Frazzled wrote:
Can we make a post thanking Manchu for modding this thread? Manchu, dakka's own masochist.

To the topic.
Saw the Ministry of Propaganda's interview with Our Leader. While I agree with the positions, they literally have nothing to do with the immigration system now splitting kids.

Look I have a stickie note. That should take care of an immigration bill. What's the damn deal?
1. If you are here now, you are added to the list of people on the citizen track.

2. Budget for border control X500%.

3. H1Bs revamped for real need.

I'm out. (Drops Mike)

A federal judge on Monday permanently struck down Kansas's proof-of-citizenship voter registration law, handing down a blistering ruling against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's most vocal advocates of voter-ID laws.

In the 118-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson wrote that the state’s requirement that voters show proof of citizenship during registration violated both the Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act.

Robinson struck down the stringent law, and ordered Kobach to take six additional hours of continuing legal education that “pertain to federal or Kansas civil rules of procedure or evidence.”

Robinson wrote that the law, championed by Kobach, prevented “tens of thousands of eligible citizens” from registering to vote before she issued a preliminary injunction, and that “the process of completing the registration process was burdensome for them.”
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Kobach’s law blocked some 35,000 Kansans from being able to register to vote.

In an earlier court order, Robinson had held Kobach in contempt for skirting court orders related to the law and failing to send postcards confirming registration for thousands of voters.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Wait, so totally innocent people are sometimes drug through the mud of the legal system even though they haven't actually committed a crime?

 AdeptSister wrote:
I do think it is funny/sad that there has been a concentrated movement to make it harder to vote in the US.

 cuda1179 wrote:
The thing is, that the longer we go the easier it will be for people that are legal citizens to prove their legality. The time might not be now, but at some point in the future this really won't be that burdensome

 Ustrello wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
I do think it is funny/sad that there has been a concentrated movement to make it harder to vote in the US.

Make it hard for one demographic to vote, but certain posters here would tell you otherwise

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The thing is, that the longer we go the easier it will be for people that are legal citizens to prove their legality. The time might not be now, but at some point in the future this really won't be that burdensome

And then steal that legality and take out loans in their name. The more you depend on a piece of plastic, the easier it is to steal soemone's identity.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
I do think it is funny/sad that there has been a concentrated movement to make it harder to vote in the US.

Make it hard for one demographic to vote, but certain posters here would tell you otherwise

On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The thing is, that the longer we go the easier it will be for people that are legal citizens to prove their legality. The time might not be now, but at some point in the future this really won't be that burdensome

And then steal that legality and take out loans in their name. The more you depend on a piece of plastic, the easier it is to steal soemone's identity.

Actually, isn't it technically harder to steal someone's identity now than it was 40 years ago?

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.

Double the number of federal immigration judges, from roughly 375 to 750.

Authorize new temporary shelters, with accommodations to keep families together.

Mandate that illegal immigrant families must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children.

Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases, so that—within 14 days—those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum, and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries.

 Ouze wrote:
Come on, Ted Cruz. Don't make me ever, ever like anything you do.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Come on, Ted Cruz. Don't make me ever, ever like anything you do.

Every time he does something good I remember he is the zodiac killer and that goes away

 Ouze wrote:
Come on, Ted Cruz. Don't make me ever, ever like anything you do.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Come on, Ted Cruz. Don't make me ever, ever like anything you do.

Every time he does something good I remember he is the zodiac killer and that goes away

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair, he’s always been pro-family.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Come on, Ted Cruz. Don't make me ever, ever like anything you do.

Every time he does something good I remember he is the zodiac killer and that goes away

There was a minute there in 2016 when it looked like he wouldn't endorse Trump. I don't know if you remember, but it was like, when literally everyone else pretty much had; he was like the last holdout. Maybe it's because he called Ted's wife ugly, maybe it's because he claimed Ted's dad killed JFK, I dunno why, but he game some really impassioned arguments about why Trump was going to be a dumpster fire. And I remember thinking at the time, man, this guy is going to look like a visionary in a few years - like Mitt Romney almost did before he changed his name to Reek.

