208 Democrats Voted Against The Save Act, Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote. Why Do Democrats Want Non-Citizens To Vote?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Gee, your empathy and compassion just oozes onto the screen...

Actually, it's called critical thinking. Not for the feint of heart though.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

...According to a google search, Here is what’s needed to get a real id in texas...

Ahhhhh, the gloriously unknown mystery googlie search spiel. I do not believe you need all of those things, mainly because any or all would already be in the system. Worst case, it would be a two outta three thing maybe. Imma hop on over the laundry list

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

...One should not have to jump through so many hoops just to vote.

Yet, interesting enough, one certainly does have to jump through so many hoops just to:

• Take money out of a bank
• Put money in to the bank
• To change your name
• To get a social security card
• To get a passport
• To enter a Federal building
• To get a marriage certificate
• To enroll in any Federal program
• To join the military
• To enroll in college
• To purchase a house
• To take out a loan
• To see a Doctor
• To apply for unemployment
• When you get arrested, certainly prior to release
• and on and on and on and...

Your straw man just doesn't hold water. It is such an egregiously narrow band of circumstance that never exist. I believe you or someone mentioned millions of voters impacted, yet naming two is out of the question.

Ghee Mr/Ms poll watcher, we got married and my spouse changed their last name yesterday, then a hurricane wiped out our house immediately after that, then my wallet got stolen this morning, my car was repossessed, all the bridges were out, then there was a plague of locusts and giant vampire bats on the way over here, but I really need to vote this very moment.

Yah, No.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

Yep, Trump pissed off so many people he won the popular vote by over 2 million votes, and did a landslide in the electoral vote and pitched a shutout in the toss up states vote.

Maybe Trump and Vance can piss off democrats in the same way for another 4 years of conservative rule. You democrats can keep your cheap 'hoes crocket and aoc, can you imagine those 2 goof balls running a government? Or that slimy looking and acting newsom? Face it clique, you haven't got much in the pipeline for POTUS 2028. By the way, you may have numbers on a forum dealing with escorts, but that doesn't mean you have numbers that count when and where needed.

Throw that out again when Blackman is back from Banned Land, that I'm a Democrat. He'll have a good laugh.

You do have a valid point. Here's my counterargument.

One of the main reasons Republican turnout was better in 2024 was because there was a push from Trump and others to get people to participate in mail in voting and early voting. You know, the things, like the Save Act, that Trump and Republicans purportedly are trying to engineer to disadvantage Democrats, but which end up backfiring on them.

Too bad Trump didn't accept reality earlier on with his "your vote won't be counted" shtick. Republicans might have won the 2021 Georgia Senate runoffs would have done better in 2022.

Look at who the Democrats were running, Kamala Harris. If there ever was a worse general election candidate for president than Donald Trump, it was her. And the fact that the workingman didn't see any increase in his real wages during Biden's term didn't help either. He actually was making less, adjusted for inflation, during most of Biden's four years, than when Trump left office in the middle of COVID. Usually the president doesn't have a lot to do with economic performance. But Biden and Democrats own the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the fiscal stimulus in 2021 that kickstarted inflation and reduced the purchasing power of hard working Americans.

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Since you bring it up, what did Trump do to try to "steal" the 2020 election?

That's kind of hard to do, like explaining why 1 + 1 = 2. And while I feel it should be fine to deviate from the topic of HoHound's post, site management believes differently. You should start a new thread, and make your case. Something like "Why I believe Trump did not try to steal the 2020 election." Maybe board members could start equally intriguing threads, like "Why I believe the earth is flat" and "Why I believe Pol Pot was a Jolly Good Guy."

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Salty, Dems voted against it not because they embrace illegal voters but because this Bill presents barriers to voting, which is the whole point.

Poor people don't travel abroad, so forget about passports. I'm highly educated and have traveled all over the world, but if someone asked me to produce my birth certificate, I would literally have no idea where to even start.

now give that same directive to someone who is extremely poor, and right off the bat, you have a barrier to voting. which, for Republicans, is the whole point. that's why I mentioned the poll tax and the minimum SAT scores. they are entirely analogous.

this whole discussion arises due to Trump's knowingly false claim that the 2020 election was stolen by illegal aliens voting. it was a lie then; it's no less a lie today.

this legislation has nothing to do with preventing illegals from voting-which isn't actually a thing-and everything to do with creating barriers and obstacles to suffrage for wholly qualified voters under the Constitution. it's a scam from start to finish, and Dems were 100% correct to oppose it.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Salty,

If you lose your ID, or it’s stolen, or your ex shreds it, think about what you would need to do to replace it.

