Illegal Immigrant Ethics Do’s And Don’ts

DON’T do this:

A customer’s cell phone video caught  a  7-Eleven clerk on Tampa, Florida screaming at a customer and asking about his immigration status after the customer used the Spanish word for ‘green’ to ask the clerk for a specific brand of cigarettes. The clerk demanded Hernandez speak English, and is is heard saying, “Are you here legally? Do you have papers? Do you have papers?”

This isn’t the clerk’s job, and if the company has not directed that all customers should not be treated with dignity, courtesy and respect, no employee should be going free-lance ICE on anyone.

A spokesman for the 7-11 owner  wrote, “Every customer is important. The statements made by the sales associate were inappropriate and offensive. We are investigating the matter and will ensure it is handled appropriately.”

“Appropriately” means firing the clerk. In addition to acting ultra vires, the clerk is also making the store unpleasant and unwelcoming for other customers, risking an escalating confrontation, and being a jerk while representing the enterprise. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

However…

If  a store owner decided to display a sign that said, “Only legal immigrants welcome,” there is no ethical breach. The owner has no obligation to welcome illegal immigrants, nor is this like declaring unwelcome citizens who are conservatives, liberals, Trump voters or belonging other categories of legal residents. Society cannot and should not, as discussed her multiple times, divide its services, accommodations and institutions according to biases and intolerance. Illegal immigrants, however, should not be welcome, and should not be welcomed. They don’t belong here.

Once in the store and seeking service, the store’s employees  should not take any additional action to demonstrate or enforce its declaration regarding illegals. The declaration itself, I emphasize again, is ethically justifiable. Neither the nation, nor the law, nor its citizens should welcome anyone who defies our laws. Similarly, a sign that read, “Escaped fugitives, apprehended felons and spousal abusers are not welcome” would also constitute no ethical abuse—but store employees should not attempt to cross -examine strangers to determine whether they qualify.

I don’t advocate such signs. It’s probably bad business, and will be societal divisive in undesirable ways, since so many Americans are ethically confused on the issue. The forum for addressing illegal immigration is law enforcement, effective policies and clear societal standards, not competing signs.

On a related note, a recent study suggests that millions of non-citizens may have voted in recent U.S. elections, and that those denying that there is any substantial problem are in denial…or perhaps, denying inconvenient facts in the interests of  political expediency.

_____________________

Pointer: Fred

Graphic: Linked-In

88 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Etiquette and manners, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights, Workplace

88 responses to “Illegal Immigrant Ethics Do’s And Don’ts

  1. Chris

    Jack, the study you linked to is absurd on its face.

    It claims that nearly 6 million illegal immigrants voted in the 2008 election. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. If the study’s conclusions are true, that means the voter turnout among illegal immigrants was about 54%.

    It strains belief to think that over half of illegal immigrants voted in the 2008 election, but that becomes even more incredible when you look at the fact that voter turnout of citizens that same election was about 62%. That means the voter turnout among illegal immigrants was almost as high as it was among citizens in 2008, and even closer to the 59.2% voter turnout rate among citizens in 2016.

    Do you find it plausible that voter turnout among non-citizens is nearly as high as voter turnout among citizens?

    Of course, it’s possible that the study’s conclusions are true. But we’d have to look at the study’s methodology to see if it is any way valid. The conclusions, at this point, strike me as too fanciful to even entertain, but I will look into the study and get back to you.

    • Actually, what the study reportedly says is..

      The ODU professors, who stand by their work in the face of attacks from the left, concluded that in 2008 as few as 38,000 and as many as 2.8 million noncitizens voted.

      Mr. Agresti’s analysis of the same polling data settled on much higher numbers. He estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered that year and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted.

      I have no idea how any of these studies work, and I’m dubious about any estimates, whatever the methodology.

      But the one being reported on involved Non-citizens, still illegal VOTERS, and in 2010–2012, 22.3 million noncitizens, representing 7 percent of the population, resided here.

      So the figure, while large, isn’t impossible.

      it also gave a rather wide range of 594,000 to 5.7 million. The low figure is still too many, and a lot more believable than the “none” claimed by voter ID foes.

      • Chris

        Thanks for the clarification, Jack–I’d seen others use the study to assert that Trump was right to say millions of illegal immigrants voted, and unfairly conflated that with that article’s actual claims in my head.

        You’re correct that the idea that about a quarter of non-citizens voted is more plausible than the idea that over half of illegal immigrants did, though I still find that too high to believe. The range itself–594,000 to 5.7 million–strikes me as completely useless. Do scientific studies typically find such a broad range when attempting to determine statistics? How much weight should be given to such studies?

        The low figure is still too many,

        Too many for what, exactly? Compared to the ideal “zero,” sure. But 594,000 non-citizen votes translates to only 2% of the non-citizen population, and .02% of total votes. There has never been a presidential election, to my understanding, that hinged on .02% of votes. To say that this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed by voter ID laws–which we know for a fact cause voter turnout to decrease by much more than .02% of votes–strikes me as hysterical.

        But again, I can’t take seriously a study with such a broad range. It’s meaningless.

        and a lot more believable than the “none” claimed by voter ID foes.

