In all likelihood, this will be challenged in court if it ever passes, perhaps and hopefully even beforehand, as it constitutes a "poll tax" to require documentation to vote that is not readily accessible.

In principle, I do not have a problem with showing proof of citizenship to vote, but the problem is that we do NOT have a national ID card, so people have to go through sometimes highly cumbersome routes to prove their citizenship. This may initially sound silly, but sometimes people have to go to the city of their birth to get a birth certificate, both of which require significant expense and trouble.

I think this issue could be turned on its head by a Democratic candidate who would support the provision of a national ID, but at no expense to the citizen. Otherwise, it becomes a burden on the poor and indigent, who will be disproportionately denied their right to vote. This is most true of the elderly and minorities. Heck, even my grandfather, born in California 85 years ago, has no proof of his citizenship because the tiny city hall from his small hometown burned down 50 years ago--- does that mean he can't vote?

This is, of course, intended to increase rabid right-wing, anti-immigrant voter turnout in 2008 and presumably keep Smith in office, although I hope Merkley takes a smart position on it and points out how, like I said above, in the absence of a national ID card this will exclude many, many legitimate voters to "solve" an non-existent "problem."

Do they want everyone to fill in an I-9 along with their mail in ballot, are they saying everyone must have an embossed state-issued birth certificate or passport to present at the polls because they also want to kill vote by mail?

Is this just disguised vote suppression because of course everyone behind the initiative has bullet proof documents which would never encounter any problem if they wanted to vote?

Torrid Joe:

If there were a bunch of illegal people ACTUALLY voting, there wouldn't be a Republican representing Oregon from Astoria to Ontario.

Bob T:

There ya go again! Can you really tell a person's politics etc just from looking at the color of their skin or the spelling of their last name? Jeez, if that isn't racist then what is?

Bob Tiernan

There ya go again! Can you really tell a person's politics etc just from looking at the color of their skin or the spelling of their last name? Jeez, if that isn't racist then what is?

No Bob, you can't. But it can be predicted that when one political party pushes to pass laws that aren't beneficial (harmful, actually) to the rights of a certain group of people, the group of people will tend to vote against that party (ie: forcing the Hispanic population to speak English, changing the law to ensure that children who are born in the US aren't automatically a citizen, etc.) And really, isn't it an oxymoron that a RepubliKKKan would be calling someone out for being racist?

Wouldn't it be simpler to eliminate the requirement that voters be citizens? That way we wouldn't have to worry about them voting illegally.

Would someone explain to me why an illegal immigrant would choose to vote?

This has nothing to do with legal or illegal, visa or no visa. It applies to anyone who is not a citizen. I think the legal requirement that people be citizen in order to vote was was one of the KKK's big issues in their anti-immigrant campaigns in the early 20th century. Some things never change.

"This has nothing to do with legal or illegal, visa or no visa. It applies to anyone who is not a citizen. I think the legal requirement that people be citizen in order to vote was was one of the KKK's big issues in their anti-immigrant campaigns in the early 20th century. Some things never change."

The KKK controlled the Oregon Legislature at one point and tried to outlaw Catholic Schools--one of the more famous Supreme Court decisions involving Oregon.

More to the point, look at all the things in this state named after Charles McNary and then look into his history (as I did for college term paper research). He became a US Senator right on the cusp of taking away the power to choose US Senators from the legislature and giving it to us voters.

As I recall, he was maybe appointed to the US Senate and then had to run for re-election. While he was in DC the KKK took over the legislature, and there was pressure for him to come back to Oregon to campaign. As I recall, he made a statement to the effect that he wouldn't return to Oregon as long as the KKK was in control, and if that cost him his Senate seat, he wouldn't want to live in an Oregon controlled by the KKK.
Somewhat in the spirit of Tom McCall's last campaign where he campaigned against a measure to overturn land use planning and if the exertion shortened his life, he wouldn't have wanted to live in a state which would overturn land use planning anyway.

This state would be better off if we had more such courageous stands of politicians declaring what they believe in and what they find offensive--regardless of whether the statement polls well.

