To Give You a Size of the Immense and Growing Size of Illegal Immigration

[TomC]

Given that most of these undocumented persons end up in red states, your argument assumes that the democrats are unaware of this fact.

We could also just give them documents!
They're here, they've got a job. What the hell is the problem with recognizing that?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?
It's not you know.
Which makes your premise here kinda hilarious.
Tom

The scam has nothing to do with how they individually vote. This has to do with census numbers and the amount of proportional congressional seats and electoral votes the state gets. So the sanctuary states (which are always blue) taking in all these people get more seats and electoral votes regardless whether or not these illegals even make it to vote. So regardless how the illegals vote, them merely being reported part of the census helps a blue state appear larger than it is.

Odd, why are Texas and Florida sending them there then?

Otherwise, how many more EVs does NY get if they increase their population by 5 million illegals, assuming the US population only increases by 5 million.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?
It's not you know.
Which makes your premise here kinda hilarious.
Tom

The scam has nothing to do with how they individually vote. This has to do with census numbers and the amount of proportional congressional seats and electoral votes the state gets. So the sanctuary states (which are always blue) taking in all these people get more seats and electoral votes regardless whether or not these illegals even make it to vote. So regardless how the illegals vote, them merely being reported part of the census helps a blue state appear larger than it is.

According to census.gov's page on apportionment of representative in the US House, California has had the same apportionment for at least the last thirty years. When is this advantage going to kick in?

Meanwhile, Texas has increased its apportionment by 27% in the same time period.

ETA: looking more at that page I notice both New York and Illinois have lost seats in the same time period. So, if this is a scam, it's a hypothetical one, because history has not borne this idea out so far.

Yabut you are using math. This isn't about math, logic, or rationality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?

Because Texas actively deports illegal immigrants, whereas California has declared itself a sanctuary state and does not deport them.

The Census bureau already admitted that it overcounted several blue states and undercounted several red states by a statistically significant amount. Those inappropriate counts result in blue states having more house seats than they should, and red states having fewer. The electoral votes that affect the presidency are the direct result of that. So as a result of the Census having miscounted in a material fashion, Democrats have an undue advantage in this year's presidential election.

The really annoying thing is that Census acknowledged this miscount, which results in IIRC something on the order of a 6 seat shift (6 fewer for Democrats, 6 more for Republicans, net change of 12), no reapportionment will occur until 2023 - the next time the census is done. So essentially, the Dems have an undue advantage that will affect THREE presidential elections, and there's nothing to be done about it despite the miscount having been acknowledged.

 

[Emily Lake]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?
It's not you know.
Which makes your premise here kinda hilarious.
Tom

It has nothing to do with how they individually vote. This has to do with census numbers and the amount of proportional congressional seats and electoral votes the state gets. So the sanctuary states (which are always blue) taking in all these people get more seats and electoral votes regardless whether or not these illegals even make it to vote. Even if the illegals could vote and they voted red, their merely being part of the census helps a blue state appear larger than it is.

So, like I said, the problem is that Republican's brainless anti-immigration stance screws them over. They could pull back on the rhetoric surrounding their idiotic policy on immigration and easily win back control of the Congressional houses, but they won't because their voters are terrified of Mexicans. ¿Si no? I guarantee you California would be a purple state if Republicans weren't going overboard to try and alienate every immigrant community against them. It isn't love of gay people, targeted military interventions, food safety regulations, or the federal reserve that keeps the Hispanic vote blue. It's just self-preservation.

I think you're relying on an assumption that isn't as true as it used to be, and I'm very curious to see how the demographics come out this year. There are a lot of hispanics in the US who did the work and attained legal status, and who are NOT supportive of making it easier for illegal immigrants to either enter or stay. Additionally, there's a very high level of devout catholicism in the hispanic community in general, and that's not at all served by the policy positions of the Democratic Party. Most hispanics, for example, are pro-life, not particularly accepting of homosexuality, and tend toward a level of sexism that most traditional Democrats wouldn't approve of. In the past, hispanics *as well as black people and a lot of other immigrants) have leaned more toward Democrats, because the Dems were the party that supported the poor, the average person, and economic mobility. And despite the lip service given to those ideals now, Dem policies don't actually provide that support. Policies in states and cities under Democratic control don't, for example, prioritize law and order, don't protect property rights very well, don't protect small businesses, don't support traditional family structures. Over the last few presidencies, we've seen Democrats bailing out big corporations, allowing large-scale stores to stay open during the pandemic while requiring that small businesses close or have such extreme limitations that they can't stay afloat. We've seen local government support for defunding and reducing police presence in predominantly minority areas - even when the black and hispanic residents of those areas object and want more police presence.