        What prominent opponents of voter ID have said that the number of noncitizen votes is “none?” I’m unaware of such statements. I agree that such a statement would be stupid and baseless. However, the burden of proof for the need for new government regulations should be on those proposing the regulations, not on the opponents. That goes double for regulations that could impede something as important as voting rights.

        • Isaac

          “There has never been a presidential election, to my understanding, that hinged on .02% of votes.”

          But individual states can easily hinge on just a few thousand votes. And our presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote. To say nothing of the fact that all elections are important. Not just the one for president.

          If any number anywhere within those estimates is true, that needs to be dealt with decisively. There are already enough citizens who believe their vote doesn’t count; let’s not jade the rest of them.

          • Chris

            If any number anywhere within those estimates is true, that needs to be dealt with decisively. There are already enough citizens who believe their vote doesn’t count; let’s not jade the rest of them.

            Of course, as voter ID laws tend to prevent more eligible voters from voting than ineligible ones, I highly doubt they would solve that problem. More likely it would exacerbate it.

            • Voter ID laws don’t prevent anyone qualified from voting. At most, they may make it sufficiently inconvenient that some qualified voters choose not to vote. That’s still a concern, but anyone determined to vote can get an ID. They have notice, and they have time. The dispute is over whether the inconvenienced voters are being intentionally inconvenienced to discourage them from voting, and how must extra inconvenience constitutes an interference with their rights.

              “Voter ID laws tend to prevent more eligible voters from voting than ineligible ones” is pure supposition.

              • “That’s still a concern”

                I disagree. If anyone can be dissuaded from voting by being required to get a piece of paper from a government representative and producing it upon arriving at the polls, then perhaps they weren’t invested enough to begin with, and maybe we’re better off without their voice.

                I understand the concerns with making the democratic process available to everyone, I don’t understand the fascination we seem to have with making sure as many people as possible participate. By definition, half of the population (minus one) is of below average intelligence, and half of the population (minus one) has below average political awareness. I don’t want ignorant idiots watering down my vote.

                • Not to be pedantic, but I think you meant to say “Median” instead of “Average”.

                  I would submit more than half the population is below average. (Not that that is a bad thing, but the nature of any society-defining hierarchy is that it will be bottom heavy. Intelligience, Wealth, etc)

                  The other side of that of course is, is “Average” or even “Median” a necessarily horrible line to cross? In a group of Rhodes Scholars, some of them will be below average for that group…but they’re still Rhodes Scholars.

        • “594,000 non-citizen votes translates to only 2% of the non-citizen population, and .02% of total votes.”

          …? You think 3 trillion people voted? There were 120 million odd votes cast, 590k is .5% of 120 million.

          • Chris

            Good lord. I re-checked my work and have no idea how I got that number. I obviously misplaced the decimal, but I can’t even figure out how I got the 2 from.

            I maintain that the study is useless, and that voter ID laws prevent more legal voters from voting than actual fraud.

            • wyogranny

              Elections matter. It is senseless to claim that any amount of voter fraud is unimportant. Of course it’s important. In the 1995 Wyoming State House of Representatives was decided by drawing a ping pong ball out of a hat after a recount proved the vote was a tie. I know Wyoming has the smallest population of all the states, but every vote matters in every election. If even one vote in that election was fraudulent it changed the outcome.
              Voter ID laws prevent nothing. Everyone has ID. You can’t cash a check, get welfare, go to a public event, on and on forever without producing ID. Everyone knows voter ID law protests are cynical and ridiculous. Only reason-proof progressives keep making that argument. I was just beginning to believe you come from a sincere place. Silly me.

              • Chris

                “Everyone has ID”

                So all the stories about senior citizens and others who lack ID out there are…what? Fake news? These people don’t exist?

                • Rusty Rebar

                  I am thinking that yes… this is fake news.

                  Don’t confuse that with me saying that there are no seniors who lack ID, but I cannot fathom how that number could possibly be significant to any degree.

                  Do these seniors cash their Social Security checks? Don’t they need ID for that? Are any of these people on welfare? Don’t you need ID for that? Do any of these people work, even part time crappy jobs? You need ID for that.

                  I am over 40, and I need ID to buy a frigging lighter at the 7/11, you are telling me that asking someone to obtain ID to vote is too much to ask?

                  I used to be on the other side of this, but watching the news over the last two years has really changed my mind on this. I have no faith that they are being honest with the facts surrounding the number of people unable to get ID. How do these people function in this society without ID? How many could there possibly be, and how many of those will find it near impossible to get an ID? That number is very low, unless you can show me something to tell me otherwise.

              • deery

                No, “everyone” does not have government id. Estimates put the number at around 3 million without government-issued id. They tend to be, in an amazing coincidence, those people who live in cities, minorities, college students, and the elderly. It becomes a Catch-22, when to get id, you need id. Most people without government id do workarounds with other forms of id, like school ids, ones issued by check cashing places, etc. Also in what I’m sure is an amazing coincidence, Voter ID laws typically and specifically disallow such ids, but often will allow a voter to produce a gun license as acceptable id to vote.
                http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146204308/why-millions-of-americans-have-no-government-id

                • Chris Bentley

                  Someone who is in the country illegally can still attend college, and thus, get a college ID, or am I mistaken (not snark, sincerely asking)? And the same person, cannot get a gun license, without being a citizen, having a visa, passport, etc, or am I mistaken?

