Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 401 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Time to build a wall, I think, Grey.
Father from Manchester, Mother from Liverpool, the allegiances are such that the only thing I can say with certainty is that there is no blue blood in my family ;wink
Until I discovered the famous Claret and Blue of course ;ok
Each citizen has aright to vote. Why should the state restrict that right? And even more, why should it be a government-issued ID?
On to the wider issue: leaving aside that there is really no voter fraud going on at anything like a large scale...
1. Having a photo ID to vote would prevent only 1 type of fraud: voter impersonation. So Fred Smith turns up to vote only to be told he can't because someone saying they were Fred Smith has already voted in their place. That's a single vote. And it might not even have made a difference.
2. If the issue is to stop people voting who have no right to vote (illegal - and presumably legal - immigrants, although it seems for some reason, can't imagine what that might be, it is only the former category that get mentioned), then it is at the level of voter registration where procedures perhaps need to be tightened up, so that those not entitled to can't get on the voting register.
But I repeat, there's no evidence that there is much voter fraud going on.
And, here's the kicker for those of the 'but it might be, you have to prove it isn't' persuasion ... studies were done actively looking for instances of fraudulent voting. And they found almost none.
A lot of people get their drivers licence when they are still too young to vote. So there they are, aged 17 at the DMV, where its all nice and simple to register to vote while you are getting your state-sanctioned form of ID. That's what the state wants you do do, it's their preferred method.
But, only 17. So, a sensible thing - let the person register to vote, but the registration is 'post-dated' and doesn't come into effect until they turn 18. Meanwhile, the admin processes are completed that ensure the young driver isn't an illegal immigrant. Or dead. ;wink
So far so sensible. But, can you guess which race uses this form of registration the most? Ah, ya will. Go on. Go on.
The system as it stood was disproportionately used by African-Americans.
So, North Carolina decided to abolish it.
Now, tell me what voter fraud is being prevented?
And, since the answer will be NONE, suggest a reason why the state goverment might want to end pre-registration?
Imagine if they tried to introduce it in the UK (and specifically a govt-issued photo ID). There'd be uproar. What would be valid - passport, driver's licence? Anything else?
There must be many people who have neither.
;lol
Of course ;hug
If they were out of the country when Trump signed the executive order, aren't going to be allowed back for 3 months. They are excluded from their homes. Kept apart from their families. Can't go back to work or school. Marooned in whatever country they were visiting.
And any legal residents can now not travel abroad for work or leisure. Because they won't be allowed back in.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX
Disgraceful.
It is even affecting people whose final destination isn't the US, but are transiting through US airports . So the Guardian is reporting on a UK resident, with an Iranian passport, who is trying to get home from a holiday in Costa Rica. Because she was supposed to change planes in NY, she was prevented from getting on her flight out of Costa Rica.
So not only is it an odious policy, it hasn't even been thought through.
;doh
;quaver You don't know what you're doing.
It cannot have been the intent to target green card holders who have by definition applied for residency here in the US by totally legal means and have obeyed all the appropriate rules of law.
Surely the inevitable backlash will result in a change in policy
Hopefully it is simply a case of unintended overreach and common sense will apply.