Do Democrats Want Illegal Immigrants To Vote?

[edjr 5,784]

 

 

[squistion 1,020]

Short answer, no, most Democrats don't want illegal immigrants to vote (but you can always find a few people who will agree to anything in these type of "on the street" video interviews). 

[jerryskids 5,461]

Careful Ed, @IGotWormswill be here soon to call you a Replacement Conspiracy Theory Raciss for even posting this video.

[Strike 4,131]

Of course they do.  Cities across the country keep trying, or succeeding, in giving them that ability. 

[Cdub100 3,474]

They absolutely want them to vote. How is this even a question? Any demcorat voter that says no is either lying, doesn't understand their party, or retarded. To be honest it's probably all three.

[Mike Honcho 4,191]

I vote yes.  Most likely they will have a better understanding of the issues than most citizens. 

[The Real timschochet 3,322]

Oh hell yes. As many times as they can. I say Mazel Tov! (I added that for @Cdub100).

[Cdub100 3,474]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Oh hell yes. As many times as they can. I say Mazel Tov! (I added that for @Cdub100).

...and then for no reason whatsoever, Hitler came to power.

[edjr 5,784]

Just now, Cdub100 said:

...and then for no reason whatsoever, Hitler came to power.

2016?  

[Cdub100 3,474]

3 minutes ago, edjr said:

2016?  

I wish Trump did what the dems said he was going to do. But Trump is another jew azz kisser. 

[Fnord 1,205]

24 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

I wish Trump did what the dems said he was going to do. But Trump is another jew azz kisser. 

Wait till his second term. He'll do it all and more.

[Tree of Knowledge 942]

Yes.  This was a big reason for the invasion. They sure didn’t come here for Taco Bell.  

[kilroy69 1,039]

Not even a question in my mind. Of course they do. It is a reliable democratic vote. The more they allow in the more they get to vote for them. 

[TheNewGirl 1,094]

21 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Yes.  This was a big reason for the invasion. They sure didn’t come here for Taco Bell.  

They weren't making a run for that border? 

[Cdub100 3,474]

26 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Wait till his second term. He'll do it all and more.

1. He's not winning

2. Even if he did he would suck jew d1ck and fight with the Rs and Ds. That's all he would do second term.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,032]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

 

 

So many weak men. Looks like Southern California. Some mouthy women with issues too. And a tranny.  

[TheNewGirl 1,094]

No. They don't want illegals to vote. They don't want them to come here and take our jobs, our resources, our health care or anything else like that. They aren't usually involved in any kind of criminal activity and if they are it's usually due to a misunderstanding, or whitey is just framing them, or they are just doing what they need to do to get by, ya know? 

So, why do they want them here?     Why do they just kind of let them cross the boarder with out any kind of documentation, set their court dates out months away and not have any kind of follow up after? Any one have a reason? I am willing to hear it and chat about it. 

[lickin_starfish 1,536]

I watched a DMV teller ask an illegal if he wanted to register to vote. I saw it in person as I stood in line.

[MDC 6,013]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

Of course they do.  Cities across the country keep trying, or succeeding, in giving them that ability. 

What city allows illegals to vote?

[TheNewGirl 1,094]

8 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

I watched a DMV teller ask an illegal if he wanted to register to vote. I saw it in person as I stood in line.

I think they ask you in CA if you want to register at the time you get your license as well. I believe they can vote I some local elections. 

[Strike 4,131]

6 minutes ago, MDC said:

What city allows illegals to vote?

We can start with Wash D.C..  Do I need to go further or is our nation's capitol sufficient?

[MDC 6,013]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

We can start with Wash D.C..  Do I need to go further or is our nation's capitol sufficient?

That works. I thought you meant national elections.  

[The Real timschochet 3,322]

26 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

No. They don't want illegals to vote. They don't want them to come here and take our jobs, our resources, our health care or anything else like that. They aren't usually involved in any kind of criminal activity and if they are it's usually due to a misunderstanding, or whitey is just framing them, or they are just doing what they need to do to get by, ya know? 