                  I just dont see how this is a relevant comparison.

            • I maintain that the study is useless, and that voter ID laws prevent more legal voters from voting than actual fraud.

              Do you have any sources, Chris? Other than the Democrat mantra that has been repeated for a decade without proof, that is.

              Legal voters are NOT prevented from voting. This is a lie, as Jack has already stated. Many states already have Voter ID, and the impact would have been noticed, don’t you think?

              No, this is about grandstanding to the Democrat base, making Voter ID somehow racist (because Democrats think minorities are too stupid to get an ID? To remember to take it with them to vote? What?)

              Or is this simply that Democrats think that their supporters really do not care enough to make a minimal effort to vote?

              This position is indefensible, and trying makes you look like a party hack.

              Still love you like a brother, Chris. 🙂

              • Chris

                The effects have been noticed, slick. Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout, and disproportionally reduce turnout among minorities.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/do-voter-identification-laws-suppress-minority-voting-yes-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.89e343a7e522

                There is plenty of evidence that that is the exact intent of voter ID laws…

                https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/jim-demint-voter-id-laws/480876/

                …which is why courts have begun ruling against such laws on the basis that they are designed to reduce minority turnout:

                The Fourth Circuit ruled that North Carolina’s law targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision” by using data on the most common forms of ID by different races “to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.

                “In many ways, the challenged provisions in (the North Carolina law) constitute solutions in search of a problem,” the Fourth Circuit ruling states. “The only clear factor linking these various ‘reforms’ is their impact on African American voters. The record thus makes obvious that the ‘problem’ the majority in the General Assembly sought to remedy was emerging support for the minority party. Identifying and restricting the ways African Americans vote was an easy and effective way to do so.”

                The District Court in Wisconsin held similar views about the legislature’s efforts. “The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” the ruling states, according to the New York Times. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections.’’

                http://www.newsweek.com/voter-id-laws-discriminatory-disenfranchise-485708

                • Progressive judges ruling in a socially activist way. Laws are being ignored by judges. Doesn’t make it right… uhm, correct.

                  I am not defending that the GOP is pure as the driven snow on this, however. They certainly HAVE intended to suppress voter turnout in some cases.

                  However, this begs the question: why is this not challenged and thrown out in all of the northern states where it has been law for decades? Could it be if the progressives do it, it is fine? Don’t start in on how they are less bigoted or something: if minorities are being suppressed by voter ID, it holds true everywhere. (Of course, those states have fewer minorities in the first place, right? No harm, no foul?)

                  This ‘ it is okay for some states but not others’ alone makes the position indefensible. Democrats suppress voting plenty of times, too. They just don’t get called on it as often.

                  • Chris

                    Huh?

                    As far as I know, no “progressives” have been responsible for enacting voter ID laws. Do you have any examples of Democrats passing such laws?

                    As for why they haven’t been struck down…you understand that not all judges always agree with each other, right?

                    Progressive judges ruling in a socially activist way. Laws are being ignored by judges. Doesn’t make it right… uhm, correct.

                    I am not defending that the GOP is pure as the driven snow on this, however. They certainly HAVE intended to suppress voter turnout in some cases.

                    The judges used explicit arguments from those who crafted the law in their decision:

                    In the piece, Yelton justified the Voter ID law this way:

                    “If it hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.”

                    Three years later, the Fourth Circuit cited that exact line from Yelton in its decision to overturn the law. On page 47, the decision read:

                    “These statements do not prove that any member of the General Assembly necessarily acted with discriminatory intent. But the sheer outrageousness of these public statements by a party leader does provide some evidence of the racial and partisan political environment in which the General Assembly enacted the law.”

                    Late last week, Governor Pat McCrory said the state would appeal the decision.

                    http://wunc.org/post/court-cites-daily-show-overturning-voter-id-law

                    This is far from the only statement of a prominent voter ID backer suggesting their intent was to disenfranchise blacks or Democrats.

                    • Chris, two things: I was unclear in my opening (sorry) and you did not adequately address my later question.

                      My opening was intended to say the courts interpreting the laws are progressive activists who do not follow the law and Constitution. Your example supports that as well. Is the law Constitutional or not? This is a judge’s sole responsibility under his oath. If they are okay in one state, they are in all.

                      I agreed in my post that voter suppression HAS been a part of politics on both sides. I agreed with that regarding voter ID specifically. Also don’t think it is right, just stating the fact. Yet you went to the trouble to post a link as if I disagreed with you. This has been a fact of politics since at least the Civil War.

                      By the way, MOST states have some form of voter ID laws now. This link says 33 do: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States

                      Check the Democrat held state that require voter ID. Yes, this is a thing too.

              • deery

                When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

                Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

                These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/do-voter-identification-laws-suppress-minority-voting-yes-we-did-the-research/

                • So Hispanics are scared to vote? Since you think illegals do not vote, it cannot be fear of deportation. What stops Blacks?

                  Why is this a problem? This law applies to everyone: put on your big boy britches and vote.

                  • Chris

                    Why do minorities have fewer IDs?

