My bad. Illegal immigrants cannot vote, have never voted, nor have they ever influenced a vote one way or another.

<head firmly in sand>

[Jude]

Your concerns are quite legitimate.  I find the idea of illegal immigrants voting to be every bit as abhorrent as you do.  However, given that there are around 7-20 million illegal immigrants in the United States (with the most accurate approximations weighing in around 11 million) compared to the 300 million or so people that live here, they are extremely unlike to actually have any influence whatsoever in elections.  It just isn't possible in terms of sheer numbers, even if you assume that the average illegal immigrant is as likely to vote as the average legal resident (which is of course absurd even if you take the view that it's "easy" for illegal immigrants to commit voter fraud).

So this really isn't a problem you need to worry about.

[Zeitgeist]

Your concerns are quite legitimate.  I find the idea of illegal immigrants voting to be every bit as abhorrent as you do.  However, given that there are around 7-20 million illegal immigrants in the United States (with the most accurate approximations weighing in around 11 million) compared to the 300 million or so people that live here, they are extremely unlike to actually have any influence whatsoever in elections.  It just isn't possible in terms of sheer numbers, even if you assume that the average illegal immigrant is as likely to vote as the average legal resident (which is of course absurd even if you take the view that it's "easy" for illegal immigrants to commit voter fraud).

So this really isn't a problem you need to worry about.

Their actual influence at the polls is arguable, I agree. There is likely no data one way or the other to support it. All the same their causes, or at least their presumed causes are taken up all the same, such as this Dream Act, and opposition to the Arizona law, for example. So I would argue, their causes are nevertheless taken up by those politicians who assume the mantle of their proponent. So however their influence is come by, its felt all the same.

My bottom line, we need to stop punting the issue down the field, and address it seriously. That includes both physical security, law reform/enforcement, as well as social awareness.

[Silverfyre]

My bottom line, we need to stop punting the issue down the field, and address it seriously. That includes both physical security, law reform/enforcement, as well as social awareness.

Oh, I can definitely agree with you there.  Something needs to be done; now the question just is what and how?  The whole system needs an overhaul, period.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would think there is common ground to agree that serious action needs to be taken in addressing the immigration policies of the United States.  Of course direction is another matter.

[Zeitgeist]

Oh, I can definitely agree with you there.  Something needs to be done; now the question just is what and how?  The whole system needs an overhaul, period.

The funny thing is, and often frustrating, left, right, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, all want the same thing most often. At least I know I do. We just disagree on how to get there.

I don't want people anywhere to suffer, without health care, or without a living wage. I just don't think cradle to grave entitlement society is a viable one. I know myself, I've never truly appreciated anything I didn't earn, and that includes my job.

I'm getting off topic though. I shouldn't allow myself to stray into this board. I keep telling myself that, and I always fail eventually.

[Zakharra]

How are illegal immigrants voting?  The voting system is pretty iron clad (well, for the most part...) when it comes to who can vote and who can't.  No voter card?  No voting.  No ID showing you are a legal citizen?  No voting.  Yes, these things can be faked but I doubt it's in the numbers where it would make any sort of difference.  You seem to be standing on false data that is only spurred on by paranoid conservative voices who think that the illegal aliens are everywhere and are controlling everything.

Seems kind of silly to me.

It's not ironclad. In several states, laws have been introduced  that require a voter to provicve proof of citizenship, via a voter ID card or somethng ands the Democratic party in thos estates were very much against it.

Which leads to people wondering why they were. The states even offered to pick up the entire tab for registering. Yet it was opposed.

[Silverfyre]

It's not ironclad. In several states, laws have been introduced  that require a voter to provicve proof of citizenship, via a voter ID card or somethng ands the Democratic party in thos estates were very much against it.

Which leads to people wondering why they were. The states even offered to pick up the entire tab for registering. Yet it was opposed.

Hence my disclaimer of "for the most part...".  It is not like all these illegal aliens are voting or even able to influence the political landscaping through voting.

[Oniya]

Is there a list somewhere of states where this has been suggested and voted down?  I'm actually curious now.

[Zeitgeist]

Is there a list somewhere of states where this has been suggested and voted down?  I'm actually curious now.

This looks like what you're looking for?

