August 02, 2010

The conclusion is: "Common Sense"

Just in case you were wondering why the Obama went ahead and sued the state of Arizona for its [now half-injunctioned] immigration law, we now have an inkling: A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services internal memo that examines methods of circumventing Congress regarding so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. Some of the highlights:

  • “This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”
  • “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
  • “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.”

Honestly, I have difficulty fathoming just why in the world Obama and Co. would consider such a measure that is profoundly against the will of the American public. Politically, it is a complete loser -- at least in the short run. A lone judge shooting down major parts of the Arizona law only serves to motivate an already anti-Obama/Democrat electorate ... and now this? Ah, but ...

... just consider how many new Democrat voters will enter voting booths if upwards of 12 million illegal immigrants are granted some type of amnesty -- and a "fast track" to citizenship?

We've already seen over many years how it is Democrats who are loathe to impose any sort of impediment to voting. If it were up to them, anyone could simply walk into a voting booth and vote. If you're a Democrat, the more you do it, the better. After all:

  • Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell vetoed a bill that would have mandated voters show ID when voting in the state.
  • The Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, the NAACP and the Haitian-American Grassroots Coalition (typical Democrat constituencies) objected when the state of Florida elections officials began requiring IDs in order to vote.
  • The Indiana Democratic Party challenged a state law there requiring photo ID to vote.
  • A Texas Democrat was against requiring a photo ID to vote -- but wanted IDs shown in order to attend his townhall meetings!
  • Speaking of Texas, Democrats there blocked a bill that would have required photo ID to vote.
  • Democrats in South Carolina were against a photo ID measure there.
  • Democratic Governor Roy Barnes of Georgia brought suit against a state law that required photo ID to vote, saying that such a law would "suppress the votes of poor, elderly and minority voters."
  • Reliable Democratic backer the National Education Association came out against requiring a photo ID to vote ... but amazingly requires one to vote in their own elections!
  • Democrats came out against photo ID voting requirements in Minnesota, citing what Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes did above.
  • Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas vetoed a photo ID requirement when she was in office.

And the list could go on and on and on ...

But why? 82% of Americans in a poll back in May said they think requiring a photo ID to vote is a good idea. Kind of similar to the around-70% of the public that approved of Arizona's ilegal immigration law, right? The usual argument against a photo ID that we hear (as seen above in some of the bullet points), is that such would "disenfranchise" minorities, the elderly, and just about any other "oppressed" group one can think of. But do they really?

The Center for Data Analysis researched a Rutger's University study and concluded:

  • White survey respondents in photo identifica­tion states are 0.002 percent less likely to report voting than white respondents from states that only required voters to state their name.
  • African-American respondents in non-photo identification states are 0.012 percent less likely to report voting than African-American respon­dents from states that only required voters to state their name.

In other studies, white, black and Hispanics were found to be "just as likely to report voting compared to respondents from states that only required voters to state their name."

Perhaps most convincingly, almost 100 countries require a photo ID to vote.

This is why Democrats and progressives, in particular, never win the public opinion battle in matters such as voter ID and [illegal] immigration. Their stances are so contrary to sentiments of basic common sense and responsibility as to be utterly bewildering to the average American.

But so what -- if ultimately you can garner a lot more voters and hence more ... power? Voting rights and immigration are just two facets of the political issue spectrum. Though at odds with most of the public on these, Democrats can obviously concentrate on their political strengths, all the while exclaiming to their perpetually "nurtured" constituencies "Look what we've done for you!"

And all this is not to mention that such tactics exemplify the risible "bigotry of low expectations." Minorities "can't be expected to have a photo ID." Illegal immigrants "can't be expected to follow the law" like other immigrants who have filled out all the necessary forms and waited (sometimes) for years. We've seen such sentiments by "progressives" in education for decades -- to disastrous effect.

Posted by Hube at August 2, 2010 11:13 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Wow...great post...did not know the extent that democrats have blocked photo id bills in all of those states! Shocking. Glad to see the democratic party has americans interests so front and center!

Posted by: cardinals fan at August 2, 2010 11:31 AM