Question for Yall Voter "Rights" folks

[olevetonahill]

Are you seriously sayin that Its wrong for any Gov. State , Federal , County to require an ID to vote?
Is that your stance?

[Serenity Now]

I have no problem with the concept. The issue is that the enactment of the laws were done in a ham fisted manner. I wrote about the Texas example earlier. The state mandates the use of the ID but then won't facilitate making those ID's easily accessible. And they wouldn't honor things like student ID's.

If you defenders of the law would simply admit it's partisan politics aimed at disenfranchising voters it would be a little more palatable. You don't have to go as far as to agree that you're trying to keep a certain kind of voter away but please don't pretend that voter fraud is a problem. NO research that Ive seen indicates such and only 6 of the 31 states addressed where history indicates that HALF of the damage is done - absentee voting. Why? Because the majority of absentee voters are older white fox newsers. That's intellectually dishonest.

[Serenity Now]

I presume this is the libtard Washington paper. The second one is the communist forbes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/09/7-papers-4-government-inquiries-2-news-investigations-and-1-court-ruling-proving-voter-fraud-is-mostly-a-myth/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

[okie52]

Yet voter ID requirements appear to be being upheld by the courts as constitutional in spite of the small amount of voter fraud.

I always got a kick out of the term "disenfranchised" which is usually just a dem euphemism for "our voters can't be expected to do what other voters are required to do".

I already admitted that many pubs are for voter ID because it might reduce the number of the "less intelligent, less educated" dem voters from getting to the polls. And dems are against voter ID for those very reasons.

And I know you'll be just as honest in admitting that granting citizenship to 11,000,000 illegals is supported by the dems primarily because it will help the dems at the polls. Legalization for them isn't good enough...it has to be citizenship. Why?

And obama wanting to make voting mandatory is because he feels it's everyone's civic duty...right?

[Serenity Now]

I'm against the amnesty that you reference. Of course that's part of it.

I don't know what the solution is. There's a lot of middle ground.

[okie52]

For me middle ground wouldn't be what either side wants which probably means its the right thing to do.

Give the illegals temporary legal status and only temporary legal status. Give the adults 6 months to provide proof of employment on the initial phase. Anyone not employed is deported. Make the employers be responsible for all costs associated with the illegals stay in the US. That would include health care, taxes, transportation, etc... No eligibility for any government benefits. When the illegals jobs end they are sent back home at the employers expense unless they have found a new job.

Now the pub sellouts will be unhappy with this because the US Chamber of Commerce wants the US taxpayers to eat the costs of the illegals while paying them the lower wages. The dems won't be happy with it because there is no citizenship attached to their stay in the US and their low wages will continue to depress the wages in the labor market.

[rock on sooner]

At the risk of beating the drum again, amnesty..absolutely not. Path to
citizenship..yes and that path is long, tedious and convoluted. Start
with coming out of the shadows and present self for background checks,
in the USA and country of origin (felony in either location, immediate
deportation), learn English, register all for school/shots, full employer
support, e.g. the aforementioned health care, taxes, etc. (the employer
stays on the hook as long they are employed, job ends then employer
provides assistance in new job hunt/training)....full, ongoing visibility
for the illegal, similar to prison parolees, regular (frequent) checking in
(no more overstaying visa/dropping off the radar), finally, application
for permanent status for the well behaved...green card status and then
get in line for citizenship.

Expensive? Yup, worth it? IMO, yup again....these folks work hard and
work at jobs that others don't want for whatever reason. Only guessing
here but out of the 11m, maybe 5% or fewer won't make the cut. The
remainder would become contributors to the economy in general and some
areas in particular.

Similar to Okie's point, both sides will find fault, so he's right in that some
where in here is a workable solution...

[okie52]

The problem Rock On is that most of the 11,000,000 won't pay any federal income taxes (or state income taxes for that matter) because their incomes are too low after they receive permanent legal status or citizenship. Permanent legal status and/or citizenship will allow the illegals to obtain government benefits (although the permanent legal status may require a 5 year wait). Their birthrates are also much higher than the native born citizens.

One of the few bright spots about illegals is that they pay often pay into SS with little chance of receiving any benefit (well, unless Obama's amnesty wins out in the courts). That is because illegals often fraudulently use phony SS#'s to gain employment. Legalizing them changes those dynamics considerably and once again they will be taking out more than they pay in.


Social Security benefits are progressive: they represent a higher proportion of a worker’s previous earnings for workers at lower earnings levels. (See figure below.) For example, benefits for someone who earned about 45 percent of the average wage and then retired at age 65 in 2012 replace about 55 percent of his or her prior earnings. But benefits for a person who always earned the maximum taxable amount replace only 27 percent of his or her prior earnings, though they are larger in dollar terms than those for the lower-wage worker.[6]


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3261

[rock on sooner]

Okie, I don't have any studies to prove or disprove this point, but it
seems to me as state after state increases minimum wage scale that
more people..legal and illegal..will move up the tax scale and start to
add to the tax base for gubment..state and federal. I think in the long
term bringing these folks into the system will be more beneficial than
not. Look now at the angst involved in trying to kick 'em out...all the
non-productive back and forth.....replace that with concentrated efforts
described earlier to that path to legalization. Wouldn't it be better for
TX, CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO and to a lesser degree, FL to focus on that
versus the alternative? Not being pollyanna-ish, just searching for a
answer to a really thorny question...

[okie52]

Rockon...if these people are here to work then they will continue to be given that opportunity under a temporary legal status. And they would be paying (or their employers would under my plan) taxes, etc. while they are here. If they are here and not working then they certainly should be booted out. If they are working then their employers would be paying all of their costs and, again, no burden to the US taxpayer. These are for the most part, low skilled, poorly educated and will generate little if any federal or state income tax revenue. They have little upward mobility.

Minimum wage earners aren't going to be paying federal income taxes even if minimum wage is increased. They are at the bottom and we have roughly 50% of the country not paying federal income taxes as it is now...adding 11,000,000 to total would only exacerbate the situation. We also have SS that will have to reduce its payouts by 30% beginning in 2033 unless things are changed. Adding more "takers" than contributors isn't going to help that scenario. If we were talking about 11,000,000 illegals comprised of 50% high income/tax generators then that would certainly help equation as far as the US taxpayer burdens go.

Its not like we aren't giving citizenship to immigrants in the US. We have been averaging granting citizenship to over 800,000 immigrants every year...by far the most of any country in the world. I rarely ever hear that mentioned.

[rock on sooner]

Excellent point about the newly minted citizenry. The illegals, for the most
part came to find work. Many U.S. employers took advantage and got really
cheap labor, for years. I think the illegals want to stay, work, get educated
and improve their own lives. The root cause of the problem can be solved,
as you pointed out, by holding the employers accountable. In the interim,
though, the 11m already here and the problem that creates. If there is no
pathway for them, what then?

[okie52]

A lot of US employers took advantage of the situation and the US Chamber of Commerce wants to keep that going by pushing the costs off on the US taxpayers through citizenship...kinda like many complaints about Walmart employees using WIC, etc... to subsidize their low pay from Walmart...except under this arrangement all of the costs fall back on the employer.

They don't need a pathway to citizenship. Temporary legal status means that don't have to leave as long as they are working and that their employer foots the bill for transporting back to their home country once the work runs out. I would assume that most of the adult illegals are working so they wouldn't face deportation. Once the employers have signed on for the illegals they are on the hook for their costs and transporation back home.