So, why do they want them here?     Why do they just kind of let them cross the boarder with out any kind of documentation, set their court dates out months away and not have any kind of follow up after? Any one have a reason? I am willing to hear it and chat about it. 

OK serious time. 

I don’t want people without papers to come here. I would much prefer they come through legal means. But I am very sympathetic to them once they get here because I believe the vast majority are very hard working, honest people with no thought of violent crime or abusing our social system. I also don’t buy that we don’t have room for them and think our immigration system should be a lot more open. I don’t think these people present either an economic or security risk to us. There are always exceptions of course but exceptions are what they are. 
 

This is my honest position. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,032]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK serious time. 

I don’t want people without papers to come here. I would much prefer they come through legal means. But I am very sympathetic to them once they get here because I believe the vast majority are very hard working, honest people with no thought of violent crime or abusing our social system. I also don’t buy that we don’t have room for them and think our immigration system should be a lot more open. I don’t think these people present either an economic or security risk to us. There are always exceptions of course but exceptions are what they are. 
 

This is my honest position. 

I wish it was you that finds out about the risk instead of someone that recognizes it. This is my honest position. 

[jerryskids 5,461]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK serious time. 

I don’t want people without papers to come here. I would much prefer they come through legal means. But I am very sympathetic to them once they get here because I believe the vast majority are very hard working, honest people with no thought of violent crime or abusing our social system. I also don’t buy that we don’t have room for them and think our immigration system should be a lot more open. I don’t think these people present either an economic or security risk to us. There are always exceptions of course but exceptions are what they are. 
 

This is my honest position. 

I'll talk about one facet, which is the security risk.

This is one area where "it happens but is rare" is unacceptable.  Of course the vast majority are not national security risks.  But it only takes one.

The response I've seen is, "but since 9/11 we've had no terrorist attacks attributable to southern border crossings."  Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, as it is using the past to falsely predict the future.  If the border has changed to make it easier to cross, then some very bad people will likely try.  It's when, not if.

You can believe that it is unfortunate that the vast majority of illegal aliens are judged by this measure, and maybe it is, but that's reality, and reality isn't always nice.

[The Real timschochet 3,322]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'll talk about one facet, which is the security risk.

This is one area where "it happens but is rare" is unacceptable.  Of course the vast majority are not national security risks.  But it only takes one.

The response I've seen is, "but since 9/11 we've had no terrorist attacks attributable to southern border crossings."  Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, as it is using the past to falsely predict the future.  If the border has changed to make it easier to cross, then some very bad people will likely try.  It's when, not if.

You can believe that it is unfortunate that the vast majority of illegal aliens are judged by this measure, and maybe it is, but that's reality, and reality isn't always nice.

I respectfully disagree. I don’t believe we should have laws that treat severely masses of individuals because of the actions of a few. I would refer you to those who believe that, because of some school shootings, we should ban all assault rifles (I am not one of them.) They use the same logic that you are using here. 

[The Real timschochet 3,322]

12 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I wish it was you that finds out about the risk instead of someone that recognizes it. This is my honest position. 

Yes you’ve written this before. And worse- you have openly hoped that my family suffers- one of my daughters get raped, etc, because of my position on this issue. And I am not the only person here you have wished this on.

I’ll leave it to others to judge what sort of person you are for expressing this desire. I know what I think. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,032]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Yes you’ve written this before. And worse- you have openly hoped that my family suffers- one of my daughters get raped, etc, because of my position on this issue. And I am not the only person here you have wished this on.

I’ll leave it to others to judge what sort of person you are for expressing this desire. I know what I think. 

I clearly stated I wish no one suffers a crime. But someone will. And I wish it were you. Don’t twist it that I just wished that upon you out of the blue. Put the proper context on it and stop being so dishonest. 

[The Real timschochet 3,322]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

I clearly stated I wish no one suffers a crime. But someone will. And I wish it were you. Don’t twist it that I just wished that upon you out of the blue. Put the proper context on it and stop being so dishonest. 

I don’t think I need to twist your words. You’ve made yourself quite clear. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,805]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yes you’ve written this before. And worse- you have openly hoped that my family suffers- one of my daughters get raped, etc, because of my position on this issue. And I am not the only person here you have wished this on.

I’ll leave it to others to judge what sort of person you are for expressing this desire. I know what I think. 

Those with no skin in the game like you are perfectly fine with others having their family members murdered, beaten and raped.  I mean, as long as it's not in your backyard, amiright?   

Typical liberal - rules for thee, but not for me!!!

[The Real timschochet 3,322]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Those with no skin in the game like you are perfectly fine with others having their family members murdered, beaten and raped.  I mean, as long as it's not in your backyard, amiright?

No Im not fine with it. I just don’t agree with your proposed remedy. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,805]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

No Im not fine with it. I just don’t agree with your proposed remedy. 

That's the only remedy that works.  Putting your head in the sand isn't a good look for you.

Proclaiming that you 'aren't fine with" is diametrically opposed to your actual position.  You're actually more concerned for the illegal immigrants than you are for your own fellow Americans.

How disgusting is that?  Shame on you, Tim.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,032]

4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Those with no skin in the game like you are perfectly fine with others having their family members murdered, beaten and raped.  I mean, as long as it's not in your backyard, amiright?   

Typical liberal - rules for thee, but not for me!!!

Exactly. And then they have the balls to get all high and mighty when I say it ought to be them that suffer the downside of what they support. They think I give a Fock? I’ll tell anyone that.  

[jerryskids 5,461]

12 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I respectfully disagree. I don’t believe we should have laws that treat severely masses of individuals because of the actions of a few. I would refer you to those who believe that, because of some school shootings, we should ban all assault rifles (I am not one of them.) They use the same logic that you are using here. 

Interesting analogy.  I would argue that the negative stakes are potentially higher with a terrorist threat (mass annihilation), and that there are laws on the books which may not be being followed regarding illegal crossings.  But I hear what you are saying.   

[Horseman 1,593]

I am solutions oriented:

Free citizenship for any crosser that moves in with Tim for one month and none of his family ends up harmed.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,032]

33 minutes ago, Horseman said:

I am solutions oriented:

Free citizenship for any crosser that moves in with Tim for one month and none of his family ends up harmed.

. But we all know he would never. 

[TimHauck 1,899]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I'll talk about one facet, which is the security risk.

This is one area where "it happens but is rare" is unacceptable.  Of course the vast majority are not national security risks.  But it only takes one.

The response I've seen is, "but since 9/11 we've had no terrorist attacks attributable to southern border crossings."  Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, as it is using the past to falsely predict the future.  If the border has changed to make it easier to cross, then some very bad people will likely try.  It's when, not if.

You can believe that it is unfortunate that the vast majority of illegal aliens are judged by this measure, and maybe it is, but that's reality, and reality isn't always nice.

Didn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers (at least initially) enter the country legally?  Maybe we should just get rid of legal immigration too?

[jerryskids 5,461]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Didn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers (at least initially) enter the country legally?  Maybe we should just get rid of legal immigration too?

I argue that this is the same faulty logic I talked about.  We should do our best to vet all immigrants, taking a cue from Canada (yikes!) to focus on allowing people in based on economic/professional value, not the family relationships of second cousin, thrice removed that we currently operate under.

Or more to your point:  just because some terrorists got through the cracks 23 years ago doesn't mean we should have a wide-open border.

[GutterBoy 2,538]

24 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Didn’t most of the 9/11 hijackers (at least initially) enter the country legally?  Maybe we should just get rid of legal immigration too?

Don't citizens commit more crime than illegals?  Don't legal guns kill people?  Maybe get rid of all legals and guns if we really care about crime?

[TimHauck 1,899]

29 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I argue that this is the same faulty logic I talked about.  We should do our best to vet all immigrants, taking a cue from Canada (yikes!) to focus on allowing people in based on economic/professional value, not the family relationships of second cousin, thrice removed that we currently operate under.

Or more to your point:  just because some terrorists got through the cracks 23 years ago doesn't mean we should have a wide-open border.

How is the logic faulty?  “It only takes one.”  Those are your words.