Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkingtoilet | Hacker News Reader

>urban Democrats need voters

Immigrants can't vote. Let's just make that clear because it's a common right-wing talking point that is provably wrong and steeped in bigotry.

View on HN

Their children born in the US can, once they are old enough. But I'm a little doubtful politicians are thinking that long term.

The real long term solution would be to make legal immigration easier and cheaper. But neither party seems to be pushing very hard for that.

The census counts those living in the US regardless of their immigration status. That census count is used to determine Congressional representation. Plus, anyone born in the US, regardless of immigration status of their parents, is a legal citizen and in eighteen years, a voter. Politicians might not be able to see past the next election cycle, but political parties play the long game (e.g. "the Southern Strategy")

I think he's referring to illegal aliens voting illegally (which does happen sometimes) or, once they become legal through whatever means, they will become reliable Democrats. Or, their children will do the same. One way or the other, replacement-Americans tend to support the left. Always have. It's proveable.

Also, these sorts of shenanigans:

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064385999/new-york-city-will...

If you all don't want "replacement-Americans" voting, who'll be left on the rolls, the Lakota?

(who did their own Dunki over the Bering, back in the day)

I have ancestors who were in the Colonies before the Constitution, and once upon a time, they were also FOB.

Well it's being helped by the talking point of requiring ID to vote is racist

How?

> In the remaining 14 states and D.C., voters can cast a ballot in person on Election Day without showing an ID document. These states have "non-documentary" ID requirements, meaning voters must verify their identity in other ways, such as by signing an affidavit or poll book, or by providing personal information. All states have procedures for challenging voter eligibility.

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-verificat...

The ID voting requirements are about keeping marginalized American citizens from voting (seniors, poor people who are bad at managing their documents, etc). Studies have been done of before/after ID requirements have been added in various states and there’s no indication that illegal aliens were taking advantage. Maybe a few anecdotes of people with a green card who were confused about the requirements - the illegally present usually try to stay as far from the government as they can.

That does not sound even remotely plausible there are way more mundane activities that all require IDs.The study like that is purely meaningless because you can not control for all the other variables of societal change in the same time frame. I can take any other variable and claim it's the cause of the decline. Also I spent most of my life in Europe in way more left leaning countries than US and this is not even remotely on the radar of anyone.

It's also being helped by the fact that the right wing has a history of attempting to restrict votes, from mass purging of voter rolls without telling people, to closing voting sites such that voting in-person requires traveling farther and waiting longer in line, to making it illegal to hand out food or water to people at voting sites (in Georgia), to having gutted the VRA in 2013 with Shelby v Holder, which is often what allows them to do this in the first place. I have no faith voter ID laws wouldn't be used simply to further suppress votes in states where Republicans control the state legislature; and yes, often in racist ways, because non-white people tend to support the left more than white people, so suppressing their votes (often those of rural black or Hispanic voters) is beneficial to Republicans.

And the Democratic party has a history of systematically rigging elections. The Chicago machine and Tammany hall only worked one way. The presidential election was notoriously rigged for JFK by his influential criminal father. There's very good reasons historically to argue either side of that opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com