So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today.

Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It's not just Middle Easterners. Witness the thread about giving non-citizen Hispanics scholarships to California universities. There's a huge swath of America that doesn't like anything but corn-fed white people. That's simply the country we live in.

Right, because being against giving non-citizens in-state tuition and state scholarship money is clearly a racist position.

On it's own it isn't a racist position, though it is a xenophobic position. And when the venn diagram of people who are xenophobic and people who are racist is much closer to a circle than oogaba, it's easy to confuse the two.
For clarity's sake: I don't think you, personally, are racist.

On it's own I don't think it's a racist or a xenophobic position. It's a position that racists and xenophobes gravitate to, but that's not the fault of the other people that support those issues that they also have the bigots. My point was that in these issues that attract the racists, xenophobics, etc, it's important to try to keep an eye on how many of the reasons/people supporting these acts are bigoted, so that we can try to see how the issues stand without that factored in.

Yonder wrote:
Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It's not just Middle Easterners. Witness the thread about giving non-citizen Hispanics scholarships to California universities. There's a huge swath of America that doesn't like anything but corn-fed white people. That's simply the country we live in.

Right, because being against giving non-citizens in-state tuition and state scholarship money is clearly a racist position.

On it's own it isn't a racist position, though it is a xenophobic position. And when the venn diagram of people who are xenophobic and people who are racist is much closer to a circle than oogaba, it's easy to confuse the two.
For clarity's sake: I don't think you, personally, are racist.

On it's own I don't think it's a racist or a xenophobic position. It's a position that racists and xenophobes gravitate to, but that's not the fault of the other people that support those issues that they also have the bigots. My point was that in these issues that attract the racists, xenophobics, etc, it's important to try to keep an eye on how many of the reasons/people supporting these acts are bigoted, so that we can try to see how the issues stand without that factored in.

They're probably illegally entering the country out of fear of the overseas drone strike targeted assassination program.

bandit0013 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It's not just Middle Easterners. Witness the thread about giving non-citizen Hispanics scholarships to California universities. There's a huge swath of America that doesn't like anything but corn-fed white people. That's simply the country we live in.

Right, because being against giving non-citizens in-state tuition and state scholarship money is clearly a racist position.

Right, so you just have a keen interest in the inner workings of a state that's 2,500 miles from where you live and in a policy that accounts for .00001% of California's budget?

You live in Akron, I lived in Southern California until just a few weeks ago. You live in a city that's 68% white and has just a handful of Hispanics. I lived in a city that was 41% Hispanic (and where I, a white man, was technically a minority once you added in blacks, Asians, and everyone else into the mix).

You likely have never had any significant contact with Hispanics of any legal standing while my friends, neighbors, and co-workers have often been Hispanic. Some were fully legal, but a lot were brought to the state when they were children and have grown up in California. They are more Californian than someone like myself, who simply moved there a few years for work.

It becomes very hard to demonize people for simply wanting to provide a better life for themselves and their families when you actually know them.

OG_slinger wrote:

Right, so you just have a keen interest in the inner workings of a state that's 2,500 miles from where you live and in a policy that accounts for .00001% of California's budget?

You live in Akron, I lived in Southern California until just a few weeks ago. You live in a city that's 68% white and has just a handful of Hispanics. I lived in a city that was 41% Hispanic (and where I, a white man, was technically a minority once you added in blacks, Asians, and everyone else into the mix).

You likely have never had any significant contact with Hispanics of any legal standing while my friends, neighbors, and co-workers have often been Hispanic. Some were fully legal, but a lot were brought to the state when they were children and have grown up in California. They are more Californian than someone like myself, who simply moved there a few years for work.

It becomes very hard to demonize people for simply wanting to provide a better life for themselves and their families when you actually know them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that bandit is a 1st or 2nd generation American? He's not against immigrants, just really concerned with immigrants coming here legally (which would be fine except that the system to legally immigrate here is such a broken mess).

@OG

So your point is that I can't have a valid opinion because my area isn't brown enough? Interesting. I will try to remember to cut back my commentary on any policies that are put into place in places I don't physically reside.

You do realize that Californian politicians love to state that "where California leads the nation follows." since many policies implemented there end up bleeding into the nation as a whole. Being that as it is, can I still not have an opinion on Californian politics?

You also throw out the term demonize? At what point in any thread have I actually demonized illegals. I've asserted that I don't like state programs supporting and rewarding illegal behavior, which is precisely what you are doing when you put these people on welfare, allow access to medical programs, etc. No one disputes that they want to have "a better life". What is being disputed is that when you allow people to just drift over the border it does the following:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

Stengah wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that bandit is a 1st or 2nd generation American? He's not against immigrants, just really concerned with immigrants coming here legally (which would be fine except that the system to legally immigrate here is such a broken mess).

