non-citizen voting – USA Gov Policy

The news that Victor David Garcia Bebek, a noncitizen in Kansas, has pleaded guilty to three counts of voting unlawfully in 2012 and 2014 has implications far beyond a single state or a single incident

Denial of voter fraud has been a mantra of the left for some time, even as reports of clear and evident voting and voting registration fraud have become available. Columnist Pamela Gellar has noted that “Voter fraud is rampant. Were the full extent of it known, I am sure it would shock the world.”

It is not surprising that the prosecution arose in Kansas. The “Sunflower State” is the only one of the fifty that empowers its secretary of state to prosecute election law violations.

The Obama Administration engaged in consistent and significant efforts to prevent the detection and prosecution of these crimes. Leftist politicians are keenly aware that new arrivals to the U.S., especially those that come illegally, vote Democrat.

Indeed, not only did the Obama White House fail in its duty to prevent violations of the law, it actually encouraged this activity by moving with great force to foster the conditions that allow voter fraud to occur. J. Christian Adams, an attorney in the voting rights section of the Department of Justice, has written that the Obama Administration killed any moves to address voter fraud, and specifically hired attorneys “whose main career experience was in subverting voting laws…” Harassing state officials who sought to insure accurate balloting by imposing identification requirements, and cleaning up voter rolls, became an obsession of the Obama’s Justice Department

Hans Von Spakovsky, writing in National Review last year as the Presidential contest moved into gear, described how “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) had moved to allow Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona to enforce their proof-of-citizenship voter-registration requirement. The Obama Justice Department moved against the action, part of its ongoing goal of allowing illegals to vote and to allow other voting violations to occur.”

Also in 2016, the True the Vote organization pleaded unsuccessfully with the DOJ to move against a clear-cut caser of alien voting. A letter to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District Annette L. Hayes, Catherine Engelbrect, the organization’s chief, provided information concerning a specific case of non-citizen voting:

“As you know, 18 U.S.C. § 611 prohibits ‘any alien’ from participating in federal elections
In other words, daily pomegranate consumption reverses plaue build up in the arteries that can bring about female cialis online erection disorder as well as abating the urge to smoke. The increase http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/MOTS-LEE-resch-.pdf cialis tablets india in the blood sugar draws fluid from tissue in your body. Quite likely the generic tadalafil from india very most in-demand weight loss programs is considered the Feingold Diet plan a salicylate-free not to mention additive-free fat burning. Feelings are the fuel for the manifesting fire to utilize and sample of viagra consume.
while the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires individuals wishing to register to affirm their U.S. citizenship. The Washington State voter registration form also expressly notes that those unable to attest to the same shall ‘not complete this form.’ According to most recent data available from the Washington Secretary of State, [an alien described by name and address in the letter] registered to vote on September 27, 2014 and proceeded to cast and be credited for votes in the 2014 General, 2015 General and 2016 Primary. His voter registration at the time of this letter’s submission is still listed as Active, according to public records…”

In 2015, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government reported that “State officials are raising an alarm about the potential for noncitizen, unlawful voting to substantially affect upcoming elections. This is a major issue when considering the significant numbers of illegals entering and remaining in the United States, particularly during the tenure of the Obama Administration.”

Ohio’s Secretary of State, Jon Husted wrote a letter to the White House protesting Obama’s policy, stating:

“I write regarding the consequences the recent Immigration Accountability Executive Actions may have on the administration of federal and state elections. Consistent with federal and state law, states are responsible for ensuring the integrity of our elections. As a swing state with access to voting that is already expansive, Ohio takes this responsibility very seriously. In spite of our diligence maintaining accurate voter registration rolls, however, the recent executive actions could jeopardize their integrity by making it much easier for people who are not U.S. citizens to illegally register and cast ballots…

“The source of the problem is that the recent executive actions enable millions of non-U.S. citizens to obtain valid Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses. Under federal law, any person with a valid Social Security number or driver’s license can register to vote, so long as they attest to their eligibility to do so.1 As a result, the recent executive actions dramatically expand the opportunities for illegal voter registrations in Ohio and other states by non-citizen voters who have valid forms of identification and who willingly or negligently affirm their eligibility to vote. This problem is especially serious in the context of third-party voter registration drives, which are prevalent in Ohio and other states. Such drives occur outside of the presence of election officials who could explain that citizenship—not mere lawful presence—is a fundamental requirement for registering to vote and who can caution non-citizens against erroneous attestations.

