Ah but your contention is that voter ID laws are passed in order to disenfranchise Democrat-voting public. Was that the motivation behind the Rhode Island and Delaware laws?
The vast majority of voter ID laws are passed with the intent of suppressing Democratic-leaning groups. The fact that there are two exceptions to this does not invalidate that fact. Perhaps someone familiar with the workings of the legislatures in those states could enlighten us- maybe they were passed as a package with other bills in order to gain some Republican support for the package. Pointing to two counterexamples and shouting “Neener neener neener” doesn’t win the argument.
I’m with you, then. I would like to see every state, Pennsylvania included, craft laws that allow easy access to voter ID, without sacrificing the integrity of the system, of course. The mindless insistence on a Social Security card, or indeed on any one piece of documentation, is foolish. The idea is to create documentation that allows us to be reasonably sure that the person voting is the person that registered to vote, and that this person is eligible to vote.
In cases like the one mentioned, where there is a Catch-22 (have to have the SS card to get the ID; have to have the ID to get the SS) the regulations should allow an affidavit in place of the SS card, clearly establishing that false statements are perjury, the penalty for perjury is thus-and-so, and that the subject says they no longer have (or never had) a SS card, but they were born in the United States. And the affidavit should be notariezed at no charge, and the state ID issued likewise.
Because I’ve seen people interviewed on TV, in which they say they’re here illegally but their dream is to see their kids go to college.
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s much greater risk to place yourself in front of cameras, and give interviews on TV (granted, to a sympathetic Univision camera, but a camera nonetheless) than it is to vote.
Once again, why would Democrats in two of the very blue states pass laws that supposedly disproportionately impact adversely their own voters? What was their motivation, you think?
So - in your opinion there is not a trace of that motivation whatsoever in these laws? :dubious:
Just curious how and when you realized that this problem existed, and that these laws are an effective solution with only acceptable side effects. What convinced you?
Seeing how Democrats in two of the true blue states passed those laws - do you think there is a trace of that motivation in there? That is, the Democrats there may have thought that they were preventing fraud, but there was a trace of “let’s suppress Democrat voters” as well?
As a matter of fact, Republicans are indeed evil. It is not a collateral effect, it is the primary effect and the desired effect. When you pass a law to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and the main impact is to disenfranchise people who don’t vote the way you want them to, then your motivations are quite apparent.
Oh, absolutely. I don’t bring up the DREAM Act for any reason other than to say I have seen illegal aliens take the greater risk of demonstrating for it. I don’t mean to suggest that support for it is limited to illegal immigrants, nor do I even mean to suggest that the support of illegal immigrants for a particular law is somehow illegitimate.
I just mean to rebut your idea that illegal immigrants would not dare to put themselves “on the radar” by voting but showing that some put themselves on the radar by demonstrating.