How can non-citizens register to vote, let alone vote?

1) NO undocumented foreigner is issued an SSN. That is federal law. People who are not citizens are issued an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. It's quite different

2) You did not cite any program that reimburses hospitals for indigent patients. I took the time to research that. Taxpayers do not pay hospitals for indigent care. The patients are charged. In the case of most undocumented foreigners, they pay in installments. Otherwise, the hospital would have the Sheriff knocking on their door with legal papers. They do not want that

3) Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for federal assistance and if your state provides any, it is a state issue

4) Again, states do not issue an SSN and in order to qualify for the SSN, you must have a birth certificate.

5) Identity fraud is out of control because every Tom, Slick and Harry wants your "social." Outside of that piece of information, most all your info is readily available on social media. But, you are required to recite your "social" to any swinging Richard that asks for it. The grocer, banker, doctor, dentist, credit card company, utility company, and pharmacy all want your "social." Once they have that, your ID is not yours. It's not an immigration issue - except that the anti-immigrant lobby wanted National ID. THEIR supposed solution created that problem.

 

It would go a long way in the credibility department - especially if you were making these allegations known to the local media in your area AND the individuals that are in charge of registering voters in your state.

What you see today are a lot of allegations, but no actual reports and no verifiable evidence.

 

What was to report once I notified them and they retrieved the extra ballot as if it was an honest mistake. I could not only not prove that it was intentional, but I also didn't record the evidence that it happened when I had the opportunity. If their had been a police officer present to file a report at the polling station that would have at least been helpful in documenting that it had occurred, but proving that it was intentional (or that it was common) would have been next to impossible.

The biggest problem is that it's even possible to happen, regardless of if it was intentional or just an innocent mistake.

 

I am seeing more and more people make allegations about so - called "illegal immigrants" and fraudulent ID, etc. I had many years experience going into this kind of discussion when, in 1995, the Cato Institute challenged people like Dianne Feinstein on the National ID scam (Dianne Feinstein, "Feinstein: State-of-the-Art ID System Is Necessary to Help Identify Illegal Aliens," Roll Call, May 22, 1995)

You can check out the Cato report at:

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa237.pdf

Here we are a couple of decades later; the left threw the ball at the radical right and left them with an untenable position of supporting Orwellian solutions. If, twenty years ago, the people who bought into the National Socialist position on this had listened, there were patriots who were ready, willing, and able to put America in a much better position. Today, those who rail against "illegal immigration" have bought into the left's Kool Aid and the left has left them with the task of destroying the Republic while only offering token opposition so as to destroy the Liberties of the people.

You can't fault me for trying to get to the bottom of the allegations and suspicions.

 

I see. Just remind me what the incentive is to becoming a Citizen of the USA. It seems that illegals have no need of citizenship. I had no idea that it was this luxurious to be an illegal. This is just criminal activity enabled by the government isn't it? Unbelievable. You've just stunned me. The USA is more of a joke than I thought it was!

An illegal can vote through a legal channel? How?

 

The Republican Party should be anti-democratic? What is the "Republican Form of Government?" Does it mean it shouldn't be a democracy? What should it be? A dictatorship?

 

Democrats encourage illegal immigration? Was Hilary actually going around encouraging it during the campaign?

 

Were they really attacking the electoral college or just saying that the Democrats manipulate it? How exactly did you get "attack" from that?

 

You would be correct in that assumption, mostly thanks to Democrats that have an obsession with pleasing everyone.

 

Actually, someone mentioned in this thread that you have to be a citizen to have a business. So there's one incentive. And you didn't explain how an illegal can vote through a legal channel.

 

legally the cannot, but when you are talking about the only nation on the planet that houses 25% of the global prison population people find ways to skirt the law.

 

It means that instead of just going with the popular vote, we respect the establishment of the sovereignty of the States that make up the whole of our nation with an equal vote regardless of different populations among the States. So we have an electoral college that cast votes that represent the will of their population (at least in theory that's what its supposed to mean).

 

They encourage it by complacency. They encourage it by creating "sanctuary cities" where immigration laws will not be fully enforced. Hillary said, in a speech to bankers, that her dream was of "open borders".

 

It should be what it is, and always has been; a representative republic.

 

The biggest difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that in the Republic you are guaranteed unalienable Rights that no majority can deprive you of. We used to be taught the difference - even by the government as you can see from this link:

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvdem.htm

 

Nobody has to be a citizen in order to do business here. That is what the anti-immigrant lobby cannot understand.

 

Plain, absolute B.S. It's time for a reality check:

The Democrats and especially the Clintons concocted the current anti-immigrant sentiment AND endorsed the National Socialist "solutions" to the immigration debacle:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-22/news/mn-45809_1_illegal-immigration



Modern immigrant haters (for lack of a more descriptive term) are ignorant of the history of this subject. Don't let them fool you.