                    Because a lot of minorities don’t have much use for them. The most common voter ID is a driver’s license, and minorities are less likely to drive. A 2007 study found that in California, New Mexico, and Washington, whites were more likely to have driver’s licenses than nonwhites. In Orange County, Calif., about 92 percent of white voters had driver’s licenses, compared with only 84 percent of Latino voters and 81 percent of “other” voters. A 2005 study of Wisconsin similarly found that while about 80 percent of white residents had licenses, only about half of African-American and Hispanic residents had licenses.

                    Minorities are less likely to have driver’s licenses because they are more likely to be poor and to live in urban areas. If you can’t afford a car, or if you don’t need one because you take the bus or subway, you are less likely to have a driver’s license. Students are less likely to have driver’s licenses for the same reasons (plus the fact that they can sometimes rely on student IDs, and may just have not gotten around to getting a driver’s license yet). Moreover, minorities may be more likely to have lost their driver’s licenses: The Wisconsin study found that an estimated 8 percent of Hispanic adults and 17 percent of African-American adults had no current license but had a recent suspension or revocation. Almost half of suspended driver’s licenses were due to failure to pay outstanding fines, which may explain why poor people are less likely to have licenses.

                    Driver’s licenses are not the only accepted forms of identification, but minorities may face extra challenges in securing other legally valid IDs. Passports, military IDs, and other government-issued photo ID are generally accepted, and some states accept student ID cards from state universities. Texas accepts concealed-weapons licenses, but New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice points out that African-Americans are also less likely to have these concealed-gun permits. For voters who need to secure a valid ID, tracking down the necessary documents—such as a birth certificate and social security card—can take time and money, and the Brennan Center additionally reports that many voting centers are far away from minority voters and are rarely open. Minorities also move from state to state more frequently, which makes meeting varying requirements for documentation more difficult, and Hispanics often use different naming customs, which can make for additional confusion at the DMV or voting booth. Additionally, the Brennan Center suggests that minority voters are more likely to be carded at the polls.

                    Of course, minority voters aren’t the only group likely to be disenfranchised. Seniors, for example, are also less likely to drive. Academic studies suggest that voter ID laws do probably reduce turnout, both among Democrats and Republicans, but not by more than about 2 percent.

                    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html

                    Republicans crafting voter ID laws are well aware of this.

                    On Wednesday, the state of Alabama announced that it was shutting 31 driver’s license offices because of budget cuts. Two columns on Al.com subsequently noted that the cuts—which come on the heels of a 2011 law that requires voters to show government-issued IDs—will disproportionately affect counties in the state’s largely Democratic “black belt” region.

                    Columnist Kyle Whitmire writes that 29 of the state’s 67 counties will now lack a driver’s license office—and, depending on whether you define the “black belt” as constituting 18 or 24 counties, either 12 or 15 of those newly office-less counties will be in the historically black area. Two-thirds of counties in the narrowly defined “black belt” will lack now a driver’s license office (12 of 18); only one-third (17 of 49) of other counties will lack one.
                    Columnist John Archibald, meanwhile, observes that no Alabama counties in which more than 75 percent of registered voters are nonwhite will now have a driver’s license office. Another way of framing the issue: Offices will be shuttered in the five counties whose voters most strongly supported Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
                    Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley is Republican, and the state’s Senate and House of Representatives are both GOP-controlled.

                    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/01/alabama_closes_dmvs_in_majority_of_black_belt_counties_passed_voter_id_law.html

                • Chris Bentley

                  I (bleeping) do not know how to attache the chart I have a photo of, but it can be found here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/ft_17-05-10_voter-turnout/

                  So, black voting turnout exceeded that of whites in 2012, and in 2014 voting turnout among all groups in TX (stringent ID laws) was higher than in NY (less stringent). How does this fit with the notion that the laws depress turnout? Why would these laws pick and choose when to have the effect of depressing voters?

            • Chris Bentley

              Deery puts the # of Americans w/o a US ID at 3 mil. As of 2015, there were 321 mil Americans in the US. That’d make the percentage of Americans w/o an ID .9%

              So, .5% illegal votes is too small to be relevant, but .9% is too high?

              • deery

                Well, you are comparing different denominators. I’m assuming that the 3 million without ID are those over 18 and eligible to vote. So you would have to find out the percentage of Americans that fall under that category to be able to compare.

                • Chris Bentley

                  Good point. I have been afflicted with whatever Chris had going on the other day….

                  • Chris

                    Heh. It’s more like “most days” for me. It’s a miracle my comparison of SNAP data between Bush and Obama made any sense…

                    • Chris,

                      I assume you are out of school, based on the volume of the output you have blessed EA with this week, and when my wife finally stops being a teacher for a few days the mind goes to mush. Detox time is needed when you deal with the munchkins full time.

                      If that is not your experience, feel free to borrow it as a convenient excuse when needed. Teachers are important, and deserve time to get their heads back together.

        • How quickly we forget! The 2000 Presidential election hinged on a few hundred votes in Florida.

          • Chris

            Wikipedia says the difference was about 500,000, not a few hundred…but that invalidates my point that such a number could not possibly influence an election.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

            • JP

              Your just looking at the popular vote, according to the wiki 537 votes was the difference in Florida which would have swung the election either way.

              • Chris

                I am messing up all over the place. But we were talking about a total number of noncitizen voters in the nation…so I’m unsure how the Florida example is relevant?

