So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today.

bandit0013 wrote:

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.

Just to add fuel to the fire, I live in southern California and am not a US Citizen. I have never tried to vote and I have been summoned for jury duty twice. Once was when I was on an H-1B and the other was after I got my green card. I could be part of that 10-15%, but the fact I was asked twice tells me that they randomly send these summons out without checking anything.

It's interesting that people who were willing to admit to US authorities that they were not citizens are yet suspected of flocking to vote en masse in violation of the law. Considering that they have to show a CA driver's license, SSA number or the like to meet Federal requirements, I doubt that *any* of them could actually vote in a CA election.

It's just not a real threat these days. I'd also very much like to see the source on the claim that those people were on the "voter registration list". I'm not sure I trust that assertion. Also, the laws now are different from what they were in 1998.

Okay, here's an interesting document which contradicts or modifies all the information given above. For example, the number of people who were illegally registered in the Sanchez election was 442, not the higher number reported by Heritage and others. Also, only 303 of them cast a ballot in that race. Further, they were all signed up to vote by one organization, which was promptly placed under investigation for this.

Here's the description of the jury duty issue:

California Secretary of State Bill Jones asked the INS to investigate the citizenship status of 448 people from Orange County who claim exemption from jury service because they are not citizens. Jury rolls are filled from both Department of Motor Vehicle records and voter files.

In late March, the registrar sent letters to the 448 people, notifying them that their voter registrations were canceled based on their claim of the non-citizen exemption on the jury summons. Both voter registration documents and jury response forms are filled out under penalty of perjury. About 65 people who received the March 26 letter returned a form that states that the registrar's "information is incorrect" and asked that they be reinstated as voters. The Secretary of State's office speculates that some citizens may be trying to get out of jury duty by seeking a non-citizen exemption.

Very different when you go back to the source. It's not "2,000 to 3,000 people per month", it's 448 in total. Note the last sentence; it's suspected people were falsely claiming to be non-citizens. And this article is sourced, too.

Bandit, I can't accept that the facts as you (and Heritage) presented them are accurate in this case.

Robear wrote:

Very different when you go back to the source. It's not "2,000 to 3,000 people per month", it's 448 in total. Note the last sentence; it's suspected people were falsely claiming to be non-citizens. And this article is sourced, too.

Bandit, I can't accept that the facts as you (and Heritage) presented them are accurate in this case.

Based on my experience, there could be 2,000 - 3,00 people per month being called, but what is being contested is where they are being selected from. I suspect I was selected from the DMV or from my tax return.

Hey, can we get the threads straightened out, please? I'd like to talk about immigration stuff, but I'm trying to stay out of the assassination thread.

Robear wrote:

Okay, here's an interesting document which contradicts or modifies all the information given above. For example, the number of people who were illegally registered in the Sanchez election was 442, not the higher number reported by Heritage and others. Also, only 303 of them cast a ballot in that race. Further, they were all signed up to vote by one organization, which was promptly placed under investigation for this.

303 is too many, and that's only the ones you caught. Local elections can be won or lost by that margin.

I'm going to create an immigration catch all

Heh, I just watched the Bourne Ultimatum on TV the other day. Man, remember when we thought a CIA program assassinating American citizens being revealed was going to be a huge scandal and would put a bunch of high-up people in jail?

Ah, but it was so long ago. Way back in 2007.

Never underestimate the power of demonization. If the target is a Mooslim who's also alleged to support an "evil" organization, it's okay.

Robear wrote:

Okay, here's an interesting document which contradicts or modifies all the information given above.

You mean the Heritage Foundation purposefully misrepresented the facts in order to make a political point? I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.

bandit0013 wrote:

303 is too many, and that's only the ones you caught. Local elections can be won or lost by that margin.

303 in a county of some 10+ million people 15 years ago. Way to stay laser focused on the real problems.

Perhaps if Dornan hadn't been a race baiter in his previous election he wouldn't have lost. I mean it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you don't win some the most Hispanic sections of a largely Hispanic county by threatening to call immigration on folks. Actions like that tend to get people riled up and then the vote in the next election, which is exactly what happened to Dornan. It wasn't voter fraud that did him it, it was his own racist ass.

@OG

You're a long way from "1 vote disenfranchised is too many" in the Minnesota thread to poo-pooing 303 fraudulent votes in an election decided by less than a thousand. It makes one wonder if you really actually care about the sanctity of the vote or only when it effects "your guy". So it's ok that ineligible people voted because he holds an unpopular viewpoint?

It doesn't matter that it was "15 years ago". California voting registration and policies are pretty much unchanged.

@Robear
See OG's post above in my comment about sourcing, it didn't take 10 posts before someone rejected a premise purely on source.

It doesn't matter that it was "15 years ago". California voting registration and policies are pretty much unchanged.

Not true, the laws were modified at the state level in 2002 and 2005 at least, and at the Federal level also.

@Robear
See OG's post above in my comment about sourcing, it didn't take 10 posts before someone rejected a premise purely on source.

So OG didn't reject your argument before he knew the source? I can't believe we're having this discussion. Without a source to check, how can we know whether the facts presented are valid? Whatever your source was, they changed the material they took the information from in order to support their argument. They *lied*. So why should we not have the chance to look up and see whether someone's cites are credible? Wouldn't *you* like to know whether your sources are reliable? Surely you were at least surprised to find those modifications, which misinformed all of us, were wrong? And yet it does not seem to bother you.

Or do you think it's better to just hope that no one looks too deeply into assertions, and let those of us who care sort out the reliable and accurate from the unreliable and propagandistic?

bandit0013 wrote:

You're a long way from "1 vote disenfranchised is too many" in the Minnesota thread to poo-pooing 303 fraudulent votes in an election decided by less than a thousand. It makes one wonder if you really actually care about the sanctity of the vote or only when it effects "your guy". So it's ok that ineligible people voted because he holds an unpopular viewpoint?

Who exactly was disenfranchised in your example? No one. Legitimate voters were able--and did--vote. Your "solution" is to disenfranchise thousands of people in order to weed out a tiny handful of people who aren't eligible to vote.

I care very much about the sanctity of the right of Americans to vote. Notice the emphasis. It's not on the vote itself but individual American's right to do so. You want to trash that right to weed out a dubious fraction of a percent of erroneous votes all while claiming there's a massive conspiracy behind it all.

bandit0013 wrote:

It doesn't matter that it was "15 years ago". California voting registration and policies are pretty much unchanged.

Yes, it does matter that it was 15 years ago, bandit. You're trying to claim that these voter irregularities are so common and so wide-spread that nothing will fix the problem but a national ID system. That you have to dig back 15 years to find one example pretty much shows that the "problem" isn't exactly common nor wide-spread.

bandit0013 wrote:

See OG's post above in my comment about sourcing, it didn't take 10 posts before someone rejected a premise purely on source.

Perhaps if Heritage didn't purposefully lie about things they might be seen as a more credible source. But as it is they are an arch-conservative think tank whose sole mission is to promote right-wing beliefs.

If you honestly think that an admittedly biased group is a legitimate and objective source of information to support a point you're trying to make then I really don't know what to say. That you didn't even bother to find the actual source and just found the information via a random link kind of shows that you were just looking for any numbers to support your worldview.

Your argument has been and continues to be that irregularities are "rare enough" that they don't change election results. I've previously posted wikipedia examples of elections where the results have indeed been changed by fraud. Even though the Heritage source wasn't 100% accurate, both sources showed that in a race decided by less than 1000 votes, there were 300 votes found that were ineligible. In a race decided by 250 votes, this is a severe problem.

California has made some updates, but you can go look at their current voter registration process and see that it is still quite easy for a non citizen to get one. Keep in mind that the Sanchez race they found hundreds of votes, and that was only ones cross referenced with the INS, which the vast majority of illegals are not so your margin of error is much, much higher. Also that was one district of many in California. Without controls we can never know, but there is the potential for thousands, even in the ten thousands of illegal votes being cast.

But this isn't a problem we should concern ourselves with. It never happens. Besides, with things like SB60 which want to give driver's licenses to illegals, why should anyone be concerned that they might vote?

Remember in 2006 congressional race in southern California between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby, Busby told a room full of illegal aliens that they didn't need "papers" to vote?

Bush v Gore in Florida was decided by a few hundred votes.

edit: actually I can't be bothered to take part in this discussion, apols.

bandit0013 wrote:

Your argument has been and continues to be that irregularities are "rare enough" that they don't change election results. I've previously posted wikipedia examples of elections where the results have indeed been changed by fraud. Even though the Heritage source wasn't 100% accurate, both sources showed that in a race decided by less than 1000 votes, there were 300 votes found that were ineligible. In a race decided by 250 votes, this is a severe problem.

It was a tight race, bandit, but the ineligible votes didn't change the results. It's also very interesting that you're making the assumption that all 303 of those vote were for Sanchez.

bandit0013 wrote:

California has made some updates, but you can go look at their current voter registration process and see that it is still quite easy for a non citizen to get one. Keep in mind that the Sanchez race they found hundreds of votes, and that was only ones cross referenced with the INS, which the vast majority of illegals are not so your margin of error is much, much higher. Also that was one district of many in California. Without controls we can never know, but there is the potential for thousands, even in the ten thousands of illegal votes being cast.

That's some great fevered speculation you have going on there. Before you continue with your fear about armies of undocumented immigrants throwing elections all over the country you might want take a step back and ask yourself if people who have learned the fine art of staying completely off the government's radar for obvious reasons are going to register to vote by the tens of thousands.

bandit0013 wrote:

But this isn't a problem we should concern ourselves with. It never happens. Besides, with things like SB60 which want to give driver's licenses to illegals, why should anyone be concerned that they might vote?

Again, if you're trying to show that this is a rampant and pervasive problem you're doing it wrong. What you have is one incident involving one person. I know you think that there's a grand conspiracy happening, but the facts just don't support your position.

bandit0013 wrote:

Remember in 2006 congressional race in southern California between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby, Busby told a room full of illegal aliens that they didn't need "papers" to vote?

Sigh. She was at a campaign event with a largely Hispanic audience which shouldn't surprise you considering her district is within a stone's throw of the border. How you transform that fact into "a room full of illegal aliens" I don't know.

Her actual quote was: "Everybody can help. You can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help." She said that in response to someone who said he wanted to help her campaign but didn't have "voting papers".

See how some context turns an scary quote into something much more reasonable? Busby's turn of phrase wasn't the best, but she wasn't secretly telling undocumented immigrants to vote en masse.

Off topic.