Agreed, been through the system, it sucks big time. I support wholesale reform of it.

bandit0013 wrote:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

So is this about what's good for California/the U.S., or is this about your sense of fairness? The two are not necessarily the same.

bandit0013 wrote:

Agreed, been through the system, it sucks big time. I support wholesale reform of it.

I cannot possibly agree with this enough. It gives someone born and raised here a whole new prospective helping people who are navigating that byzantine nightmare.

CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

So is this about what's good for California/the U.S., or is this about your sense of fairness? The two are not necessarily the same.

AAARG! Now I did it!

Guys...are we in the wrong thread? Or is it just something screwy about my account that is causing this to show up in "So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today."

bandit0013 wrote:

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

I've been dealing with that too, and my spouse is currently waiting for her test/swearing allegiance stuff now. But what makes me furious is when people talk about how their grandparents, friends, whoever came here legally, then why shouldn't everyone just follow the rules. If I was a poor farm hand in an area in Mexico that is owned by Drug Lords that are literally murdering and raping anyone they feel like, and had no money (and without specific upper crust job skills or education) to even have a chance to immigrate legally into the US, I think crossing the border illegally and working at a job that no American wants to do, while also paying taxes on food, drink, utilities, etc, I would think I shouldn't be a target for hatred. But I guess the whole concept of: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" really means only those with connections, wealth and education.

bandit0013 wrote:

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

But we also looked at how voter fraud, e.g. illegals voting, is not a common occurrence. So this is not a valid point to attack the illegal immigration issue.

bandit0013 wrote:

So your point is that I can't have a valid opinion because my area isn't brown enough?

You can have an opinion on anything you want, Bandit. It's a free country.

Living in Akron, though, you simply have no real idea of what the immigration problem is or isn't because you really don't have any exposure to it or any of the players.

bandit0013 wrote:

You do realize that Californian politicians love to state that "where California leads the nation follows." since many policies implemented there end up bleeding into the nation as a whole. Being that as it is, can I still not have an opinion on Californian politics?

It's just very interesting that the one topic you wanted to express your opinion on was a $14.5 million expenditure out of California's $92 billion budget.

If you wanted to talk about California's influence on the nation's immigration policy I would think that discussing Proposition 187 would be much more appropriate seeing how every strick anti-immigration law passed recently by states have been modeled on that failed law.

bandit0013 wrote:

You also throw out the term demonize? At what point in any thread have I actually demonized illegals. I've asserted that I don't like state programs supporting and rewarding illegal behavior, which is precisely what you are doing when you put these people on welfare, allow access to medical programs, etc. No one disputes that they want to have "a better life".

Conservatives have long proven they have an Orwellian flair for controlling discussions through the use of words. It's why the discussion revolves around "illegal immigrants" instead of non-citizen immigrants or another less loaded term.

By calling them illegals it just makes it that much easier to de-humanize and demonize them. After all, they're *criminals* and we all know that criminals deserve every punishment they get. It's part of the reason we have the largest prison population on the planet.

bandit0013 wrote:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

Seriously think about what you've just said, Bandit. I mean really think about the actions and consequences of your "easy" solution.

If a state is struggling to provide welfare services to a portion of their population who may not be citizens how in the heck are they going to come up with the cash to "control the border"? It might seem like its a very easy solution from Akron, but it's not easy (or cheap) when you're literally talking about building a barrier hundreds or thousands of miles long and staffing it with enough border agents so that people can't easily cross.

Also, controlling the border will only stop the flow of immigrants coming into the country. You'd be sealing up the 12 million or so illegal immigrants who are already here. Should we start cordoning off Hispanic neighborhoods in every city, sweeping them for non-citizens, and then shipping back to their county of origin? How do we handle breaking up families where one or both parents are illegals, but their children are US citizens? Are you and your family going to volunteer to adopt and care for an immigration orphan or should the government just set up camps for them?

bandit0013 wrote:

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

Life isn't fair, Bandit.

Arguing against things like amnesty just proves you really aren't serious about immigration reform. There are millions of undocumented immigrants already in country. Short of rounding them all up and shipping them home any solution proposed has to account for them being here. So you either can take what you think is a principled stand and continue the problem or take a practical step that would go a long way towards a solution everyone really wants: a clear path towards citizenship for people who want it and some legitimate form of recognition and licensing for people who are just here to work.

bandit0013 wrote:

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

Actually, it was only a major concern for you. As many others pointed out voter fraud was essentially a non-existent problem made up by the Republicans. You did get the last part right, though, which is why Republicans are pushing so hard to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.

CheezePavilion wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

So is this about what's good for California/the U.S., or is this about your sense of fairness? The two are not necessarily the same.

AAARG! Now I did it!

Guys...are we in the wrong thread? Or is it just something screwy about my account that is causing this to show up in "So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today."

The other thread was referred to up above, and somehow the conversation immigrated (illegally, I think) to that topic.

absurddoctor wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

So is this about what's good for California/the U.S., or is this about your sense of fairness? The two are not necessarily the same.

AAARG! Now I did it!

Guys...are we in the wrong thread? Or is it just something screwy about my account that is causing this to show up in "So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today."

The other thread was referred to up above, and somehow the conversation immigrated (illegally, I think) to that topic.

We should build a giant wall between the threads!

Stengah wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

So is this about what's good for California/the U.S., or is this about your sense of fairness? The two are not necessarily the same.

AAARG! Now I did it!

Guys...are we in the wrong thread? Or is it just something screwy about my account that is causing this to show up in "So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today."

The other thread was referred to up above, and somehow the conversation immigrated (illegally, I think) to that topic.

We should build a giant wall between the threads!

That wouldn't protect us from our own government if they got it in their minds that we were up to no good.

SallyNasty wrote:
Stengah wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

* Removes government resources from other people who need them. This includes welfare, food, education, etc. Especially education, as I recall we recently had a heated debate where an assertion was made the classroom size is of huge importance to the quality of education. Being that roughly 15% of California students are children of illegal immigrants, I have a very easy way that you could reduce class sizes (control the border). Every dollar in welfare and aid you give to someone who isn't legally supposed to be here is a dollar that isn't available for a legal citizen that needs them.

* It is incredibly unjust to legal immigrants who have followed the law. As someone who has been through the legal immigration process for a spouse, let me tell you how infuriated I get when people talk about amnesty. I had to go through all the hoops, paperwork and more than two thousand dollars in fees. If you want to support amnesty fine, but I expect a check in the mail for all the fees I paid while following the law. It is a slap in the face to people who follow rule of law.

* We also recently talked about voter disenfranchisement, which was a major concern for many in this thread. You do realize, in absence of voter ID, that illegals can often vote. Every time someone ineligible to vote does so, you disenfranchise and eligible voter. But that's ok because they're brown and vote democrat, amiright?

So is this about what's good for California/the U.S., or is this about your sense of fairness? The two are not necessarily the same.

AAARG! Now I did it!

Guys...are we in the wrong thread? Or is it just something screwy about my account that is causing this to show up in "So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today."

The other thread was referred to up above, and somehow the conversation immigrated (illegally, I think) to that topic.

We should build a giant wall between the threads!

That wouldn't protect us from our own government if they got it in their minds that we were up to no good.

In fact they would send out a UAV drone to assassinate them. Bam! Back on topic.

IMAGE(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/2/2/129096251994756984.jpg)

OG_slinger wrote:

Life isn't fair, Bandit.

Good to know for future topics.

Living in Akron, though, you simply have no real idea of what the immigration problem is or isn't because you really don't have any exposure to it or any of the players.

Interesting.

@OG

A 1996 congressional race in California: Republican incumbent Bob Dornan vs Democrat Lor­etta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Com­mittee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Nat­uralization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots. The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.

The California Secretary of State reported in 1998 that 2,000 to 3,000 of the individuals sum­moned for jury duty in Orange County each month claimed an exemption from jury service because they were not U.S. citizens, and 85 percent to 90 percent of those individuals were summoned from the voter registration list, rather than Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records.

So are you really going to continue to poo-poo voting fraud?

You see, one thing I do know about illegals and our system is that the easiest way to get "legitimate" ID is to get a voter registration card. Many states, including California will accept voter registration as a means to get a driver's license. When people like you support having weak standards for voter registration, you are enabling fraud. Fraud which does exist.

Also, if you have a problem with the term "illegal" being applied to people who break the law I would also like to redefine the term rape to "surprise sexing"

bandit0013 wrote:

@OG

A 1996 congressional race in California: Republican incumbent Bob Dornan vs Democrat Lor­etta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Com­mittee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Nat­uralization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots. The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.

The California Secretary of State reported in 1998 that 2,000 to 3,000 of the individuals sum­moned for jury duty in Orange County each month claimed an exemption from jury service because they were not U.S. citizens, and 85 percent to 90 percent of those individuals were summoned from the voter registration list, rather than Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records.