                • I don’t understand the confusion. Florida is in the nation, non-citizens are more or less randomly distributed. All non citizens still live in a state, where they vote, if they vote. Those votes constitute illegal votes that can sway local and national elections, as they could have, easily, in Florida in 2000.

                  • Glenn Logan

                    Yes, and in a bit of irony, the noncitizens in Florida tend to be Cuban, a much more republican-friendly demographic, particularly back in 2000

                    So it is possible that illegal voters from Cuba cost Al Gore the election.

                    • Which is why, perhaps, Democrats should care. If not because assuring the integrity of your elections is the right thing to do, then in their own self-interest. Florida has always been a close race,

                • Well… Math. Florida has about 20 million people in it. America has about 321 million. If we assumed that the population of illegal voters was evenly distributed among the general population (and to be honest, I think they’re more likely to be prevalent in Southern States and large Urban centers, of which Florida punches above it’s weight class in both, but I digress)… Then we would expect that about 7% of illegal votes occur in Florida, and 7% of 590,000 is 41,300…. Which is just a scootch over 537.

        • Rusty Rebar

          Thanks for the clarification, Jack–I’d seen others use the study to assert that Trump was right to say millions of illegal immigrants voted

          That is not what he said.

          In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
          12:30 PM – 27 Nov 2016

          Illegal voters !== Illegal immigrant voters. There are several categories of people that can vote illegally who are not illegal immigrants.

          This study, methodological questions aside (I am no more qualified to vouch for the veracity of the studies statistics than anyone else here), is claiming that somewhere between 1/2 million and 5 1/2 million illegal votes were cast. This puts the Trump estimate bang in the middle of this, which seems like a fair thing to say. Especially when we consider that the point of his tweets are typically to stir up some reaction. When this is put into perspective, the wild howls from the left and the media seem to be a bit out of line. This is now at least two studies that at least make the Trump tweet plausible.

          Even though we do not elect presidents via popular vote, the vote totals were 65,844,610 (Clinton), vs 62,979,636 (Trump) for a difference of ~2.86 Million votes, well within the range here. Although I doubt he would have won the popular vote, even given this information, the numbers are interesting to say the least.

          • I have heard that California give driver’s licenses to illegals, and that only a driver’s license is needed to vote. If that is the case, why wouldn’t they vote?

            • Chris

              You don’t need a driver’s license to vote in California, but you do need one to register to vote. (I think this is a new requirement.)

              As to why illegal immigrants who do have driver’s licenses would not vote, one reason is fear of getting caught. Illegal immigrants, as a group, tend to be fairly law-abiding once they’re here, and avoid interaction with the government when possible because they fear deportation. There is very little payoff to voting illegally; it’s a useless crime, as it’s highly unlikely an individual illegal immigrant’s vote would have an effect on an election. The better question is, why would someone vote illegally? Sure, people do all kinds of stupid stuff, but I can’t imagine the number of people who do this stupid thing is significant.

              • Chris,

                First, I would like a clarification, if you would be so kind. Is no picture ID needed to vote in California? You specified ‘driver’s licence’ so wanted to know more. For instance, in Texas many forms of picture ID will work, and you can even sign an affidavit (for whatever that is worth) of who you claim to be. Once a person is registered to vote, they do not need to prove who they are? Not criticizing, mind you, just looking for facts.

                …one reason is fear of getting caught.

                Why would they fear getting caught? Obama didn’t deport even violent criminal illegals, so what did they have to fear? Today is a different story, and they should be afraid, but we are talking about prior to this Administration voting.

                Illegal immigrants, as a group, tend to be fairly law-abiding once they’re here

                Source? They are already criminals, and no one gets brownie points for acting good once they rob a bank, Chris. Why do you hold illegal criminals to a lower standard than US citizens? How can you possible know they are law abiding now? Or is it just a progressive talking point?

                The better question is, why would someone vote illegally?

                Usually it is related to free stuff. Bread and circuses. Illegals would like an amnesty declared as we have before, and voting to make that happen seems like a low risk way to further that cause.

                • Chris

                  There are no voter ID laws in California, slick, so no, Californians do not have to show any type of ID in order to vote. This is the case in most states.

                  Obama didn’t deport even violent criminal illegals, so what did they have to fear?

                  You know so much that is not true. A record number of illegal immigrants were deported under Obama.

                  Source?

                  There are of course many studies showing that first generation immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. I’m unaware of any that specifically look at illegal immigrants only.

                  Usually it is related to free stuff. Bread and circuses. Illegals would like an amnesty declared as we have before, and voting to make that happen seems like a low risk way to further that cause.

                  How do you know that this is “usually” why illegal immigrants vote? You haven’t even established that illegal immigrants voting is a common occurrence. And again, I can hardly see why an illegal immigrant would think their illegal vote would make much of a difference, especially when plenty of citizens don’t even think their vote makes a difference.

                  • Okay, your ‘record’ deportations claims are not true, and the NYT is a progressive propaganda rag by its own admission. Your source lies, Chris.

                    “…The Obama administration had the lowest average annual number of deportations of any presidential administration since the early 1970s, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies.

                    That is primarily because the number of deportations of illegal immigrants not caught at the border have plunged by 73 percent since Obama took office.”