Do you have a passport as a second form of valid identification. Let’s say you don’t, many people do not.

Do you have a birth certificate? Maybe you lost it long ago during a move.

Maybe you had to leave your house in the middle of the night because it burned down during a wildfire and it destroyed all of your identity documents.

Replacing these documents is very difficult without some kind of supporting documentation. The government doesn’t simply take your word for it.

There are a lot of people in our society today who are eligible to vote but without citizenship documents.. I think making it harder to vote is going in the wrong direction.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Gee, your empathy and compassion just oozes onto the screen.

It’s apparent that you’ve never had to start over from scratch with no real documentation.

According to a google search, Here is what’s needed to get a real id in texas.

Original or certified copy of a birth certificate or unexpired U.S. passport: This is your primary document for proving identity and legal presence.

Social Security card: This proves your Social Security number.

Current Texas vehicle registration or title: This helps establish your Texas residency.

Current car insurance policy or statement: This is another way to verify your Texas residency.

If your name changed: Legal documents showing proof of name change from your birth name.

Additionally, you must provide documents showing full legal name, date of birth, social security number, and two proofs of address, as well as proof of lawful status .

Do you have all of these readily available? Not everyone does. And replacing all of them can be incredibly difficult and costly in terms of time and money.

One should not have to jump through so many hoops just to vote.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

That would be true if you had already had a valid photo id. It becomes more difficult if you have to prove who you are without it.

Google reports:

1. Be a Qualified Applicant:
You generally need to be the person named on the birth certificate or a direct family member (parent, grandparent, legal guardian, etc.).
If you're not a direct family member, you may need to provide legal documentation demonstrating a legitimate need for the certificate.

2. Provide Identification:
Primary Identification:
This can include a driver's license, state ID, U.S. passport, military ID, or other accepted government-issued photo ID.

Secondary Identification:
If you don't have a primary ID, you may need to provide two secondary forms of identification, such as a student ID, Social Security card, or other accepted documents.
Supporting Documents:
In some cases, you might need to provide additional documentation like a utility bill, bank statement, or other proof of address.

What happens if you are homeless and don’t have enough documentation to get a copy of your birth certificate. See the catch 22. You have to have proof of identification to get the documents to prove your identity.

I knew someone who had their employer create an employee photo ID just for the purpose of obtaining a copy of their birth certificate and social security card.

He lost his DL and other ID papers when his house burned down. He was the only employee in the company who had a company ID.

He now has a passport which he keeps in a separate location from his home.

Gentlemen,

Respectfully (honestly), I don't entirely buy that. Poor people and those with below average intelligence are perfectly capable of getting photo ID and proof of citizenship. Most of them already have that. And they aren't disproportionately Democrats.

You can get a replacement birth certificate online in Texas. I've gotten certified copies several times for visa applications and the like and it's easy peasy. These days, if you want a driver's license or official state ID card, you need to present your birth certificate or proof of immigration status to initially get one. Anyone who tries to get through life without one or the other is an idiot. As to providing a copy of your birth certificate when you switch addresses or get married or whatever, that doesn't sound like much of a burden to me, provided you can take it with you when you go to the polls to vote or submit a copy by mail or electronic means.

From ChatGPT, most countries require photo ID to vote. The majority require confirmation of voting eligibility to register to vote. That makes sense to me.

There are immigrants who unlawfully vote in elections. I count 30 on the Heritage Database of Voter Fraud. Search under "Ineligible Voting", Subcategory "Alien".

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

Is that enough to sway elections? I doubt it, unless it's for something like the school board. But still Democrats should just let Republicans have their way. As I tried to argue in posts #18 and #8, I think it will backfire on Republicans. And faith in the integrity of the election system is important. Without it you can have incidents like January 6, or worse.

This legislation is not going to pass anyway, as it won't get through a filibuster in the Senate.