So are you really going to continue to poo-poo voting fraud?

Is it really fraud in the usual sense of the term for a living person to cast one vote in the election for the district in which they reside?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Is it really fraud in the usual sense of the term for a living person to cast one vote in the election for the district in which they reside?

The standard definition of voter fraud is voting more than once OR voting when not eligible.

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Is it really fraud in the usual sense of the term for a living person to cast one vote in the election for the district in which they reside?

The standard definition of voter fraud is voting more than once OR voting when not eligible.

Maybe you should check with OG to figure out which one he meant. That's a pretty significant "OR" in that definition.

Or stuffing the ballot with votes that aren't yours, or....

as I haven't mentioned it yet I don't think:

DSGamer wrote:

Or stuffing the ballot with votes that aren't yours, or....

That's a fine lookin' sig you've got there ; D

@OG

A 1996 congressional race in California: Republican incumbent Bob Dornan vs Democrat Lor­etta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Com­mittee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Nat­uralization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots. The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.

You really should cite your sources when you quote them verbatim, Bandit.

You also didn't note that the idea that aliens voted in that election was speculative. Even proponents of that idea could not say whether that actually happened. Further, neither you nor Heritage point out that California does require voters to identify themselves when they register. That really does put this back in the category of extremely unlikely to occur today. It also allows tracking of voters if this kind of situation comes up; that is, it can help determine whether a voter is legit or not and so the vote in question can be stricken.

As well, most of the examples in the Heritage report from 2008 covered events occurring *before* ID requirements were in place in the various states.

Edit, actually, it's not quite verbatim. Here's the text from the source I cited:
----
Similarly, a 1996 congressional race in California may have been stolen by non-citizen voting.[11] Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was defending himself against a spirited challenger, Democrat Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots.[12] The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.
----

What's interesting is that the source you used removed the conditional language - "may have been stolen" - in order to make a stronger claim. But it kept much of the remaining language verbatim, which fooled my eye on first reading. I think if we'd had your source it would be easier to check claims, although in this case it revealed not just plagiarism but a bit of propagandistic editing.

@Robear

I didn't get it from heritage. But as is often the case with the interwebz today someone linked to a link to a link.

You also didn't note that the idea that aliens voted in that election was speculative.

Er, how was it speculative? They turned up over 600 votes in an election that was decided by 900 just by checking the INS database. That's 600 real votes that shouldn't have been there... by ineligible immigrants.

Back to the original intent of the post - am I allowed to use that phrase? - the US today announced the death without trial of two terrorists tied to Iran who were planning to attack the Saudi Arabian ambassador, the SA embassy, and the Israeli embassy, by masked assassins in the street outside the White House today. "Just another pair of notches on the gunstock, fellas" the President was heard to remark. "Those citizens should have watched what they said. Somebody call Holder and let him know, would you? I've got more death lists to review."

Right? Surely they could not have been *arrested* in the current climate, could they? Because that might have some small impact on arguments that we've lost the rule of law. You know. If we're not just killing citizen terrorists out of hand for some odd reason, people might actually conclude that there's a difference between extreme cases, and the norm.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the claims, but it sure sounds like the legal system worked today.

Edit - contrary to the early reports I heard, only one - a US citizen - was arrested. The other, an Iranian citizen, is still at large.

Robear wrote:

That's why sources are always good. Just a thought.

Eh, I quibble with that assertion. Some people will reject a source like Heritage or Kos just by virtue of the source. I typically leave the source off when you can just google Bob Dornan vs Lor­etta Sanchez fraud and draw your own conclusion. I typically cite the source if it's statistical/scientific in nature and the data set is linked.

That's why sources are always good. Just a thought.

It was speculative first because the original source noted that the election *may have been* stolen in that way, but that we can't know either way. Further, the fact that the votes were detected shows that the system even at that time worked to invalidate votes that should not have been counted. Note that the 624 people who were picked out of the INS rolls had *all* applied for citizenship; is it not reasonable to assume that they *thought* they were eligible because they were in-process and lived in the area? Or do we assume some more nefarious understanding?

Hard to say. But the effect of their votes was nil, in the end. That's worth considering.

Nope, with respect, while the sources matter, there is nothing inherently wrong with a biased source. The fact is that we should know the source so that we can check it. And frankly, the source you used rewrote the Heritage report to change it's meaning. That doesn't give you pause as to it's reliability?

If someone can show that an article is incorrect in some way, that's independent of the source. If that happens enough, then we know that we should avoid that source for this kind of debate. But presenting other's words as one's own is just bad form.