                    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-obama-has-lowest-rate-of-deportations-since-nixon/article/2611968

                    Most illegals had nothing to fear, so why not vote?

                    There are of course many studies showing that first generation immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. I’m unaware of any that specifically look at illegal immigrants only.

                    Why don’t you just say you have no proof, then? We are talking about illegals here: LEGAL immigrants followed the law in the first place, meaning they are more likely to be law anyway. Illegals did not follow the laws, thus are already law breakers. Why would you equate the two? This is an evasion, Chris. You are better than that.

                    How do you know that this is “usually” why illegal immigrants vote? You haven’t even established that illegal immigrants voting is a common occurrence.

                    I grew up with them, Chris. Worked my first real job with them. Learned ‘gutter’ Spanish from them by age 15. See and still interact with them several times a week at my Corner Store (like a 7-11). San Antonio openly acknowledges them, at least until the past 6 months. They openly bragged about voting, at least until Trump started deporting them.
                    How many do you interact with?

                    And again, I can hardly see why an illegal immigrant would think their illegal vote would make much of a difference, especially when plenty of citizens don’t even think their vote makes a difference.

                    This is a rationalization, and unethical.

                    • My iPad makes it hard to do HTML tags. Italics should stop before “I grew up…”

                    • Chris

                      …And the Center for Immigration Studies is an extremist anti-immigration group founded by a white nationalist. For all the New York Times’ problems, I’ll take them over CIS any day.

                    • Show me where they even hold a candle to the Soros funded sources like Slate or Brennan.

                      Conservative organisations know they will get called out by their own if they get too far off the reservation, unlike progressive ones.

                    • And since, once again, you have not addressed all of the other points I made, I will take it that you cannot.

          • Chris

            Rusty,

            Most people on both the left and right interpreted Trump’s tweet to refer to illegal immigrant voters. This interpretation is backed up by what Trump told congressmen at a closed-doors meeting:

            President Donald Trump claimed at a meeting with congressional leaders Monday that he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in last November’s election because between three million and five million “illegals” cast ballots, multiple sources told Fox News.

            It is not the first time Trump has made the unverified claims about illegal immigrants casting votes for Clinton, the Democratic nominee. In late November, Trump tweeted that he had “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” At the time, multiple law enforcement sources told Fox News that there was no evidence for Trump’s claims.

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-tells-congressional-leaders-3-5-million-illegals-cost-him-popular-vote.html

            But you’re right, the tweet is vague and like many of Trump’s statements, is open to interpretation.

            But it is a lie either way. It is baseless. There is no evidence for the claim that 3-5 million illegal votes were cast, and Trump only believes it because it makes him feel better about losing the popular vote.

            This study, methodological questions aside (I am no more qualified to vouch for the veracity of the studies statistics than anyone else here), is claiming that somewhere between 1/2 million and 5 1/2 million illegal votes were cast. This puts the Trump estimate bang in the middle of this, which seems like a fair thing to say. Especially when we consider that the point of his tweets are typically to stir up some reaction. When this is put into perspective, the wild howls from the left and the media seem to be a bit out of line. This is now at least two studies that at least make the Trump tweet plausible.

            It is not plausible. Again, a study with a range of a few hundred thousand to a few million is useless. It tells us nothing.

            • Glenn Logan

              But it is a lie either way. It is baseless. There is no evidence for the claim that 3-5 million illegal votes were cast, and Trump only believes it because it makes him feel better about losing the popular vote.

              Well, that’s not exactly true, Chris. There is evidence of significant numbers [ODU study Jack mentioned] of illegal voters, and while 5 million may be too high, 1-3 million is plausible.

              But Tump’s conclusion is also likely wrong based on the scholarly evidence that exists. Even if millions did actually vote illegally, that doesn’t mean they would’ve swung the vote totals as Trump claims — in spite of the reputation of noncitizens as died-in-the-wool Democrat voters, the Latino demographic (which incorporates the vast majority of noncitizen likely voters in the United States) generally votes only 70-30 or so Democrat. Therefore, even if the high end of the study Jack refers to is the number, that barely gets Trump over the threshold, and I doubt the high number very much. So unless the illegal votes that were cast were on the high end of the range and 85%+ for Democrats, Trump’s suggestion that he would’ve won the popular vote but for them doesn’t add up.

              There is very good reason to be skeptical of “millions,” even if there is much less reason to be skeptical of a million or so, or even a couple million. We are never going to get more than a few hard numbers, and none at all from states like New York and California who, I suspect but do not know, are happier than most to look the other way if a non-citizen attempts to vote.

              In this case, your bias is blinding you to reality. But it needn’t. Hillary’s popular vote victory is not likely threatened by a reasonable reading of the currently known research on illegal voting. Even if it might be significantly closer, Trump would most likely still be wrong about that.

              • Chris

                Well, that’s not exactly true, Chris. There is evidence of significant numbers [ODU study Jack mentioned] of illegal voters, and while 5 million may be too high, 1-3 million is plausible.

                Why do you think this is plausible, Glenn?

                There have been multiple investigations into voter fraud in the past few decades. Not one investigation has found anything close to your number.