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by HoHound

I was poor half my life. I never had problems producing an ID to do anything. Women have never had an issue voting because they are married. This is Democrat fear mongering.

I disagree, do you know women we're always allowed to vote? I'd think that classifies as having an issue voting, married or single. Now you are correct, married or single hasn't been an issue. BUT, that is exactly what the bill is trying to introduce. My wife has never changed her name on her passport. But her DL does have my surname, which is what is reflected on her voter registration.



And to shortcut the issue, she DOES (along with every other person) have to present and ID with this name when she votes. Not one of you claiming there is a problem can walk in anywhere and say you're bob smith address 100 main street dumbville, USA and cast a ballot. And you know that is a fact. You're trying to suppress voters under the guise of a problem that doesn't exist.

[Slave Guinevere]

Gentlemen,

Just for the sake of perspective, I am not here to discuss the SAVE ACT, but merely to give some insight into some of the difficulties into getting an amended "Birth certificate" for a Woman in the United States..

For myself..

1) My DL and SS card both match the name that I changed it to post divorce.

2) My original birth certificate was not in great condition so, I drove to my birth state with a certified copy of my divorce decree from Texas, with the name change, and the proper identification, and at that time, I was not aware that I could get an amended birth certificate.

Now, in my birth state, they did not like that Texas only certifies the BACK PAGE of your divorce decree. Mine was 52 pages long.. So, at first, she was not going to give me a copy of my birth certificate because she wanted me to drive back to Texas and to get EVERY page certified.

Luckily, I spent most of my life in the South and I am good with people and I was able to charm my way out of that nonsense..

She was even nice enough to tell me that if I called the main office, in XYZ location, they would send me the PROPER FORMS, and I could have my name CHANGED on my birth certificate..

3) I get home, call the big city, politely request the forms, and they arrive 7-10 days later.

I fill them out, send in the proper payment, another certified divorce decree, cross my fingers..

Sigh.. My request was rejected for the same reason..

My birth state wanted every page certified by Texas..

Sooo.. I am going to have to DRIVE quite a bit further this time.. spend the night.. Beg, borrow and plead and just explain that Texas does not CERTIFY every page of your divorce decree.. Lol

I should also mention that I get a fresh divorce decree each time because a current date seems to put these people in a better mood.

Now, for all the men on the thread.. Please, stop telling the ladies that all you have to do is just order your birth certificate and it will arrive in 2 weeks.. Lol 😂

Because, sadly, nowadays, they want ALL of our documents to match and men rarely change their names.

So, I am lucky that my birth state is close by and in driving distance. But, if a lady is not close by, and she needed to fly home to take care of all of this, well, it could take a bit of time, especially, if the lady is elderly and needs to arrange for assistance.

Hope that adds some insight..

SG🤗

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Slave Guinevere

Gentlemen,

Just for the sake of perspective, I am not here to discuss the SAVE ACT, but merely to give some insight into some of the difficulties into getting an amended "Birth certificate" for a Woman in the United States..

For myself..

1) My DL and SS card both match the name that I changed it to post divorce.

2) My original birth certificate was not in great condition so, I drove to my birth state with a certified copy of my divorce decree from Texas, with the name change, and the proper identification, and at that time, I was not aware that I could get an amended birth certificate.

Now, in my birth state, they did not like that Texas only certifies the BACK PAGE of your divorce decree. Mine was 52 pages long.. So, at first, she was not going to give me a copy of my birth certificate because she wanted me to drive back to Texas and to get EVERY page certified.

Luckily, I spent most of my life in the South and I am good with people and I was able to charm my way out of that nonsense..

She was even nice enough to tell me that if I called the main office, in XYZ location, they would send me the PROPER FORMS, and I could have my name CHANGED on my birth certificate..

3) I get home, call the big city, politely request the forms, and they arrive 7-10 days later.

I fill them out, send in the proper payment, another certified divorce decree, cross my fingers..

Sigh.. My request was rejected for the same reason..

My birth state wanted every page certified by Texas..

Sooo.. I am going to have to DRIVE quite a bit further this time.. spend the night.. Beg, borrow and plead and just explain that Texas does not CERTIFY every page of your divorce decree.. Lol

I should also mention that I get a fresh divorce decree each time because a current date seems to put these people in a better mood.