So, if this passed, I would expect that the State would wish to verify the citizenship of every current registered voter, since the argument for this new law is that many illegals currently hold voter registration. How would that work exactly? Or are they saying that only those who register from that time forward would have to prove citizenship, thus granting amnesty to all those who have already registered illegally (which is, again, the reason this idea is being put forward in the first place so why would you want to do that)?

Either way, it's a screwy idea. There are just too many citizens who can't prove citizenship. I personally have no idea how I'm going to get a new passport. I have no birth certificate (original blew away in a tornado, the hospital's records were destroyed in a fire, and the state records were destroyed in another tornado--did I mention that I was born in Oklahoma?)--so when I got my first passport I had to try and track down a doctor or nurse to provide an affadavit of birth to prove they saw me born here, but that didn't work as they were dead. After I proved all of the above, the government finally allowed me to file special paperwork to get a passport. But now I want to update it and they say that my old passport isn't good enough (it's too old) and that the special paperwork I filed years ago is no longer allowed, so I'm back to square one. They actually said "if you are really a citizen you CAN find a birth certificate somewhere". Yeah, right. I'd love to see them try.

Sorry, got a bit off subject. Back to the post...I agree that this will (and should) be challenged legally. I understand the idea, but there is no way to execute this without harming citizens, so it's just not going to fly. Besides, as Kari pointed out, why would non-citizens want to vote? Most like to stay UNDER the radar and voting puts you smack on the screen. Nope, I don't see this working.

There is no voter fraud. These are dreadful people trying to scare everyone into giving up rights. Let's stop being scared now - urge all your friends to vote and to register. We should be promoting voting, not making it more difficult. If it were more difficult, who do you think would benefit?

Secretary of State Bill Bradbury said voter registration and voting by people in the United States illegally "are nearly nonexistent problems" ...

By Bradbury’s own admission there have been some problems with illegal’s voting. However sporadic they may be, it’s incumbent upon him to do all he can to insure fair elections to avoid the claims of “voter fraud” we’ve seen in other states the last two presidential elections.

Just as you take out fire insurance before your house burns down, you don’t wait for problems with elections before making sure you’ve done all you can to insure that only people legally eligible to vote are the only ones doing so. Just good common sense.

Bradbury needs to put aside his party loyalty and recognize that his responsibility is to all Oregonians. Supporting a reasonable voting requirement is more important than upsetting a potential Democrat Party constituency.

What about victims of disasters like Katrina or the recent wildfires in California? Imagine trying to prove citizenship after a flood or tornado swept everything away. There are many American citizens who will never be able to provide a birth certificate or other documentation because of circumstances beyond their control -- courthouse fires, stolen purse, born at home and so on.

-Bob,

Will all of your wives be able to provide proof of citizenship?

Let’s move this up a level to political strategy in 2008.

(1) Studies show that there is virtually no fraudulent voting by non-citizens, so we don’t have an actual problem. (And as Kari points out, non-citizens don’t have a motivation to expose themselves by registering.)

(2) Many existing citizens of long standing lack obvious citizenship documentation (see Peralta), and given (1), it would be onerous on the citizenry to produce it now after all these years to solve an immaterial problem.

(3) Never-the-less, only citizens are allowed to vote and proof of citizenship to register for the first time seems not an unreasonable burden or expectation.

(2) While citizenship is requirement to register, re-proving it at each election is onerous and inappropriate -- you need only prove that you are the person who registered (signature verification, etc. as currently done).

(4) While it is a displaced issue being exploited for political gain on the right, it is an emotional issue and mobilization factor for the right.

(5) Why would we let the right use (4) if we can defang it?

So, why not neutralize the issue, using, if you will, a Bill Clintonian “co-option” (not triangulation) approach -- take their issue (citizen voting only!) but solve it on our (progressive) terms that doesn't reduce voter turnout or stigmatize people or whatever.

Something like, say: - only citizens are legally allowed to vote - we need to verify citizenship at registration; that you are the registered person at each election, via signature matching as currently done - new registrations, starting in 20xx will require proof of citizenship, based on documentation of US birth, US passport or federal naturalization documents (or whatever else is appropriate, I’m not an expert in this area) - changes of an existing registration (address, party, name, ...) do not require re-proving citizenship, so everyone registered today is “grandfathered” in, which is fine because of (1), so it really only affects 21-year olds starting in 20xx and naturalized citizens (who probably do that already anyway).