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16602

[Jude]

Democrats opposed requiring photo ID to vote because they felt it would hurt the minority vote (which is another cornerstone of their party).  That's not an unreasonable argument by any stretch of the imagination, think about it, what forms of photo ID do most people have?  Driver's license.  Some have a college-issued student ID.  Minorities are, on the whole, less affluent, thus less likely to own a car or attend college.  So I think it's likely that a minority is less likely to have a photo ID (and the means to acquire one).  In reality the biggest problem is that minorities are also less educated, thus far more likely to not even know about the rule, and thus get turned away at the polls on election day.

The only way that it would be fair to claim that Democrats want to keep illegals voting because they vote in their favor, is if you found some method of strengthening voter protects that had no unintended consequences which they opposed.  Unfortunately, I don't think such a thing exists.

I'm willing to admit that there are probably some Democrats, in the House of Representatives in particular, who live in districts that have a high number of illegal immigrants where voter fraud is common.  It would be naive of me to assume that they play no role whatsoever in the American political system, I just think it is absurd to suggest that they have an alarming measure of influence.

As to why there is so much opposition to attempts to strengthen enforcement of illegal immigration laws in the Democratic Party, there's no one reason.  Some laws are opposed because they are poorly written and open to abuse.  Others because they are too strict on a group of people that Democrats can identify with.  And of course others still are laws that a lot of Democrats actually would agree with, but certain subsections of the Democratic Party do not agree with.

There are definitely some Hispanic, legal citizens which are against illegal immigration, but I'd be willing to bet that are the minority.  Hispanics trend Democrat and in places like California where they have a lot of political influence, they regularly torpedo attempts to tighten border security or make it harder to be an illegal immigrant living in America, because they identify with people of their heritage.

I don't consider myself a Democratic, I think I'm pretty centrist, but I'm against most attempts at tightening the border by physical means on the grounds of practicality.  The border is a long, difficult to patrol stretch of land.  I simply don't think it's realistic to build a wall to keep out the illegals, then to repair that wall, to make it impossible to scale or dig beneath, et cetera.  Securing the border requires a ridiculous amount of effort.

If I was going to fix the immigration problem, I would do it in a few ways.

1:  Universally mandate background and social security checks if you want to be employed in the United States.

Federal employment already requires this, a lot of states do as well, but it needs to be something done everywhere if we want to keep undocumented workers from receiving formal positions.  This probably won't help anything when it comes to informal labor such as small construction projects, farms, et cetera, but those aren't the type of positions that a high-school educated American is going for anyway.

2:  Strengthen general prosecution of identity theft, and better coordinate the country's identity policing agencies.

This way people who steal social security numbers for the sake of employment will be dealt with, at the same time as we deal with other types of identity theft which are a problem in our society.

3:  Start a new work-for-hire program like the very initiative that spawned this problem.

[Oniya]

Almost.  There are a lot of states missing from that list, notably California and Nevada, but also including most of the Northeast, a large swathe through the Great Plains, North Carolina, and Mississippi.  New Mexico apparently allows you to simply state your name and address as 'registered'.  Quite a few states allow you to use a utility bill as proof. 

In response to Jude, what about the bit about the states offering to pick up the tab for registering?  Would that not include the ID?  And for being less educated - there have been so many '____ The Vote' campaigns, it would be incredibly easy to piggyback notification of the rule onto one of those.  There are ways of getting the information out there.

[Zeitgeist]

Democrats opposed requiring photo ID to vote because they felt it would hurt the minority vote (which is another cornerstone of their party).  That's not an unreasonable argument by any stretch of the imagination, think about it, what forms of photo ID do most people have?  Driver's license.  Some have a college-issued student ID.  Minorities are, on the whole, less affluent, thus less likely to own a car or attend college.  So I think it's likely that a minority is less likely to have a photo ID (and the means to acquire one).  In reality the biggest problem is that minorities are also less educated, thus far more likely to not even know about the rule, and thus get turned away at the polls.

I don't know if I buy that wholly. I was 16 & 17 years old living either in a group home or on my own and had a state identification card, but no driver's license and certainly no car. I had to, otherwise I couldn't case my paycheck from McDonald's. Insisting people plausibly identify themselves across the board is only sensible. If one feel's disenfranchised as a result of such requirement, perhaps they need to get their shit together. I did, and under less than ideal circumstances.

[mystictiger]

Should illegal migrants pay tax?

[Jude]

We could make it easier to get a photo ID, but if you increase access to a form of identification you also decrease the security associated with it.  In making photo IDs more common, you'd also make them a less reliable way of determining someone's citizenship status.  You can forge them, after all.  I don't think they're the panacea you're looking for.