                In Kansas, the Republican secretary of state examined 84 million votes cast in 22 states to look for cases of duplicate registration. The project yielded 14 prosecutions, representing 0.000017 percent of the votes cast.

                This is one of the most aggressive voter ID proponents in the nation. He will be heading up Trump’s election commission to find evidence of fraud. He is clearly biased towards finding more voter fraud. And that’s all he could find when he previously investigated this issue.

                That’s because voter fraud is extraordinarily rare, and the type of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID laws even more so.

        • Chris Bentley

          “Compared to the ideal “zero,” sure.”

          Yes, compared to the ideal, but also compared to the many, many, many, many examples of outright denial that ANY voter fraud was occurring.

          I just came across an article, titled “Why Voter ID Laws Don’t Swing Many Elections” (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/upshot/why-voter-id-laws-dont-swing-many-elections.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0)

          By your thinking, if illegals voting won’t have much of an effect on an election, and therefore, isn’t a big deal*, then Voter ID laws, if they too, don’t swing elections, should also not be a big deal, no?

          *-I know you didnt say this; I inferred it from your response to Jack’s “too many” comment

          • Chris

            By your thinking, if illegals voting won’t have much of an effect on an election, and therefore, isn’t a big deal*, then Voter ID laws, if they too, don’t swing elections, should also not be a big deal, no?

            No, because unlike the Republicans crafting the voter ID laws, my position isn’t based on whether the policy in question will help my side politically.

            Voting rights matter. Citizens should be allowed to vote without unnecessary restrictions. That’s why I oppose voter ID, not because it “swings elections.”

            • Come off it, Chris. Democrats don’t like voter ID because they WANT people to commit voter fraud. Why do you think they want unopposed illegal immigration? They think it will swing future election to them.

  2. Jack wrote, “A customer’s cell phone video caught a 7-Eleven clerk on Tampa, Florida screaming at a customer and asking about his immigration status after the customer used the Spanish word for ‘green’ to ask the clerk for a specific brand of cigarettes. The clerk demanded Hernandez speak English, and is is heard saying, “Are you here legally? Do you have papers? Do you have papers?””

    This was inappropriate behavior, I’d fire the ignorant clerk on the spot.

    There are so many things other than the possibility of being an illegal immigrant that could have directly affected this person’s inability to speak English well; for instance this could have been a tourist, a cruise ship employee, a college student from a Spanish speaking country, a legal immigrant, etc, etc.

    Jack wrote, “On a related note, a recent study suggests that millions of non-citizens may have voted in recent U.S. elections, and that those denying that there is any substantial problem are in denial…or perhaps, denying inconvenient facts in the interests of political expediency.”

    I’m usually pretty skeptical about statistical studies simply because they sometimes extrapolate to absurd levels based on such small samples but on the other hand they can be a decent method of showing societal trends; the real problem with them is how the data is misused, especially in politics, when the numbers are presented as absolute fact. Statistical studies are a really good method of showing that “something” actually exists, but they truly cannot accurately show the extent of that “something”.

    The political left ignores the fact that the “something”, in this case voter fraud, exists because here’s no political advantage for them to admit it; they would have to agree with the political right and that’s clearly not going to happen. To agree with the political right would conflict with their end goals of population division, political domination, and winning by default. The political left has portrayed that voter fraud is a political hill they are willing to die on – they’re idiots!

    • What I think is interesting is the fact that we see people consumed by the political left consider voter fraud studies, like the one that Jack linked to, as “absurd”, “fanciful “, I’ve even seen people call these studies “delusional” and “lies”, and people say things like “how much weight should be given to such studies”. Then this same group of lefties turn around and say things like “voter ID laws that stop more legal voters from voting than illegal voters” and “voter ID laws–which we know for a fact cause voter turnout to decrease”; what do these people base those kinds of statements on – yep you guessed it – extrapolations of statistical studies that they “unfairly conflated” as fact.

      Double standards really stink; double standards that are partisan based WREAK of partisan hypocrisy!

      • I wrote, “extrapolations of statistical studies that they “unfairly conflated” as fact.”

        Maybe that wasn’t the best use of the word “conflated”, but I’m sure you get the overall idea.

      • Chris

        Zoltar, believing studies that have good methodology and do not produce absurd conclusions while disbelieving studies with poor methodology that do produce absurd conclusions is not a “double standard.”

          • Chris

            Nah, still waiting for your apology for your tantrum over me pointing out your false claim that Obama delayed producing a birth certificate (again, he produced one in 2008).

            Grow up.

            • Chris wrote, “your false claim that Obama delayed producing a birth certificate”

              So the idiot needs a timeline to slap some common since into him, okay, here it is…

              Early March 2008, claims that Obama was born in Kenya emerged.

              April 2008 e-mails emerged from the Clinton camp about Obama being born in Kenya.

              June 9, 2008, Jim Geraghty of the conservative website National Review Online asked that Obama release his birth certificate.

              June 12, 2008 campaign shared Obama’s birth certificate online.

              At the point that the claims emerged there was 8 months left in the campaign. It took 3 months for the Obama campaign to release the birth certificate – that’s 37.5 % of the time left in the campaign before they released the birth certificate to prove the claims were false – that is a delay and a huge percentage of time left in the campaign in anyone’s book! Three months is a freaking eternity in a political campaign, especially for voters that are looking for evidence to disprove a claim that Obama might not meet the eligibility requirements to run for President. Any delay in releasing such information to disprove the claims poured fuel on the fire of conspiracy theories.