I don't see how it could be challenged constitutionally, it presents no unreasonable burden, it defangs the opposition, it isn't discriminatory.

Mel, your comments are exactly ON topic. Basically if you were still in Oklahoma and moved to Oregon after this passed (should it) you'd be disfranchised. Even as you may be denied a right to travel abroad (or to return, anyway).

There likely is a calculus by some that such disfranchisements of citizens would disproportionately affect Democrats and NAVs.

As voter suppression by Republican operatives shows, much of the rhetoric about citizens' rights is just crocodile tears.

It's a long tradition that former southern Democrats who turned R in opposition to civil rights legislation brought with them. The disfranchisements of the late "Redemption" & early Jim Crow years often were not just anti-black, but really were class legislation aimed at suppressing the white Populist vote too.

Voting by non-citizens has existed in times and places mostly at the local level, & possibly at the state level (just as there was woman suffrage in some states on state & local issues & elections prior to 1919).

William,

The problem with your solution is that it is very onerous for first-time registrants or re-registrants to prove citizenship. In the absence of a national ID card, it is very burdensome to obtain birth certificates, etc., as stated above by others and this would especially affect the poor and indigent (which just happens to be the people who get the most screwed when they are excluded from voting).

Moreover, the system already checks for citizenship status by having each person provide their Social Security Number and Oregon Drive License Number (or different photo ID number). I don't see what the problem is with this system at all, as your name, birthdate and birthplace (or naturalization status) is associated with that number.

So, basically, under your plan every new voter will face a significant burden to voting that does not exist for entrenched voters. Who are new voters? First, obviously, young adults who don't need yet another obstacle to voting (or registering to vote).

Who else are new registrants? People who move a lot, meaning also young adults (moving out of the parents' home, going to school, finding a new job) and the poor (who frequently change jobs and apartments in response to the job climate). Again, by providing their SSN (and old address, if applicable) these guys "prove" their citizenship status.

To really "co-opt" this issue in a progressive way, dismantle their argument and show 1) it is not a problem as there are essentially zero non-citizens voting and 2) it will hurt lots and lots of valid citizens.

In any case, this very issue is before the Georgia Supreme Court as that state has tried to impose this burden (it just shows how conservative this idea is when Georgia beat us to it), and the "poll tax" issue has come up because of the tremendous financial burden imposed on the poor of trying to prove citizenship.

William, it would be triangulation. Clinton was a slime-mold. Such triangulation does not "defang" issues, it legitimates them.

The way to defang this is just to make it really clear that this isn't a real problem, and that those it would most hurt are citizens whose rights would be arbitrarily taken from them.

Triangulation aside, are you saying prior registration in another state would be sufficient?

In any case, it still would be discriminatory against citizens who haven't registered previously.

Also, since voting illegally is a crime, the current situation is that a prosecutor has a burden of proof to show you've committed that crime if you have. This shifts the burden of proof and punishes a lot of innocent people, treating them like criminals (disfranchisement generally is tied to a felony conviction or to current imprisonment on such a conviction) to prevent a very small number of crimes.

The way to fight this is "Should citizens who have trouble proving citizenship through no fault of their own be treated like criminals?'

This is the latest I could find on this requirement in Georgia. After being initially disallowed when it was determined by Department of Justice officials to disproportionately affect minorities and the poor (it was indeed compared to "a Jim Crow era poll tax"), political appointees (i.e. loyal "Bushies") overruled these findings (hmm.., why would that be?):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602504.html

The article states that in some rural counties, 17% of the electorate has no form of valid ID (and disproportionately Blacks), whereas 30% of young voters also do not. Hmmm... who do those guys tend to support? Overwhelmingly Democrats. And who is pushing this again, to disfranchise them? That would be Republicans.

I left out the second and more important article in my last post:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/11/01/voterid_1102.html

Why is it so anathema to this group to reuire people be AMerican citizens to vote. I believe it is mentioned in the CONstitution.

If we fixed it so getting an OR driver license required citizneship, maybe I could endorse motor-voter. As of now, I know California police laughed at my license (no was not arrested just asked them if they see many people from OR) and they know it may well be possessed by an illeagal alien who can't read English.

