This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Places are moving to allow illegals.
You can’t ask for pretty much any info. It would be relatively easy for illegals to vote.
Illegals kids will vote.
Illegals’ kids voting is something that can only be stopped by constitutional amendment re. birthright citizenship.
In general it seems unlikely that illegals vote. The American citizen underclass already very rarely votes, and illegal immigrants often believe enforcement is much, much harsher than it actually is. Why would a penniless Guatemalan illegal vote? To their mind it’s a risk for zero real benefit, they don’t know much or anything about American politics, and their sole goal is to stay under the radar to not get deported. They don’t conceive of any kind of civic duty, and their knowledge of American politics will be very minimal, they don’t know where their local polling place is, and they probably have neither the time nor the inclination to visit it.
Like most Americans I’ve met my fair share of likely-to-certainly illegal immigrants, and I find the suggestion they’d vote in elections pretty ridiculous, not out of principle but for many more practical reasons. There are maybe 15 million of them, so surely a few have, but I find it hard to believe it was many.
So, crazy legal position alert, but I'm not sure that's entirely true. Yes, I'm aware of the standard view that Wong Kim Ark declared birthright citizenship as inviolable Constitutional law, but I actually don't think it's that clear.
One can start with Elk v. Wilkins. John Elk was born on a reservation, but the case had approximately nothing to do with physical location. I’m not sure that anyone would think that it would have come out differently if his parents had left the reservation briefly to, say, have his birth in a particular hospital. Instead, it was entirely about political allegiance - his political allegiance was to the tribe, not the United States, even though he had left the reservation as an adult and spent much of his life in the US "proper". Much of Wong Kim Ark discusses political allegiance, as well. AFAICT, the rule they embraced was, “Political allegiance has something to do with it, but we think that the only cases that are clear are foreign ministers (not consuls, though, for complicated weird reasons) and invaders (huh, that word again)... oh, and Indians are weird, yo.” Were there reasons for the court to think that the case in front of them should not be excepted? They cite The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon:
You can start to see how there might be room here. There’s still a linkage between jurisdiction and allegiance, but it’s not entirely clear how it operates in all cases. They’re imputing a temporary allegiance to common travelers, but even this stems from “the implied license under which they enter”. It’s squishy. There are indicators that go the other way, too.
Further, I should note that the majority opinion was clear about the fact that they were engaging in a common law approach to this question (while taking some guidance from the above-quoted statute using the language “not subject to any foreign power”). There’s a lot of squishy room here, which is why the same folks who would call it an invasion for purposes of A4S4 would want to call it an invasion for the question of birthright citizenship – they're essentially saying, “We recognized two cases that were clearly problematic from the perspective of political allegiance; I think this a third.” And I’m not sure that there’s any super knockdown legal argument against that. In fact, if faced with a statute saying, “Illegal aliens are on this side of the political allegiance line; we clearly and obviously have not given them any implied license to be here whatsoever,” rather than engaging purely in a common law exercise, I’m not sure how the Wong Kim Ark Court goes. (They had a statute saying that he couldn’t be naturalized, but that’s clearly different.)
I've heard similar arguments before. Trump promised to end birthright citizenship in 2016 and again in 2018 by executive order (which would presumably lead to the inevitable SCOTUS challenge), but never did. He promised to do it again last year and the year before, but again, it seems that even the Trumpist wing is resigned to the fact that it's unlikely anyone but Thomas and maybe Alito would support the repeal.
I think it would definitely be a heavy lift with SCOTUS. I then have an unfortunate thought, that if it's just an EO, SCOTUS probably shuts it down... but if it were an actual, no bullshit statute passed by the full Congress, it might have a legit chance. Of course, I doubt that will happen anytime soon, but in this same thread, I also tried considering the legality of Congress just passing a statute declaring that the borders must be open, so I am a sucker for these sorts of, "What is the actual limiting principle," questions.
I agree that I think there’s a chance a conservative SCOTUS majority accepts a law that passes congress abolishing birthright citizenship, but I think that’s the only way it happens (short of constitutional amendment).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Enter VBM and activists getting illegals to sign things they don’t understand because the activist is…otherwise helpful
If you’re running an operation in which people show up at polling stations, declare they’re citizens under false identities and vote under false pretenses then you have no need for illegals and are in fact best served by using ideologically committed fellow activists who definitely won’t sell their story or give you up for nothing if caught.
If you wanted to use illegal migrants in a voting scheme, why would you ever bring them to a polling station?
Ballot harvesting has far fewer oversight and procedural control mechanisms.
If you're ballot harvesting the votes of illegal migrants, what's the difference between doing so and just making up names? Why do you need a real life illegal immigrant to register to vote illegally when, by definition, the illegal alien won't have a legitimate SSN, won't have a legitimate birth certificate and so won't have a legitimate (non AB60 or equivalent) license? Of course many have fakes of the above, but if you're just registering fake voters for such a ballot harvesting scheme the illegals themselves are unnecessary in that case. You might as well have your own citizen activists register or vote as dead people, vote multiple times, impersonate others etc. which hugely minimizes the risk of the plot getting out.