There are a lot of very unhappy minorities and women out there right now - demographics that have historically been bastions of the Democratic base. A whole lot of them feel politically homeless. I think that the tendency of partisan Democrat supporters to just assume they've got the vote for this demographic is a mistake.

 

[Ford]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?
It's not you know.
Which makes your premise here kinda hilarious.
Tom

The scam has nothing to do with how they individually vote. This has to do with census numbers and the amount of proportional congressional seats and electoral votes the state gets. So the sanctuary states (which are always blue) taking in all these people get more seats and electoral votes regardless whether or not these illegals even make it to vote. So regardless how the illegals vote, them merely being reported part of the census helps a blue state appear larger than it is.

According to census.gov's page on apportionment of representative in the US House, California has had the same apportionment for at least the last thirty years. When is this advantage going to kick in?

Meanwhile, Texas has increased its apportionment by 27% in the same time period.

ETA: looking more at that page I notice both New York and Illinois have lost seats in the same time period. So, if this is a scam, it's a hypothetical one, because history has not borne this idea out so far.

Yabut you are using math. This isn't about math, logic, or rationality.

Used to be, the argument was that the "illegals" are all voting, and were being bussed to and fro to throw races.

This fell apart when those people with the grasp of reality pointed out that illegal immigrants can't vote.

So then the conspiracy theory became this thing about how the illegals are being brought in to skew the census and get electoral votes reapportioned to blue states. This of course ignores the fact that the census only happens every 10 years, and doesn't coincide with presidential elections so that's kind of a long way to go to explain the conspiracy. Also (and I was an enumerator for the Census Bureau) undocumented immigrants don't answer the Census. They're trying to remain hidden from government officials in general.

No doubt when that sinks in and the corresponding conspiracy theory has to be dropped because it's not comporting with reality, they'll just come up with something even more wacky. Like "illegal immigrants are infiltrating local Republican politics and trying to destroy us from within!" or "the illegals are spreading fentanyl to kill off young voters who would love to support Republicans" or some other crazy shit.

The right wing does this all the time. They put out a conspiracy - for example, that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed because...why was that important again?...and when that doesn't stick they keep ramping up the crazy until it becomes "Hillary Clinton is the head of a secret pedophile empire being run out of the basement of a pizza parlor." And the sad thing is that people actually buy into it, because they can't imagine that the policies of the Democrats are at least as and probably even more appealing to voters.

"We aren't losing elections because our policies suck. We're losing because (insert crazy conspiracy here)!"

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Every time I see this thread title, my brain wants to replace “illegal immigration” with “my penis”.

I know, get help.

 

[Emily Lake]

This fell apart when those people with the grasp of reality pointed out that illegal immigrants can't vote.

Meh. Some yes, some no. Illegal immigrants can't legally vote. But that's impossible to enforce when identification and citizenship status aren't verified for voting.

Look, when I go to the local doctor's office, there's a sign prominently posted that says it is illegal to bring firearms, knives, or pepper spray into the office. But there's also no checking involved to see if anyone is complying with that law. The reality is that anyone could bring a concealed weapon into the office with them at any time. Nobody would know, because nobody is verifying at all.

Is it legal? No, not at all. Does it happen? In this state I absofuckinglutely guarantee it does.

At the end of the day "is illegal to do x" is not at all the same thing as "is prevented from doing x".

 

[Emily Lake]

Every time I see this thread title, my brain wants to replace “illegal immigration” with “my penis”.

I know, get help.

What are you, 13?

Do you know any good fart jokes?

 

[Ford]

This fell apart when those people with the grasp of reality pointed out that illegal immigrants can't vote.

Meh. Some yes, some no. Illegal immigrants can't legally vote. But that's impossible to enforce when identification and citizenship status aren't verified for voting.

Look, when I go to the local doctor's office, there's a sign prominently posted that says it is illegal to bring firearms, knives, or pepper spray into the office. But there's also no checking involved to see if anyone is complying with that law. The reality is that anyone could bring a concealed weapon into the office with them at any time. Nobody would know, because nobody is verifying at all.

So you think voter registration and verification is nothing more than a sign that says "please don't vote if you're an illegal?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Every time I see this thread title, my brain wants to replace “illegal immigration” with “my penis”.

I know, get help.