I mean why not remove all requirements, if they can be construed as a poll tax, so we can bus in people from another state to vote on local bond measures. Why wouldn't requiring people to register be a form of poll tax? They may be very busy and not have much time to register before an election because they are poor.

I believe it is mentioned in the CONstitution.

No, not the US constitution anyway. And, in fact, the requirements until the early 20th century were often no more than male and propertied. In some cases not even that. It was during the last anti-immigrant wave in the early 20th century that the KKK and others were successful in getting laws passed to exclude many immigrants from voting.

I will repeat. If the problem is that immigrants voting is illegal, then why not make it legal? What problem is there with letting people who are living here, working here, paying taxes here and even serving in the US military vote?

Why wouldn't requiring people to register be a form of poll tax? They may be very busy and not have much time to register before an election because they are poor.

There are many states where same day voter registration is allowed. It used to be in Oregon until the Rhajaneeshes tried busing people in to take over Antelope. I think it would be a good idea to restore it. That incident was pretty unique.

from Wikipedia:

Some voting rights have been granted to non-citizens by State governments from 1968 onwards.[2] Many states have admitted during decades[vague] foreigners' right to vote, the last state to repeal it having been Arkansas in 1926. Maryland's Constitution recognizes to municipalities autonomy on the subject, and several cities, including Takoma Park (17,000 inhabitants), introduced it in 1991. Two cities in Massachusetts, Amherst and Cambridge, tried to do so in 1998 but were blocked by the state's assembly. Law projects have also been introduced in Texas (where it was in force until 1921) and in California, and many politicians are in favor of it in New York,[14] based on the relative success of the franchise being extended to non-citizens in New York City in public school elections.

Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 30, 2007 5:07:55 PM

“By Bradbury’s own admission there have been some problems with illegal’s voting.”

Source please.

Source? Bill Bradbury’s own words. Please re-read my original post where I quote him.

I need a license to drive a car, I even need freakin’ proof I paid my fare in order to ride on Tri-Met. As functioning human beings we are regularly required to present documentation proving our eligibility to take part in society’s privileges and rituals. Why would we not require the same of voting, one of our most important?

Considering the public skepticism with the legitimacy of voting following the alleged fraud of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, it’s surprising there is any resistance to this idea at all.

Hey Buckman,

I'm not sure if you haven't read most of the comments here, or are intentionally being intellectually dishonest, or whatnot, but it's evident that most (probably all) here would support providing evidence of citizenship upon registering to vote BUT we oppose the idea that providing that evidence become an obstacle that is going to prevent many otherwise legitimate voters from being to exercise that right. Many people here have cited their own personal examples of not being able to provide documentation, through no fault of their own, and it all boils down to the fact that we do NOT have a national ID card.

Plus, as I already mentioned, you do have to provide an ODL number or SSN to register to vote, so we do in fact have a system for "proving" citizenship indirectly.

I'm wondering if you folks, who think requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote is a good idea, don't understand that it would strip the right to vote from many people who are citizens in order prevent a few people who are not citizens from voting; or if you don't care that this would would happen.

Since the federal government allows both the driver's license and voter registration card as List B forms to prove identity and legal ability to work in the U.S.; why wouldn't one be compelled to show legal identity when obtaining these documents?

"All under the nonexistent "problem" that "illegals" are voting= when there is not a shred of evidence this is occurring."

How do we know? Whenever someone goes to DMV for a license they are given a motor-voter form and asked. As is obvious, you don't have to be a citizen nor read English to get a license. I mean, come on, at least expecting someone to read English to vote so they understand what they vote for? I don't think Bradbury has ever asked if any motor-voters are fraudulent.

I wish he would spend as much time as he does screening iniatives he doesnt like for bad signatures.

"How much does registering to vote cost, again?"

How much does driver's license cost? How much for a birth certificate? How much for a couple of power bills to prove residence in a district?

I think you pay for these and show them to get registered as proof.

Supporters of voting rights should not be deaf to concerns about the initiative signature gathering process. Antipathy toward ballot initiatives has led to arbitrary behavior that smells anti-democratic to me.