Aside from noting that you're changing the basis of your objection, facilitating a political machine coalition. Illegal voters can still be engaged and mobilized in mass politics; fake voters can't.
Why do you think you need a legitimate SSN, legitimate birth certificate, or legitimate license, to vote remotely in the sort of localities which have facilitated mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting?
Especially when you note that good-enough fakes are available to many?
If an illegal migrant has fake documentation that enables them to vote, you're not registering fake voters, you're registering real voters. After all, they have real-fake documentation- and who are you to say otherwise? Or that the vote-registering person knew otherwise?
Separating the steps of fraud between different actors is a pretty basic way to facilitate fraud. In the same way that you don't have to know the criminal source of money to launder money, and thus the main money launderers are notoriously incurious about verifying income sources, you don't need to know that a voter is invalid to register/facilitate an illegal voter. As long as root systems exist to facilitate the documentation that enables legal voting, the presumption by the persons interfacing with the illegal voters can simply be that anyone with the nominal documentation is a legal voter. At which point, it largely falls on the voter to identify themselves as illegal, or else the presumption can be that they are legal.
(In fact, if you want to get very cynical, the illegal migrant registering that they are NOT a legal voter is putting themselves at risk by openly identifying why they can't vote, and the fraudulent nature of any documentation that says otherwise. At which point, it's in their own interest to go ahead and lie that they're totally legal, they're totally willing to do what they're allowed to do, and thus keep their heads down.)
This, in turn, creates yet more barriers against positively identifying any crime, as even if you identified that a particular ballot was tied to a particular individual (which is almost impossible, because that's rather the point of anonymous voting), it's also going to be nearly impossible to prove that the person facilitating the vote knew they were illegal (because they don't need to know that).
Unnecessary to conduct fraud in general =/= not beneficial to facilitate fraud in a specific way.
A significant point of ballot harvesting is to shape and influence the vote (nominally to just have the vote occur and be delivered, but also potentially to shape the decision and delivery in partisan favor), while leading people to actively vote builds buy-in for the system and the party that facilitates the harvesting (voting as a ritual, familial party affiliation, and so on). Moreover, a common point of complicity-collaboration schemes is that mutual effort / complicity creates coalitions that stick together. On the legal side this includes things like hazing rituals, while on blatantly illegal sides this can include things like 'force someone to cross a line of no return' so that they can't back out.
And that's when there are meaningful risks. In credible forms of illegal migrant voter fraud, as the risks of detection are incredibly minute, the risk of mutual incrimination are virtually non-existent (because the harvestor doesn't need to know that the illegal voter was voting illegally), and the partisan faction most able to establish a system enabling illegal voting is also the least likely to acknowledge or prosecute the avenue.
From a partisan perspective, facilitating illegal voter fraud from the illegal migrant population is a way to draw them into the political machine. Political machines aren't just voting block devices, but jobs programs, friends in high places, and bodies-on-streets mobilizers. The relevance of a political machine to immigrant communities is a matter of historical records, as much as the familial/tribal nature of dependent voting blocks.
A non-existent voter doesn't do nearly as much for a political machine as a real voter, even- or especially- illegal voters. The voters will identify their interests with the machine that is most likely to benefit them/least likely to expose them, there is complicity that pressures them against defecting, and best of all said complicity doesn't have to be mutual for mutual incrimination, because the political machine aparatus can be willfully (and genuinely) ignorant of the legal-status of the voters that the machine facilitate.
I disagree that there is a risk to hugely minimize, because the risk is already hugely minimal to nonexistent, and there doesn't need to be plot, just structural enabling and incentives.
I don’t disagree with the majority of what you write here, my point is just that none of it necessitates the physical flesh-and-blood body of the illegal immigrant and their active participation in the scheme. Most illegal immigrants with fake ID/SSN/etc take them from dead people, duplicate living people’s identities (with or without their permission) etc. If you just need this information to register and then collect an illegitimate vote, why do you need the illegal when you can cut out the middleman and do it yourself?
You suggest it’s in the interests of illegals immigrants to join a political machine and to vote in their own interests (presumably in favor of candidates more likely to offer them amnesty / sanctuary and so on). But this isn’t how most illegal migrants in the US think. Many have little understanding of sanctuary policy (which is why eg so few have come forward to collect welfare or college assistance or healthcare entitlements in blue states that specifically fund these services for ‘undocumented’ people). Most illegal immigrants think enforcement is much tougher than it is and that anything conspicuous could result in them being caught by ICE and deported, they aren’t typically going to trust some Dem operative telling them it’s a sure thing to vote illegally don’t worry about it. Their goal is typically to minimize as far as possible their involvement with the federal government and to stay under the radar, and they consider voting to be an interaction with that government.
Illegals are in almost all cases coming from countries where the peasantry has no real influence on political elites, or they think it doesn’t. They don’t conceive themselves as having a real opportunity to change their circumstances by voting. They don’t want to join a political machine.
Shady behavior around ballot harvesting is much more likely to involve low-propensity-to-vote citizens than it is to involve illegal migrants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link