BUT IN THE END, he bent the knee like they all did. It was the closest I ever came to admiring the man who undoubtedly was responsible for a series of slayings from the late 1960s to early 1970s.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Voter ID laws hit the poor, which happen to be disproportionately minority. While that is bad, I do think that laws that try to make sure only people that can legally vote are the ones voting.

 cuda1179 wrote:
While that is bad, I do think that laws that try to make sure only people that can legally vote are the ones voting.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I just want to draw a point that it's not directly Trumps policy. It's been the United States policy for the last 20 years. Every administration has done that to date, it's just politically expedient to attack it now.

That being said, I do believe it deserves a hard look, and depended on the logistics of the nature, should be reversed.

Can you cite this? If you're talking about child seperation, I don't believe this is factually accurate. You can't tell me that if the Obama administration had been separating migrant children from their parents at the border, not one single media personality or element of the right wing wouldn't have made hay of it in the last 8 years.

And, in fact, this wasn't a problem for over an entire year of the Trump administration. So I definitely would like to see you show that this routine separation of children from their parents at the border was a common wide practice for 20 years, instead of about 2 months ago.

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.

Yes? Because there isn't?

In-person voter fraud has no tangible benefits and enormous penalties, along with a very vocal lobby to ensure they are prosecuted. That's why statistically it does not exist. These aren't difficult concepts, just simply math.

 whembly wrote:
Cruz... submitted a bill:
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3892

The deets:

Double the number of federal immigration judges, from roughly 375 to 750.

Authorize new temporary shelters, with accommodations to keep families together.

Mandate that illegal immigrant families must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children.

Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases, so that—within 14 days—those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum, and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries.

Solid.

 d-usa wrote:
So just to be clear, the (actually very well covered) cases of unaccompanied minors were instances of minors being separated from the parents that didn't actually accompany them?

And detaining a teenager that is actually serving as a smuggler and who crosses the border without a parent is the same as separating infants, toddlers, and grade-school age children from their parents?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.

Yes? Because there isn't?

In-person voter fraud has no tangible benefits and enormous penalties, along with a very vocal lobby to ensure they are prosecuted. That's why statistically it does not exist. These aren't difficult concepts, just simply math.

When some states have policies that basically mean "don't ask, don't tell, and that they won't proactively investigate, then there really is no penalty. The law becomes a paper tiger. That's not a difficult concept either.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.

Yes? Because there isn't?

In-person voter fraud has no tangible benefits and enormous penalties, along with a very vocal lobby to ensure they are prosecuted. That's why statistically it does not exist. These aren't difficult concepts, just simply math.

When some states have policies that basically mean "don't ask, don't tell, and that they won't proactively investigate, then there really is no penalty. The law becomes a paper tiger. That's not a difficult concept either.

Voter fraud only exists as an issue to help Republicans suppress voters who tend to vote Democrat. There is essentially zero voter fraud, the number amounts to less than a rounding error. Again, it only exists to suppress voters who trend towards Democrat voters. There is no other logical explanation, and to suggest otherwise is to support suppressing voters because you disagree with them. I cannot stress this enough.

 djones520 wrote:
I just want to draw a point that it's not directly Trumps policy. It's been the United States policy for the last 20 years. Every administration has done that to date, it's just politically expedient to attack it now.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand, certain posters here will tell you that there isn't a concerted effort to get people!e to vote that shouldn't.

Yes? Because there isn't?

In-person voter fraud has no tangible benefits and enormous penalties, along with a very vocal lobby to ensure they are prosecuted. That's why statistically it does not exist. These aren't difficult concepts, just simply math.

When some states have policies that basically mean "don't ask, don't tell, and that they won't proactively investigate, then there really is no penalty. The law becomes a paper tiger. That's not a difficult concept either.

Voter fraud only exists as an issue to help Republicans suppress voters who tend to vote Democrat. There is essentially zero voter fraud, the number amounts to less than a rounding error. Again, it only exists to suppress voters who trend towards Democrat voters. There is no other logical explanation, and to suggest otherwise is to support suppressing voters because you disagree with them. I cannot stress this enough.

In-person voter fraud (As in John Doe shows up to vote and states he's Jim Jones) is fairly rare. Being John Doe, and showing up voting as John Doe might not be that rare. There are some studies that show that not only are illegals voting, but they may have swung some key elections.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

George Mason University estimated 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election

Then there was the National Hispanic Survey from a few years back that estimated 13% of Illegal aliens of voting age were registered to vote.


Catching people that vote illegally (whether because of immigration status, renounced citizenship, felon status, etc.) isn't exactly a real tight net.