Preventing fraud is laudable. Subverting the will of the voter is not. Whether the subject is voter registration or the ability to have one's signature on a petition counted, preventing fraud can be cover for disenfranchisement.

Sal, That WWII Vet has a Valid Social Security # as do ALL the "old" and the "poor" Citizens of America. We just got our child's Birth Certificate from another state, ONE phone call & $25 later it was here in a week.

Kari, An Illegal Alien give his info to the Gov't? Don't they already do that at DMV? And register to Vote there as the DMV clerk cannot ask immigration status. Yeah an Illegal/criminal alien is afraid to sign another document(I-9 @ work previously) saying they can vote? Can I sell you some Ocean front property in Bend.

I would think that after the Bush-Gore election that you Democrats cannot forget, that was lost by a few hundred votes, you would want to make sure our elections are on the up and up. (didn't I read that Washington state throw out almost 2,000 registrations last year from dead people & prisoners & fraud).

So far 9 out of 10 people are eagerley siging the petition.

Voter Fraud? No one is checking in OR. This passed in Arizona and the 9th Circuit found it legal and in the 1st year AZ. threw out 1 in 3 regsitrations for fraud! Indiana found over 100,000 fruadulent registraions, therefore started to rquire proof and the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on that case in spring 2008 and it will be OK'd nationwide then.

You folks disagreed with the proof for a License issue but King Ted, Prince of NY Spitzer and Queen Hillary have all now changed their mind and agree with OFIR, will you get up to speed or continue to hurt your own party by disagreeing with obvious security/ID needs and keep pushing against 70-80%(CNN/Rasmussen/NY Times/USA Today/Zogby) of the Nation?

No Republicans left in office if Illegals are Voting? What party is now in control of the House & Senate in Oregon & DC?

Non Tax payers(Illegals) will always vote for those that want to raise Taxes(for those that pay)to take from the "Rich" to give to the "poor" and you Democrats know it, other wise why do only Democrat politicans come up with hollow excuses for not making sure elections are truthfull.

FACT: It is NOT against State Law for a non citizen to Vote in State elections, it is only a Federal Law, Ballot #112, Respect for Law Act will change that.

Sal, if you ever watched American news you would know that there are non-citizens in our military. DHS Chair Chertoff just had a Thanksgiving ceremony in Iraq for some to make them citizens last week Sal, but that was on an American TV channell.

One Hispanic(Cuban)Immigrant married to another Legal immigrant who will not vote D... By TONY DOLZ Washington Times November 6, 2007

The Democratic Party supports discrimination by condoning illegal migration and amnesty for illegal aliens.

These policies discriminate based on origin because 80 percent of illegal aliens are from Latin America, yet Latin Americans represent only 8 percent of the world"s population. This means Latin Americans benefit from illegal migration and amnesty for illegal aliens at a rate 30 times greater than non-Latin Americans. Amazingly, this is the same party that in 1965 changed U.S. immigration law to "end immigration discrimination." In 1963, President Kennedy submitted legislation that would become the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, explaining it was for:

The "Elimination of Discrimination Based on National Origins

... The use of a national origins system is without basis in either logic or reason. ... such a system is an anachronism, for it discriminates among applicants for admission into the United States on the basis of accident of birth."

President Kennedy also said:

Natives of no one country should receive over 10 percent of the total quota Numbers authorized in any one year. This will insure that the pattern of immigration is not distorted by excessive demand from any one country.

Unfortunately although President Kennedy's legislation was enacted into law, immigration discrimination has not ended, only the countries involved have changed. Mexicans account for about 32 percent of recent U.S. legal immigrants and legalized illegal aliens and 80 percent of illegal aliens. Other Latin American countries also have high percentages compared to their world population percentage. These percentages are so high because of past illegal alien amnesties and continued allowance of illegal migration. If another illegal alien amnesty was passed, these percentages for Mexico and other Latin American countries would further increase. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that if the current 30 million (number from research by Bear and Stearns, the Heritage Foundation and the California for Immigration Stabilization) illegal aliens in the country now are given amnesty, that number, with family unification, would grow to 100 million in the coming decades.

He is running for Congress in California, a D state? Not much longer.

Steve,

It is already the law that you have to be a citizen to vote. I don't have any objection to that.

The questions are about how to enforce it, and at what cost?

A birth certificate standard seems to pose real problems. Read Mel Harmon's post.

A social security card standard would be more reasonable to talk about (though possibly not legal?). It appears that these are relatively easy to forge but also that fraud with them is relatively easy to detect, because of number uniqueness.

If you were talking about alternative ways for citizens without birth certificates to establish the fact of their citizenship, it would seem more reasonable to talk about.

But of course such a reasonable approach would require shelving the current initiative. Are you willing to do that to protect the voting rights of fellow citizens?

It appears that position of people who want to require proof of citizenship to register that it is more important to insure that non-citizens can't vote than to ensure that citizens can.

How many legally eligible but lacking birth certificate citizens is it worth to deny in order to deny a would be illegal voter? What's the ratio that makes it acceptable? Is it worth three citizens' voting rights to prevent one non-citizen voting? Is it 1 to 1? Is it worth it to deny a citizen if two non-citizens get denied? If ten get denied?

A) We're talking about taking a group of people, people who lack U.S. birth certificates and want register to vote in Oregon. It contains citizens and non-citizens. We don't really know how many of either. You're saying its o.k. in principle to deny the vote to the citizens in the group in order to exclude the non-citizens. How far do we take that principle?

B) We all know that there are certain towns and counties and neighborhoods and factories / businesses where there is a high prevalence of illegally resident non-citizens. Why not just deny everyone in those towns (etc.) the vote? Sure, it would disfranchise some citizens, but so what? At least it would prevent illegal voting.

Do you think that paragraph B is nuts? I hope you do. I sure do. Why is it acceptable to deny the vote to the citizens in paragraph A, if it's unacceptable to deny it to the citizens in B?

How would you as an individual feel if somebody proposed doing something that might prevent some non-citizen(s) voting, but denied your personal right to vote?

If there is genuine concern that large numbers of non-citizens are voting fraudulently, why would we want to to grandfather in that large number of frauds? It doesn't make sense. Why not force everyone to reregister?

Unless your real motive isn't about illegal voting at all. If it were really about stirring up ethnocentric nativist fears, then maybe you wouldn't want to scare voters into thinking they might not be able to re-register themselves.

But really, what's the proportion that justifies disfranchising a citizen?

I'm sick and tired of all of this left wing B.S. OFIR is not a racist or anti-immigrant group. it is a group that wants to stop ILLEGAL immigration and protect law abiding citizens from them. and for you open-border folks who think that illegal immigrants are not a threat to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of American citizens, Does the name Countrymen ring any bells?

"But really, what's the proportion that justifies disfranchising a citizen? "

I don't know, but this state is rather schizo if you look at how they handle iniative signatures. Mr Bradbury will dis-qualify a whole group of signatures if he finds one signature that does not meet the letter of the law.

So, I don't know. We clamp down on something less important like ballot initiatives, yet don't even want to investigate if there are fraudulent voter registrations which are a lot more important.

Who knows, maybe its not a problem at all, but if no one even checks, we'll never know.

Bob T: Can you really tell a person's politics etc just from looking at the color of their skin or the spelling of their last name?

Pat Ryan:

No, but it would be pretty stupid for any campaigner to ignore who is pushing the line that such fraud is rampant.

Bob T:

Whether the line about voter fraud is overblown is one thing, but that doesn't negate any assumption that people vote a certain way or have political beliefs based on skin color, ethnicity etc.

Bob Tiernan

Tiernan: "that doesn't negate any assumption...."

Is Mr. Tiernan making an assumption or drawing a conclusion? Not the same thing. You can assume anything you like; you then go on to make predictions based upon your assumptions and test whether your predictions are correct.

Tiernan again: "Can you really tell a person's politics etc just from looking at the color of their skin or the spelling of their last name?"

I used to take walks through a cemetery in north Seattle near my home. There was a section of the cemetery where every headstone bore a Spanish surname. Every one of these headstones also bore a Star of David. I'm going to guess this does not conform to any of Mr. Tiernan's assumptions.

Bob T:

Can you really tell a person's politics etc just from looking at the color of their skin or the spelling of their last name?"

lin qiao:

I used to take walks through a cemetery in north Seattle near my home. There was a section of the cemetery where every headstone bore a Spanish surname. Every one of these headstones also bore a Star of David. I'm going to guess this does not conform to any of Mr. Tiernan's assumptions.

Bob T:

No, the person who was certain that illegal immigrant Hispanics would have voted against Gordon Smith was the person who made assumptions.

Bob Tiernan

Bob Tiernan

Pat Ryan:

We don't have a precise list of the names of the Republicans who have decided to make this the new Big Lie for '08:

"illegals are voting for Liburls so they can get more welfare and puke out some more babies for the taxpayers to take care of"

replaces the "Homasecksuals is trying to infiltrate the school system so they can molest little Timmy out behind the cafeteria";

or,

"The commie socialists that encourage our middle class women to abandon our kidz at home while the Welfare Queens puke out some more babies for the taxpayers to take care of, instead of going out a getting a job"

Bob T:

I have no idea at all why you took the time to write all of this. But to continue.....

Pat Ryan:

Can you offer any insight as to who these guys are Bob?

Bob T:

It was right near the top of this list of messages for all to see. Said Torrid Joe:

"If there were a bunch of illegal people ACTUALLY voting, there wouldn't be a Republican representing Oregon from Astoria to Ontario."

There ya go. Presuming political leanings based on race and color. From a Blue guy, not a Repub. Sorry. There it is.

Bob Tiernan

Bob Tiernan

Two years ago I took my mother on a cruise to Alaska. The cruiseline required a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship to board. My mother was born in 1916 and the town hall where her birth was recorded was destroyed in the 1920's. She did not have a valid birth certificate. With 8 months to prepare we though we could easily meet this requirement. However after 8 trips to county courthouses, 2 inches of affidavits and photocopies of church records, school records and property tax records and several hundred dollars in copy and filing costs, she still had no birth certificate or valid proof of citizenship when it came time to go. We relied on the privilged assumption that a 90 year old woman in a wheel chair is an unlikely smuggler or terrorist or undocumented worker and took the trip without documentation.

However, you can infer the real impact by looking at the dramatic decline in Medicaid enrollment in states complying with the new requirement to show proof of citizenship. This has resulted in 10's of thousand of qualified Americans losing their enrollment as is shown here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/62400.php

Medicaid enrollment decreased in six state programs after CMS implemented a law that requires beneficiaries and applicants to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to receive care through the program, according to a report released on Friday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, CQ HealthBeat reports (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 2/2). Under the law, which took effect in July 2006, individuals who seek coverage through Medicaid must provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport or other form of identification. For the report, CBPP examined Medicaid programs in Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin (AP/Boston Herald, 2/2). The report found that "data strongly suggest that the new rule is a major factor behind the decline" in Medicaid beneficiaries in the six programs. According to the report, eligible Medicaid beneficiaries and applicants often experience delays in efforts to obtain identification that can leave them without access to care for months. Between 18,000 and 20,000 Kansas residents eligible for Medicaid lost coverage after CMS implemented the law, and Iowa "sustained the largest decrease" in Medicaid enrollment in the past five years between July 2006 and September 2006, according to the report. The number of children enrolled in the Louisiana Medicaid program decreased by more than 7,500 in September 2006 and October 2006, "despite a vigorous back-to-school outreach effort" to increase enrollment among children, the report found. The report also found that the number of children enrolled in the Virginia Medicaid program decreased by 12,000 from July 2006 through November 2006, despite an increase in enrollment in SCHIP over the same period. In Wisconsin, "14,000 Medicaid-eligible individuals were either denied Medicaid or lost coverage between August and December as a result of the new rule," the report found (CQ HealthBeat, 2/2)

Bob T:

There ya go. Presuming political leanings based on race and color.

Torrid Joe:

Beg pardon? It sure would be strange of me to consider undocumented immigrants as one race or color, since they come from around the world. That's your imputed bigotry your responding to, not mine.

Bob T:

Okay the, so how do you knpw all those illegals would vote against Gordon Smith or any other Republican? You weren't talking about Irish or Swedish immigrants, either. Face it, you said something stupid and got called on it. And the person talking about what she saw in a Seattle cemetery should have been addressing you, not me. Too much knee-jerkism going on here.