“In short, by enabling millions of non-citizens to access valid forms of the types of identification required to register to vote, the recent executive actions have increased the risk that non-citizens may illegally register to vote and vote in our elections…”

The effort by left-wing and progressive politicians to ignore voting fraud, and to protect the environment that allows this brand of crime to be committed, has become the greatest challenge to America’s electoral system.

New York City and New York State are attempting to incorporate non-citizens, legal and illegal, into its body politic.

According to Think Progress, “New York City could soon give more than one million of its non-citizen residents the right to vote in local elections. The city council is currently drafting legislation that could be introduced as soon as this spring which would permit noncitizens who are legally documented residents to vote in municipal elections, according to The Guardian. Non-citizens currently make up around 21 percent of the voting age population of the city and almost one million of the 1.3 million non-citizens in New York are documented immigrants who would be enfranchised by the law change. The proposal, which has been discussed since 2013, would let legal immigrants who have lived in the city for six months or more vote in municipal elections if they met the state’s voting requirements.”

The measure is consistent with attempts by the New York State Democrat Party to enhance conditions for immigrants, especially illegals. According to the New York Post “Illegal aliens in New York could have scored billions in Medicaid and college tuition money, along with driver’s licenses, voting rights and even the ability to run for office, if Democrats had won control of the state Senate last November. A little-known bill, dubbed ‘New York is Home,’ would have offered the most sweeping amnesty available anywhere in the country to nearly 3 million noncitizens living in the Empire State. It would bar police from releasing any information about them to the feds, unless it involves a criminal warrant unrelated to their immigration status. Under the proposed legislation, undocumented immigrants could also apply for professional licenses and serve on juries.”

Ironically, the measure would give illegal aliens greater benefits than those provided to American citizens in some matters. A resident of neighboring New Jersey, for example, would have to pay full tuition at a NY State college, while the illegal would only have to pay the in-state rate.

Not unrelated a former New York State assemblywoman, Gabriela Rosa, was sentenced to a year and a day in prison in 2014 after it was found she used a sham marriage to gain citizenship, according to Newsday.

Kamagra jelly is a newly formulated medicine that is prescribed for the sildenafil tablets australia treatment of erectile dysfunction. It has functions of buy sildenafil uk killing bacterial, eliminating inflammation, clearing heat, and promoting the blood circulation. This cialis 5mg discount is mainly lack of blood flow in the genitals. And, this is what safe and devensec.com cialis no prescription defensive driving explains about. The NY Democrat Party’s motives for this emphasis on providing voting rights to noncitizens is more than just concern for the plight of new arrivals. According to John Fund writing in the National Review, “Giving non-citizens — most of whom are minorities — the vote could cement far-left dominance of New York City’s government into place.”

The issue of non-citizen voting is not restricted to New York. Hans A. von Spakovsky, writing for the Heritage Foundation, reports that

“In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000. …Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens illegally registered to vote. Yet there is no reliable method to determine the number of non-citizens registered or actually voting because most laws to ensure that only citizens vote are ignored, are inadequate, or are systematically undermined by government officials.

“Those who ignore the implications of non-citizen registration and voting either are willfully blind to the problem or may actually favor this form of illegal voting…The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. …Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as the alien population in the United States; but because of deficiencies in state law and the failure of federal agencies to comply with federal law, there are almost no procedures in place that allow election officials to detect, deter, and prevent non-citizens from registering and voting. Instead, officials are largely dependent on an “honor system” that expects aliens to follow the law. “

In a recently released book, former US Border Patrol agent Robert Trent writes that “the 2016 election will be fraught with much more voter fraud in key battleground states than occurred in the 2012 presidential election.”

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/