[Jude]

I really recommend that anyone forming an opinion on the immigration situation read up on the Bracero program, Mexican repatriation acts, and Operation Wetback.  The historical precedent really explains why Mexican-American illegal immigration is such a problem, and America is anything but blameless.

[Zeitgeist]

Should illegal migrants pay tax?

An obvious lead into to the argument that if they pay taxes, they should be able to vote. Which once again punts the issue down the road, we aren't addressing the real problem, only making excuses and allowances for the current situation to perpetuate.

They shouldn't be paying takes, because they shouldn't be here illegally in the first place.

[Zeitgeist]

We could make it easier to get a photo ID, but if you increase access to a form of identification you also decrease the security associated with it.  In making photo IDs more common, you'd also make them a less reliable way of determining someone's citizenship status.  You can forge them, after all.  I don't think they're the panacea you're looking for.

If you have little or no faith in the government's ability to manage an identification program without fraud and forgery, why is it you think voter registration and enforcement is any better?

[Jude]

I don't, but there's numerically not enough illegals here to make a difference.

[Zeitgeist]

I don't, but there's numerically not enough illegals here to make a difference.

Then I'm sure a voter identification requirement won't disenfranchise enough people to be of any significant concern.

[Jude]

How exactly does the number of illegals here have anything to do with the number of people who would be disenfranchised by photo ID requirements?  You're talking about two different groups of people -- minorities who wouldn't be aware of the requirements and/or have no photo ID, versus illegals.  I get the feeling you're still conflating the two.

I'll tell you what though, if a study was conducted that showed that very few people would be disenfranchised, I wouldn't be against that requirement being instated.  But I actually need facts to form an opinion, and it's becoming increasingly clear that your opinions are not based on facts.

[Zeitgeist]

How exactly does the number of illegals here have anything to do with the number of people who would be disenfranchised by photo ID requirements?  You're talking about two different groups of people -- minorities who wouldn't be aware of the requirements and/or have no photo ID, versus illegals.  I get the feeling you're still conflating the two.

I'll tell you what though, if a study was conducted that showed that very few people would be disenfranchised, I wouldn't be against that requirement being instated.  But I actually need facts to form an opinion, and it's becoming increasingly clear that your opinions are not based on facts.

I don't need factual evidence to come to an opinion that being a minority is some kind of excuse to ignore, bypass or otherwise cast aside a reasonable expectation that one identify themselves. Most, if not all state agencies provide these requirements in multiple languages, and certainly in Spanish. If the government needs to do a better job of educating disenfranchised minorities, then sure, let's do a better job of that.

Identifying one's self is plainly, and clearly a reasonable requirement. I don't need numbers, data or quotes to come to that very reasonable opinion.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The photo identification requirement would place a lot of strain on the working poor.  Many of these people have jobs that do not give benefits, so having a paid day off to acquire a photo ID would be hard.  Also many of these people have children to take care of, so finding someone to watch their children while they go stand in line at the DMV would also be hard.  Of course they could bring them which poses other problems.  Then there is the cost of the identification card and also problems with verifying place of residence and so forth.  Most working poor live in family units where someone else may pay the bills.  Also if there are outstanding warrants for traffic violations, tickets or any other levies against their license then they must pay to catch those up.  Which means that a person is denied their RIGHT to vote based on being impoverished. 

This argument seems to be circular at this point revolving around an unsupported suspicion about illegal immigrants having an effect on the polls of an election.  That is simply not enough evidence to begin denying people their right to vote in elections.

Also, while you don’t need facts, numbers or any knowledge of a subject to arrive at an opinion those factors certainly help when debating with others.

[Noelle]

I don't need factual evidence to come to an opinion that being a minority is some kind of excuse to ignore, bypass or otherwise cast aside a reasonable expectation that one identify themselves. Most, if not all state agencies provide these requirements in multiple languages, and certainly in Spanish. If the government needs to do a better job of educating disenfranchised minorities, then sure, let's do a better job of that.

Identifying one's self is plainly, and clearly a reasonable requirement. I don't need numbers, data or quotes to come to that very reasonable opinion.

You don't really seem to need factual evidence to make any of your claims at all, so maybe you should reconsider your debate tactics because it's kind of hard to have an intelligent discussion based on absolutely nothing.

[Trieste]

So when this thread is unlocked, I would like people to return prepared to discuss the DREAM act itself, and perhaps direct repercussions of said act.

Thank you.