Regarding Voting,
In California, you are not allowed to even ask for a picture ID (as I remember). You just give your name and address, write them on a voting log, then vote.
I had a boss (from India) that had just got his citizenship and asked me what documents, besides his passport, he needed to vote. He was shocked when I told him no documents were needed at all.
But, then again, voter fraud has been around for decades(Chicago comes to mind). I would not single out the alien votes just yet...
Sasha, Sasha, Sasha, you are always at the leading edge of political thought /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif. Here is what we are facing:
non-citizen voting is the suffrage movement of the decade:
[ QUOTE ]
The apportionment of U.S. House seats by the Census is based on each state's total population — including illegal aliens and other non-citizens — relative to the rest of the country. Almost seven million illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 Census. California, a state in which one in seven residents is a non-citizen, gained six House seats. New York, Texas, and Florida also each gained a seat due to non-citizen residents. These nine seats came at the expense of Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Utah.[33] Since the electoral votes which determine the winner in national presidential elections are based on the number of House and Senate seats each state has, the use of illegal aliens and other non-citizens in apportionment can also affect who occupies the White House.
The basis for counting non-citizens and illegals in the Census is that they are simply people living in a particular place and thus should have the same status as anyone else, questions of assimilation and allegiance are irrelevant. The same argument is being made in regard to allowing non-citizens to vote. One complicating factor in maximizing Latino political power is that so many are not U.S. citizens. "In some districts, you have a 65 percent Latino population but less than 35 percent with citizenship who are of voting age," says Denise Hulett, a redistricting specialist at MALDEF.[34]
The obvious answer for MALDEF and its allies is to allow non-citizens to vote. American University law professor Jamin Raskin has proclaimed "non-citizen voting is the suffrage movement of the decade" citing agitation for the granting of such rights by immigrants and their lobbyists in New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.[35] In September, 2002, Washington mayor Anthony Williams said that non-citizens in the nation's capital should be allowed to vote in local elections, explaining, "I'm committed to expanding the franchise."[36] In September 2003, Michele Wucker, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute (which has received grant money from the Ford Foundation), advocated letting non-citizens vote in New York as a way to "update our democracy for global times."[37] The same result can be reached without public debate or legislative change simply by lax enforcement of voter registration and the acceptance of false identification by political activists and politicians who feel they will benefit from expanding the franchise in this manner.
On December 11, 2003, Joaquin Avila, a former MALDEF president and chief counsel, published an issue paper under the auspices of the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Institute calling for granting the right to vote to non-citizen immigrants.[38] Avila argued "the main reason to support non-citizen voting is self-preservation. A society's interests are not furthered when a substantial number of its inhabitants are excluded from the body politic and have no meaningful way to petition for a redress of grievances through the electoral process." He set forth the standard leftist program for advancing this idea. "Conferences and symposiums should be convened to formulate strategies for empowering this politically excluded community" and then activists should go to court to challenge the constitutionality of current law. "Perhaps the right to petition for grievances incorporates a right to vote. For assistance, legal scholars can review the historical transition from the separate but equal doctrine formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson to its abandonment in Brown v. Board of Education. Such a transition can serve as a model for the development of legal strategies seeking to remove the citizenship requirement as a qualification for voting." Avila also likes to use the term "non-citizen disenfranchisement" to imply a prior right that has been taken away.
[/ QUOTE ]
At this point, foundations, like the Ford Foundation, are going to take our country down, with tax free money.
-Bill