              As for your “tantrum”, “grow up”, and demanding an “apology” statements; fuck you Chris. You’ll get no apology from me. Your assertions were flat-out false and you demanding an apology from me because you can’t properly communicate your intent is an absurd demand from an arrogant asshole.

              Now, go the F away!

              • Chris

                Zoltar,

                I regret calling your statement “Obama should have released his birth certificate immediately when the first question related to this came out” an “easily disprovable lie.” Clearly, we have differing opinions on what constitutes a reasonable amount of time for Obama to have responded to the baseless birther smears; I don’t think the topic gained nearly enough traction to have merited a response from him until after he won the primary. Even then, the topic didn’t really become a hot-button issue until years into his presidency. I think his choice to reveal his birth certificate in June 2008 was perfectly appropriate timing.

                I had thought that your comment was putting forth the idea that Obama didn’t reveal his birth certificate until he released the long-form–a mistake that was common when birtherism was more in vogue among the right wing.

                I apologize for this error.

                I wish you would have clarified your position earlier, but it seems you also misinterpreted my comments, and thought I was accusing you of being a birther. I was not. I could have also been more clear.

                I regret that misunderstandings have led us down this path. I think we were having an otherwise productive conversation, and I welcome you to return to it. But if you don’t want to, I’ll understand that to.

                Best regards,

                Chris

  3. Spartan

    If the last election taught us anything, it’s that polling data is worthless. Any study that relies on polling data also is worthless.

    I’ll also add that I know illegal immigrants. My grandmother was one — but no one gives a fig about illegal white Canadians. I also know some illegals from El Salvador. One fear that both of them shared was being caught by the government. They wouldn’t have gone near a polling place on a bet.

    • Joan it the polling *data* that are worthless or the pollers, data analysts and communicators of such that are worthless?

    • Spartan wrote, “Any study that relies on polling data also is worthless.”

      I understand what you’re trying to say but, whether something, like a study based on polling data, is considered “worthless” or not is based on individual perception on the value of the something to get the desired results. The value of studies based on polling data depends on the purpose for which the polling data is being used, so stating that “any study that relies on polling data… is worthless” is actually false.

      The real problem with polling data is when there is a preconceived conclusion driving the method(s) of obtaining the data used in the study is specifically designed to achieve the preconceived conclusion and all other possible conclusions are completely disregarded as false, absurd, fanciful, delusions, lies, fantasies, etc. etc.

      You wrote, “If the last election taught us anything, it’s that polling data is worthless.”

      If the purpose of the polling data was to portray Clinton as the winning ticket, people like to be on the winning side, then the polling data was a huge success. Unfortunately for the pollsters in this case the followup outcome of the election proved that the polls were terribly, terribly skewed but that doesn’t mean that the polls didn’t show exactly what they intended to show. After the polls were so far off, I personally think it’s quite likely that the methods, or the polls themselves, were intentionally manipulated in some way to achieve the preconceived notion that Clinton was on top; yup I know, that’s a conspiracy theory but the existence of a preconceived notion is a powerful driving force.

  4. La Sylphide

    “Illegal immigrants not welcome”. “Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law”. Works for me.

    • Chris

      Presumably, the latter sign would refer to shoplifting happening within the store, and is thus much more relevant than the former sign.

  5. I don’t care what side of the Voter ID argument you reside, stop stating that the other guys statistical extrapolations are garbage and your statistical extrapolations are fact; they’re both nothing but statistical extrapolations and neither side is actually accurate.

    Here’s the actual facts:
    1. There are illegal votes being cast in our elections, therefore voter fraud exist – PERIOD! I don’t care what the statistical percentage of the total votes cast it is, it’s illegal, accept that fact and stop trying to diminish reality of its existence! Any percentage of illegal votes is too many, illegal voters shouldn’t be allowed to vote, illegal voting must be stopped BEFORE the vote gets inside the ballot box where it cannot be removed; now what are we as a society going to do to stop it?

    2. It is a fact that there are people out there without appropriate identification. It is the responsibility of the individual to prove who they are; therefore, it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain appropriate identification needed to prove who they are. It is not the responsibility of the “state” to ignore creating laws to help prevent illegal voting simply because there is a percentage of people that do not have appropriate identification. I do volunteer work in rather poor the inner city communities and I still haven’t met even one adult that doesn’t have appropriate ID. Now what are we as a society going to do to encourage people that do not have appropriate identification to take the time out of their lives and get the identification that they should already have?

    • deery

      Well, there is another thing. Shouldn’t the proponents of Voter ID show how it stops illegal aliens from voting? There should be a nexus between the rules and the proposed solution, correct?

      When you look at most of the Voter ID laws, you quickly see that do very little to prevent “improper ” people from voting. That would occur at the registration level, not once a potential voter was already at the polls. But we don’t require people to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote, for the most part. If nothing else, it’s rather expensive, and would almost certainly fail as a disguised poll tax if we required citizens to front the costs, and few people are willing to pay higher taxes so we can provide everyone with proof of citizenship.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s