Now, for all the men on the thread.. Please, stop telling the ladies that all you have to do is just order your birth certificate and it will arrive in 2 weeks.. Lol ��

Because, sadly, nowadays, they want ALL of our documents to match and men rarely change their names.

So, I am lucky that my birth state is close by and in driving distance. But, if a lady is not close by, and she needed to fly home to take care of all of this, well, it could take a bit of time, especially, if the lady is elderly and needs to arrange for assistance.

Hope that adds some insight..

SG��

That sounds incredibly frustrating! You shouldn't have to leave your home to order an amended birth certificate.

That said, this is an academic exercise. There's no way the SAVE Act will be passed. That would require 60 votes in the Senate.

If it were implemented, I'd hope it would be in a manner that wouldn't be overly burdensome. I suspect the courts would demand that.

A person should be able to walk into a polling station to vote and present her expired driver's license with her old name and her current license with her new name. Or take a divorce decree, marriage certificate, or the court order for a name change with her. And the registration records should be changed and she should be allowed to vote, on the spot. None of this "certified on every page" bull shit.

Or better yet send the documentation by email or submit it on a website to whoever keeps up with voting registration.

Similarly, if you change your address within the same state, you shouldn't be required to prove citizenship again if you were previously registered to vote.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Throw that out again when Blackman is back from Banned Land, that I'm a Democrat. He'll have a good laugh.

You do have a valid point. Here's my counterargument.

One of the main reasons Republican turnout was better in 2024 was because there was a push from Trump and others to get people to participate in mail in voting and early voting. You know, the things, like the Save Act, that Trump and Republicans purportedly are trying to engineer to disadvantage Democrats, but which end up backfiring on them.

Too bad Trump didn't accept reality earlier on with his "your vote won't be counted" shtick. Republicans might have won the 2021 Georgia Senate runoffs would have done better in 2022.

Look at who the Democrats were running, Kamala Harris. If there ever was a worse general election candidate for president than Donald Trump, it was her. And the fact that the workingman didn't see any increase in his real wages during Biden's term didn't help either. He actually was making less, adjusted for inflation, during most of Biden's four years, than when Trump left office in the middle of COVID. Usually the president doesn't have a lot to do with economic performance. But Biden and Democrats own the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the fiscal stimulus in 2021 that kickstarted inflation and reduced the purchasing power of hard working Americans.



That's kind of hard to do, like explaining why 1 + 1 = 2. And while I feel it should be fine to deviate from the topic of HoHound's post, site management believes differently. You should start a new thread, and make your case. Something like "Why I believe Trump did not try to steal the 2020 election." Maybe board members could start equally intriguing threads, like "Why I believe the earth is flat" and "Why I believe Pol Pot was a Jolly Good Guy."

Your sarcasm is problematic when you don't give credit " to the worst candidate" who beat the smartest woman in the world in 2016. You're just blowing scrap and no more.

[biomed1]

To Circle Back to the Original Topic . . .

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

[txdot-guy]

I’m always surprised when those who are against government over regulation are completely willing to inject more bureaucracy into a process that really doesn’t require it.

I think this argument can be summarized quite simply.

Those that believe that any voter fraud should be eliminated and are willing to make it harder to vote through the use of extra bureaucracy and regulations.

Those that believe that a little voter fraud is the price we pay to make voter participation easier.

Neither side is wrong.

I would also say that the persistent belief that massive non citizen fraudulent voting is occurring (without any evidence I might add) is nothing more than a fig leaf that Republicans use to push their voter id agenda.

[pxmcc]

the "SAVE" Bill is about proving U.S. citizenship to be able to vote. can you provide even 3 cases where it was proven that a non-U.S. citizen voted illegally? if not, this bill is a total sham.

there's a reason why you will fail: if you're an illegal, last thing you want to do is call attention to yourself, which voting illegally would absolutely do.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Actually, it's called critical thinking. Not for the feint of heart though.Ahhhhh, the gloriously unknown mystery googlie search spiel. I do not believe you need all of those things, mainly because any or all would already be in the system. Worst case, it would be a two outta three thing maybe. Imma hop on over the laundry listYet, interesting enough, one certainly does have to jump through so many hoops just to:

• Take money out of a bank
• Put money in to the bank
• To change your name
• To get a social security card
• To get a passport
• To enter a Federal building
• To get a marriage certificate
• To enroll in any Federal program
• To join the military
• To enroll in college
• To purchase a house
• To take out a loan
• To see a Doctor
• To apply for unemployment
• When you get arrested, certainly prior to release
• and on and on and on and...