Well every man wants to but there are limitations due to false advertising.

 

[ZiprHead]

Because Texas actively deports illegal immigrants

Wrong. Texas doesn't have the power to deport anyone. That's strictly a federal power.

 

[TomC]

Because Texas actively deports illegal immigrants

Wrong. Texas doesn't have the power to deport anyone. That's strictly a federal power.

Correct.
A more accurate term is "human trafficking".
State governments have demonstrated their power to do that and get away with it.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

This fell apart when those people with the grasp of reality pointed out that illegal immigrants can't vote.

Meh. Some yes, some no. Illegal immigrants can't legally vote. But that's impossible to enforce when identification and citizenship status aren't verified for voting.

Look, when I go to the local doctor's office, there's a sign prominently posted that says it is illegal to bring firearms, knives, or pepper spray into the office. But there's also no checking involved to see if anyone is complying with that law. The reality is that anyone could bring a concealed weapon into the office with them at any time. Nobody would know, because nobody is verifying at all.

So you think voter registration and verification is nothing more than a sign that says "please don't vote if you're an illegal?"

Depends on the state.

Many states allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses... and they require only a driver's license to register to vote. It would be reasonable and rational to expect cross-checking... but I've stopped assuming anything.

In CA, for example, you have to provide your driver's license in order to register to vote. The basic instructions for getting a driver's license say that you should be prepared to show your SSN card. But someone without a SSN can still get a DL - in fact, there's a process for a person to get a DL if they're unable to provide proof of legal residency. One would hope that the voter registration excludes AB 60 DLs, but they look identical at a glance. Additionally, Immigrant Legal Resource Center in CA has the following guidance in their AB 60 FAQs:

If I applied for a driver’s license in California using a fake name or social security number in the past, will I be at risk if I apply for an AB 60 license?
The concern for anyone who used fake information in a prior driver’s license application to the DMV is that the DMV could refer the person to criminal prosecution for fraud. BUT the DMV’s current policy is not to refer anyone to criminal prosecution who previously applied for a license using false information so long as the false information did not cause any harm. If the DMV believes that the false information caused any kind of harm, including bodily harm, financial harm, harm to property,identity theft, or avoiding child support payments, the DMV may refer that person to criminal prosecution. Under the DMV’s policy, someone who has used a made-up social security number solely to apply for a driver’s license in the past should be okay. Many people in this situation have successfully gotten driver’s licenses under AB 60. But please note that the DMV’s policy on this issue is not in writing,and all people who have used fake information in the past must be warned that there is no guarantee as to how the DMV will handle these cases.

If I applied for a driver’s license in California using someone else’s social security number, will I be at risk if I apply for an AB 60 license?
The DMV’s current practice is not to refer people who have used false information to obtain a driver’s license for criminal prosecution unless that false information caused harm to others. But it’s important to remember that there are no guarantees, and that we’re still learning what the DMV considers as “harm.”People who used fake information belonging to someone else to apply for a driver’s license in the past may be at higher risk than people who have used made-up fake information. This is because if someone used information belonging to someone else (versus information that is made up), there’s more of a chance that the DMV could think that the person was using the false information to harm others (such as for identity theft), especially if the person used the driver’s license to open a bank account or for other activities that could be seen as for financial gain. If a person used someone else’s information to apply for a driver’s license in the past, the person should be prepared to answer questions about what fake information she used, why, and what she then did with the driver’s license.

Essentially, if someone provides false info to the DMV to get a DL, CA's policy is to do nothing about it. alternatively, you can still get a DL as an illegal alien, with one bit of fine print on the back that says it's not legal for federal purposes. And as long as you have a DL, you can register to vote. Theoretically, it should be relatively easy for an illegal immigrant to get the documents that are technically required for voting.

One would hope that the appropriate cross-checks are being performed, and that both fraudulent and illegal DLs are being excluded and denied the opportunity to vote. But unless CA performs a pretty stringent audit, there's no certainty that such cross-checks are performed. And while it's certainly not conclusive by any means, CA has in the past refused to provide voter information for audit purposes.

I would definitely not suggest that there is anything like "proof" that illegal immigrants vote; but there also doesn't appear to be any clear safeguards in place to prevent it. Making the assumption that because it's illegal, it doesn't happen is not a supportable position

 

[Ford]

One would hope that the appropriate cross-checks are being performed,

And you've assumed - with no evidence to back up this claim - that they have done nothing of the sort and that millions of undocumented people are voting?