In the 1970s David Duke, as head of the Ku Klux Klan, started Border Watch. Either it didn't pay off for him or he just bored. Either way he shelved the idea and it lay dormant until the early 2000s.

That is when Jim Gilchrist, a former newsman, resurrected Duke's old Border Watch idea and combined with it, National Socialist "solutions" which conned the right into accepting the Democrats agenda. Jim Gilchrist started the so - called "Minuteman Project" back in 2004. Only a year earlier, the anti-immigrant lobby had lost a court case that refutes most of their political arguments, but it did make it palatable for the National Socialists to use their media fame to raid the citizen militias and other right wing venues for proselytes to promote the Democrat agenda. Now, the entire subject is plain nuts with lots of ill-informed people that are destroying the Republic out of ignorance and the unwillingness to listen to generations of their predecessors that were engaged in this battle long before Jim Gilchrist conned them.

 

Interesting. Thanks for that info.

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of creating and promoting these "sanctuary cities", why do democrats defend them so strongly, and republicans want to eliminate them?

 

Open borders are a reality, not someone's dream. The Clintons wanted a totalitarian government. They convinced the right to share their dream... the atmosphere of the pee test, blood test, hair sample, MVR check, credit check, criminal background check, driver's license, Socialist Surveillance Number - ooops... "Social Security Number," National ID / REAL ID Act - E-Verify, 24 / 7/ 365 surveillance, womb to the tomb monitoring, Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, armed drones, and a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT where jurisdictional lines no longer exist.

Study the anti-immigrant arguments. When the founding fathers were alive the states decided who could come and go within a state. States decided who they wanted as guests. The role of the federal government was to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

With respect to jurisdiction, it was the right that went to the United States Supreme Court and won a case wherein the SCOTUS ruled that state and local law enforcement are not bound to enforce federal statutory laws. States have no obligation to shut down their sanctuary cities. The federal government can shut down any funding that might benefit those sanctuary cities, but they cannot outlaw the states from maintaining them - not under our Constitution.

 

Here is a reality check for you:

The Republicans (the Establishment Republicans) have never wanted to interfere in dictating to the states their policies. Back when the Democrats were forcing their nutty wall idea on the public, Ronal Reagan disagreed so much that his views on the topic found their way into his farewell speech:

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still." 11 January 1989

That shining city on a hill is in reference to the biblical New Jerusalem of which our forefathers thought the United States represented. THAT is what I have against the idea, personally.

Yes, we have an immigration issue. But, we cannot resolve the issue with walls, tyranny, forced citizenship, etc. The left knows this and yet they make absolute fools out of the right. Look at San Francisco. If what the anti-immigrant lobby thinks were true, they would have a hard time explaining San Francisco and its many decades of taking in so - called "illegal aliens."

The unemployment rate in San Francisco is 3.7 percent - that's well under the national average and one of the lowest in the United States. In San Francisco, $105,000 a year income is considered low income. When you look at economics alone, the right has no legitimate case.

Still, there are problems - and there are sound, logical solutions. You don't need amnesty programs and you don't need walls. You don't have to do mass deportations and you don't have to open the doors to citizenship. You don't have to fine employers and you don't have to call people criminals for doing things you do yourself if you were in the same position.

There IS a common sense solution. There is even a solution where Mexico would join in and happily spend as much money stopping border crossings as we would. It would not cost us anything AND it would not be the Democrat inspired Trump plan to force Mexico to do something they would be repulsed by.

Democrats want control of America. They want it to be a socialist nation. They conned the Republicans into passing the 16th Amendment (the income tax) the same way they conned us with the immigration issue.

 

Well you were the person that I was referring to who I thought was saying this. So what did you mean by this:

Just that it makes it very difficult to do business without being a citizen?

 

So it sounds like some people don't consider the electoral college to be democratic. Either way, if the constitution sets out the electoral college system then to change it to a popular vote would be unconstitutional. So I don't know what @TheResister is complaining about. Unless they also think that some other parts of the constitution have not been constitutionally ratified, like the 16th amendment, as mentioned in one of their earlier posts.

 

Corrupt people registering voters.
And every State has its' own way of doing things.

Keep in mind, the Dead's Vote got JFK his win over NIXON.

 

Nixon's aides advised him to protest the vote count in Illinois (in particular Chicago) and Texas (supposedly controlled by LBJ).

Nixon took his loss like a man and said no.

Nixon had class. The sore losers like Hillary, the Democrats and the Trump Haters on this website do not.

 

Technically true. But we don't require anyone to actually prove that. Only state under oath that it's true.

There are no doubt millions of illegals registered who simply said yes when asked.