Your straw man just doesn't hold water. It is such an egregiously narrow band of circumstance that never exist. I believe you or someone mentioned millions of voters impacted, yet naming two is out of the question.

Ghee Mr/Ms poll watcher, we got married and my spouse changed their last name yesterday, then a hurricane wiped out our house immediately after that, then my wallet got stolen this morning, my car was repossessed, all the bridges were out, then there was a plague of locusts and giant vampire bats on the way over here, but I really need to vote this very moment.

Yah, No.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

the "SAVE" Bill is about proving U.S. citizenship to be able to vote. can you provide even 3 cases where it was proven that a non-U.S. citizen voted illegally? if not, this bill is a total sham.

there's a reason why you will fail: if you're an illegal, last thing you want to do is call attention to yourself, which voting illegally would absolutely do.

I found 98 cases in under 2 minutes. Look at the Heritage election fraud database and choose "ineligible voting" under fraud category and "alien" under subcategory.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

Here are the first three cases. You can read about the other ninety-five on the Heritage website.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200674
https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200705
https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201262

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m always surprised when those who are against government over regulation are completely willing to inject more bureaucracy into a process that really doesn’t require it.

I think this argument can be summarized quite simply.

Those that believe that any voter fraud should be eliminated and are willing to make it harder to vote through the use of extra bureaucracy and regulations.

Those that believe that a little voter fraud is the price we pay to make voter participation easier.

Neither side is wrong.

I would also say that the persistent belief that massive non citizen fraudulent voting is occurring (without any evidence I might add) is nothing more than a fig leaf that Republicans use to push their voter id agenda.

How much voter fraud is acceptable to you? Elections have been getting closer and closer. Suppose AI projects how much acceptable voter fraud there was in a recent election which throws into doubt the outcome of more than one race. Is that acceptable for more participation. I will remind you that participation was not a consideration of the founders.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I found 98 cases in under 2 minutes. Look at the Heritage election fraud database and choose "ineligible voting" under fraud category and "alien" under subcategory.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

Here are the first three cases. You can read about the other ninety-five on the Heritage website.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200674
https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200705
https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/201262

Interesting site. I’ll have to investigate further. But 98 cases over 23 years kind of supports my point. Do we really need to make it even harder to vote just to stop the rare cases of voter fraud?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Interesting site. I’ll have to investigate further. But 98 cases over 23 years kind of supports my point. Do we really need to make it even harder to vote just to stop the rare cases of voter fraud?

See my reply to your posts above. I'll quote below. Previously I was only coming up with 30 cases on the database, but apparently the actual number now is 98.

Originally Posted by Tiny

There are immigrants who unlawfully vote in elections. I count 30 on the Heritage Database of Voter Fraud. Search under "Ineligible Voting", Subcategory "Alien".

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

Is that enough to sway elections? I doubt it, unless it's for something like the school board. But still Democrats should just let Republicans have their way. As I tried to argue in posts #18 and #8, I think it will backfire on Republicans. And faith in the integrity of the election system is important. Without it you can have incidents like January 6, or worse.

[pxmcc]

that's quite a few "shoulds" there Tiny. one more reason this proposed legislation is just plain nuts.

Originally Posted by Tiny

That sounds incredibly frustrating! You shouldn't have to leave your home to order an amended birth certificate.

That said, this is an academic exercise. There's no way the SAVE Act will be passed. That would require 60 votes in the Senate.

If it were implemented, I'd hope it would be in a manner that wouldn't be overly burdensome. I suspect the courts would demand that.

A person should be able to walk into a polling station to vote and present her expired driver's license with her old name and her current license with her new name. Or take a divorce decree, marriage certificate, or the court order for a name change with her. And the registration records should be changed and she should be allowed to vote, on the spot. None of this "certified on every page" bull shit.

Or better yet send the documentation by email or submit it on a website to whoever keeps up with voting registration.

Similarly, if you change your address within the same state, you shouldn't be required to prove citizenship again if you were previously registered to vote.