I would definitely not suggest that there is anything like "proof" that illegal immigrants vote

That's kind of exactly what you're asserting.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because Texas actively deports illegal immigrants

Wrong. Texas doesn't have the power to deport anyone. That's strictly a federal power.

Poor wording. Texas takes an active position with respect to not letting illegal immigrants move about freely, does not act as a "sanctuary state", and engages ICE at a pretty high rate.

On the other hand... apparently Texas passed a law, which Biden has tried to block, which is currently hung up in a lower court, and the Supreme Court has taken the position of not doing anything until the lower court has done it's thing... and the overall effect is that as of yesterday, Texas can deport illegal immigrants.

That said... there's a lot of double negatives in there and I really need a legaleze interpreter for this.

Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce state deportation law - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Texas to enforce a controversial law that would allow state law enforcement officials to arrest individuals suspected of entered the United States illegally. Although the court did not provide an explanation for its decision, Justice Amy Coney Barrett – in a concu

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Emily Lake]

One would hope that the appropriate cross-checks are being performed,

And you've assumed - with no evidence to back up this claim - that they have done nothing of the sort and that millions of undocumented people are voting?

I would definitely not suggest that there is anything like "proof" that illegal immigrants vote

That's kind of exactly what you're asserting.

Read with the intention of gaining comprehension, rather than arguing.

You said "illegals can't vote". I said "it's not legal for illegals to vote, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot vote illegally". You then said "What, so registration is just asking nicely?", to which I replied by outlining the process required to register, and the ways that such requirements for citizenship can be circumvented. I concluded by being very specific in saying that this is NOT proof in any fashion, merely a means of showing that just because it's illegal for non-citizens to vote, that's not quite the same as preventing non-citizens from voting, and that it seems that there are ways around it.

That you choose to read this in a way different from what I intended, and in contradiction to what I actually wrote... well... that's on you.

 

[Ford]

One would hope that the appropriate cross-checks are being performed,

And you've assumed - with no evidence to back up this claim - that they have done nothing of the sort and that millions of undocumented people are voting?

I would definitely not suggest that there is anything like "proof" that illegal immigrants vote

That's kind of exactly what you're asserting.

Read with the intention of gaining comprehension, rather than arguing.

You said "illegals can't vote". I said "it's not legal for illegals to vote, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot vote illegally".

Do you think the reason they come here is to vote illegally? Because that's the conspiracy theory. They come here to illegally vote in our elections, and "sanctuary cities/states" enable this to turn the country more blue. Having jobs and making money to send back to their families? That's secondary according to the conspiracy theory. Ask a young couple from Venezuela who carried their child across thousands of miles of Central America and Mexico, they'll tell you - according to the right wing - their primary reason for traveling to America was to vote for Democrats.

Really?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?

Because Texas actively deports illegal immigrants, whereas California has declared itself a sanctuary state and does not deport them.

The Census bureau already admitted that it overcounted several blue states and undercounted several red states by a statistically significant amount. Those inappropriate counts result in blue states having more house seats than they should, and red states having fewer. The electoral votes that affect the presidency are the direct result of that. So as a result of the Census having miscounted in a material fashion, Democrats have an undue advantage in this year's presidential election.

The really annoying thing is that Census acknowledged this miscount, which results in IIRC something on the order of a 6 seat shift (6 fewer for Democrats, 6 more for Republicans, net change of 12), no reapportionment will occur until 2023 - the next time the census is done. So essentially, the Dems have an undue advantage that will affect THREE presidential elections, and there's nothing to be done about it despite the miscount having been acknowledged.

Too bad Trunp managed to fuck up the US Census.

 

[Patooka]

Until now, I honestly had not considered the electoral angle of why the democrats were promoting our open border but it does make sense to me now.

If Hispanic immigrants would boost the Democrat party, why isn't Texas a blue state?
It's not you know.
Which makes your premise here kinda hilarious.
Tom

The scam has nothing to do with how they individually vote. This has to do with census numbers and the amount of proportional congressional seats and electoral votes the state gets. So the sanctuary states (which are always blue) taking in all these people get more seats and electoral votes regardless whether or not these illegals even make it to vote. So regardless how the illegals vote, them merely being reported part of the census helps a blue state appear larger than it is.

Amigo. You keep bashing dems on this issue. How do you defend Maga killing the bipartisan bill that would fix some of the border issues??

Considering RVonse has been asked this several times in this thread, it's fair to assume he's going to ignore that uncomfortable piece of reality that completely shatters his fantasies.