kentuck primitive doesn't think we have to prove it

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021425765

Oh my.

kentuck (63,192 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:19 PM

No one should have to prove their citizenship in order to vote.

The government should have to prove they are not a citizen in order to stop them from voting.

In this time of computers and technology, the state and federal government have records on every citizen. They pay taxes to the state and federal government. They get tax refunds from the state and federal government. They have birth certificates of everyone born in this country on computer files. They have records of citizens paying electrical bills, gas bills, water bills, etc at a given address. Simply having a driver's license as a picture ID does not guarantee a person is a citizen of this country.

If there are suspicions that someone is not a citizen and not eligible to vote, the government has many ways to find that information. The citizen should not have to provide that information to them.

In my opinion, these new ID laws are unconstitutional in every way imaginable.

nadinbrzezinski (109,232 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:34 PM

1. It is how they are designed, not that they are inherently bad

compare and contrast, the IFE, south of the border, a federal agency, and our patchwork system.

The IFE issues these cards, FREE OF CHARGE... when they started the program they had sign on locations everywhere, All you had to bring was your birth certificate or passport. In some areas of the country a baptism cert was enough since in some areas when it started some folks did not have birth certificates. Every number of years they reisue them, and again it is everywhere. (Like the decennial census)

Chiefly , they were and still ARE free.

Chiefly, you could get them at the metro station, the bus station, schools, hospitals, you mention it.

Now compare,

At the DMV, you need your passport, or birth cert, original thank you very much... did I mention it costs money? Oh and the DMV is not open as long as it used to... did I mention you need to make a thousand trips?

In principle the idea is not bad, every advanced democracy has some form of it. it is in the implementation of it. If you make it costly in both time and money, they are not designed to increase voter turnout, but to suppress it.

South of the border, they make the increase turnout a national priority. Oh elections are not as clean as they should be, don't get me wrong., but the actual act of voting... it is a Federal government priority. And I am a fan of the IFE adds during silly season.

NightWatcher (18,941 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:39 PM

2. the role of poll watcher (advocate) will be very important this year

I hope we have enough Dem sponsored poll watchers to make sure that no one who can vote is turned away from the polls.

It makes me sick when someone who should vote goes home without voting. People fought and died for this right and a few dickheads, the only ones who actually commit the voter fraud they claim to be fighting, are undermining a major part of our system of government.

Hey Jude (64 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:52 PM

3. Why even require citizenship to vote in the 1st place

Everyone living in this country is subject to our laws, regulations and taxes so shouldn't we all have a say in who represents us and implements those laws, regulations and taxes?

Remember, at one time slaves, women and non-landowners were not eligible to vote.

onenote (20,678 posts)  Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:55 PM

4. Is there any nation that allows non-citizens to vote?

I would guess the answer is no, but would be very interested in hearing if there is.

pampango (12,318 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:46 PM

6. I think some European countries allow foreign residents to vote in local elections under the theory that if you live in a city you should have a say in how it is run. They are legal immigrants of course, not illegal.

It used to be fairly common in the US, too, but that ended in 1926.

Right of foreigners to vote in the United States

Over 40 states ... have at some time admitted aliens voting rights for some or all elections. In 1874, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett noted that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage.

By 1900, nearly one-half of the states and territories had some experience with voting by aliens, and for some the experience lasted more than half a century. At the turn of the twentieth century, anti-immigration feeling ran very high, and Alabama stopped allowing aliens to vote by way of a constitutional change in 1901 ...

World War I caused a sweeping retreat from the progressive alien suffrage policies of the late nineteenth century. In 1918, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota all changed their constitutions to purge alien suffrage, and Texas ended the practice of non-citizen voting in primary elections by statute. Indiana and Texas joined the trend in 1921, followed by Mississippi in 1924 and, finally, Arkansas in 1926. In 1931, political scientist Leon Aylsworth noted: "For the first time in over a hundred years, a national election was held in 1928 in which no alien in any state had the right to cast a vote for a candidate for any office -- national, state, or local."

Proud Public Servant (590 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:45 PM

5. I respectfully disagree

If the law says that only citizens can vote (as it does, and I think that's appropriate), then there's nothing wrong with having to establish your citizenship in order to register.

What's wrong is having to produce proof of citizenship every time you vote; your presence on the voter registration roles should be proof enough.

[98ZJUSMC]

pampango (12,318 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:46 PM

6. I think some European countries allow foreign residents to vote in local elections under the theory that if you live in a city you should have a say in how it is run. They are legal immigrants of course, not illegal.
 

You think?  Prove that assertion (D)Umbass.

Nice theory. 

[dane]

How hard would it be for the silly twit to scan what she just typed to see if something had been mentioned.  That way, she wouldn't need to ask.

nadinbrzezinski (109,232 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:34 PM

" . . .did I mention it costs money? Oh and the DMV is not open as long as it used to... did I mention you need to make a thousand trips?. . ."

Oh, and suffice it to say this is not even the most aggravating part of her writing "style". yup, it isn't.

[Tucker]

NightWatcher (18,941 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:39 PM

2. the role of poll watcher (advocate) will be very important this year

I hope we have enough Dem sponsored poll watchers to make sure that no one who cannot legally vote is turned away from the polls.

It makes me sick when someone who should not vote goes home without after voting illegally. People fought and died for this right and a few dickhead illegal aliens, the only ones who actually commit the voter fraud they claim to be fighting, are undermining a major part of our system of government.

[Carl]

pampango (12,318 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:46 PM

6. I think some European countries allow foreign residents to vote in local elections under the theory that if you live in a city you should have a say in how it is run. They are legal immigrants of course, not illegal.

I personally think that you should only be able to vote if you pay taxes into the governmental entity involved.

[Splashdown]

Proud Public Servant (590 posts)   Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:45 PM

5. I respectfully disagree

If the law says that only citizens can vote (as it does, and I think that's appropriate), then there's nothing wrong with having to establish your citizenship in order to register.

What's wrong is having to produce proof of citizenship every time you vote; your presence on the voter registration roles should be proof enough.

Agreed. Then all you have to do is prove that YOU'RE the person on the registration rolls. Not too dificult.