Home > immigration > DOJ says Texas law stands in the way of illegals exercising constitutional rights.

DOJ says Texas law stands in the way of illegals exercising constitutional rights.

At least I stopped running guns to Mexico

I’m glad our Dept. of Justice is on this, I really am.  After all, if the DOJ spends all of its time blocking state legislation that requires would-be voters to prove they’re not dead, then it has less time to give guns to Mexican drug cartels and then proceed to lose them.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.

[…]

Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic — African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.

Sigh.  Always with the “civil rights,” Whitey thing…will it ever end?  Question: Why would a photo-i.d. law disenfranchise “African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students?”  In all honesty, I can’t comment on African-Americans because I’ve never emigrated to the U.S. from Africa, and maybe there are some strange rules for why they can’t get photo identification.  If I had known this was such an issue, I would have asked some of the African exchange-students I met in college.  Missed opportunity there.

What about the others?  Is it so difficult for members of the aforementioned groups to find the secretary of state’s office?  If the answer to my question is in the affirmative, then they should probably consider whether voting is something they’re qualified to do.  After all, we all remember how difficult it was for some people in Florida to punch those paper ballots.

Put another way, why is this such a big deal?  Anyone who is 18 and a citizen of the U.S. can vote.  So why is this law necessary and, more importantly, why would the DOJ move to block it?  Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with politics.

In a letter to Texas officials that was also filed in the court case in Washington, the Justice Department said Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver’s license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.

This isn’t about low income people, or minorities, or college kids.  This is about illegal immigrants, period.  See, registering to vote is about as difficult as falling off a log.  In Illinois (and every other state I’ve looked up) for example, all it takes to register is signing an application promising that the applicant a U.S. citizen.  That’s it.  As you can see, my dog could register to vote (if I had a dog).

It’s when the hopeful voter shows up to vote that an “effort” is made to figure out if he or she is a real person.  This is also astonishingly easy…unless you’re an illegal in Texas under the new law.  In Illinois, if the voter didn’t provide any sort of i.d. when he registered (like the aforementioned example), then he must bring something to the polling place to “prove” he’s the person who registered.  All he would need to bring in to a polling place, however, is a paycheck or bank statement with his address on it.  That’s it.  Thus, not only could my imaginary dog register to vote in Illinois, he could also vote.

Everything is the same in Texas, except the law at issue doesn’t allow a voter to use a bank statement or paycheck.  It requires a state-issued photo i.d.  So you can see the problem.  It would be much more difficult for the citizen-challenged voter to vote if he or she needed to have a government i.d., as opposed to a paycheck written in crayon.

So what have we learned?  It’s not about civil rights, it’s about politics.  If the illegals were presumed to vote for the Repubs, the outcry would likely be reversed.  Of course, the “you’d cry too” argument doesn’t hold water since the Constitution that limits potential voters to American citizens who are at least 18 years old.  In other words, we love America, and the left enjoys kicking puppies.

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: