You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 10:08:26 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Dream Act  (Read 2976 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2010, 01:19:31 PM »
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.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2010, 01:26:06 PM »
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.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2010, 01:30:23 PM »
My bad. Illegal immigrants cannot vote, have never voted, nor have they ever influenced a vote one way or another.

<head firmly in sand>

Offline Jude

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2010, 01:35:44 PM »
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.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2010, 01:47:19 PM »
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.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Dream Act
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2010, 01:50:18 PM »

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.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2010, 01:54:31 PM »
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.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2010, 01:56:51 PM »
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.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2010, 02:07:13 PM »
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.


Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Dream Act
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2010, 02:10:20 PM »
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.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Dream Act
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2010, 02:12:19 PM »
Is there a list somewhere of states where this has been suggested and voted down?  I'm actually curious now.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2010, 02:15:42 PM »
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

Offline Jude

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2010, 03:25:17 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2010, 03:46:44 PM by Jude »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Dream Act
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2010, 03:35:54 PM »
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.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2010, 03:38:17 PM »
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.

Offline mystictiger

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2010, 03:43:30 PM »
Should illegal migrants pay tax?

Offline Jude

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2010, 03:50:50 PM »
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.

Offline Jude

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2010, 03:52:25 PM »
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.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2010, 03:53:09 PM »
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.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2010, 03:59:27 PM »
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?

Offline Jude

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2010, 04:02:19 PM »
I don't, but there's numerically not enough illegals here to make a difference.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2010, 04:03:54 PM »
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.

Offline Jude

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2010, 04:06:24 PM »
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.

Online ZeitgeistTopic starter

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2010, 04:20:44 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2010, 04:22:05 PM by Zamdrist of Zeitgeist »

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Dream Act
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2010, 04:24:44 PM »
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 donít need facts, numbers or any knowledge of a subject to arrive at an opinion those factors certainly help when debating with others.