It is becoming more and more obvious that Democrats are dead-set on finding ways to allow illegals to vote in U.S. elections. Their reasons are many, but all rely on one basic premise that is being confirmed again and again as being true: rank and file Democrats who have voted for their party’s candidates are falling to the wayside. More and more are becoming true independents while many are deciding they are conservatives. This is due in part by the dramatic slide to the left in Democrat Party policies. As an example, economically comparing 1960 J.F.K.’s tax policies to those of this Democrat Party would define President Kennedy as an outright hard right conservative!
Each American understands the dangers in our two-party political system. We will not go into the details of its structure nor the good or evil each possess in their methods, but it IS important for all to understand this one thing: membership in the Democrat Party in America is NOT growing. In fact, their membership is sliding away. Americans can no longer ignore the #Walkaway campaign formed in 2016 that has embraced Democrat Party voters who have become disenfranchised with Democrat policies and candidates and have moved “across the aisle.” This swift yet steady decline in party membership has sent Democrat leaders into a frenzy: “We MUST find Democrat voters!”
That’s the fundamental reason — no, the ONLY reason — Democrats in Congress refuse to honestly and sincerely address the Nation’s unimaginable illegal alien problem: VOTES!
But admitting that is what the Democrats really want, can they get away with somehow allowing non-citizens to vote in United States federal elections? There is evidence of at least 800,000 non-citizens’ votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 actually happening. (see the proof of that in our 3/20/2019 story “Illegal Voters ARE Changing Our Elections”) Democrats certainly “want” that to happen, have already “allowed” it to happen in certain cases, but without changing Constitutional law cannot “allow” illegals to vote in federal elections legally.
But that has NOT stopped them from trying. Like here:
“Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2018, only 49 House Democrats voted “Yes” on a resolution ( H. Res. 1071) expressing disapproval of non-citizen illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections, which is a criminal act. 71 Democrats outright voted “No”; 69 Democrats took the cowardly way out by answering “Present”; 4 Democrats refused to take a stance by not voting. In effect, 144 Democrats refused to agree with the resolution that it is wrong for illegal aliens to vote in U.S. elections.
House Resolution 1071, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), states the following:
Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
Whereas voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy;
Whereas the Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age;
Whereas it is of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats and illegal voting;
Whereas the city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections; and
Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
H. Res. 1071, which is not a bill and has no legal power, was passed on Sept. 26, 2018. The roll call vote was 279 Yeas; 72 Nays, 69 Present:
* Republicans: 230 Yeas, 1 Nay, 4 Not Voting
* Democrats: 49 Yeas, 71 Nays, 69 Answered “Present”, 4 Not Voting
The Republican who voted “No” is Justin Amash (Michigan).
But it gets even worse! Fast-forward to March of 2019 and the House now with a Democrat Majority. One California television station reported this:
“The House passage of the For The People Act (H.R.1), a bill designed to improve election integrity by focusing on voting and election laws, campaign finance, and ethics. The bill also defends localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections.
‘It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?’ said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican.
Supporters say the For The People Act expands early voting while simplifying absentee voting. It enhances federal support for voting system security. It expands disclosure requirements for donations and campaign transparency while creating a multiple matching system for small campaign donations. Lastly, it will ease the creation of automatic voter registration rolls as well as restoring voting rights to the formerly incarcerated.
The bill now moves to the Senate where it is highly unlikely to pass, let alone be voted on. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it would not receive any floor time ‘because I get to decide what we vote on.’
San Diego Congressman Scott Peters voted to pass the For the People Act saying, “These groundbreaking reforms will help us rebuild trust in government. Now, we must continue to work together to solve problems most important to San Diegans and all Americans like climate change, gun violence prevention, access to higher education, comprehensive immigration reform, and more,” said Rep. Peters.
Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi spoke on the importance of passing H.R. 1, ‘So, when we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America.'”
What The U.S. Constitution Says
Which right appears most often in the Constitution’s text?
It’s “the right to vote.”
In voter ID cases all over the country, courts are considering the proper level of “scrutiny” to apply to “burdens” on the right to cast a ballot. In 2008, the Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law, even conceding that it had a partisan basis because it was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. (Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, concurred separately to suggest that the proper level of scrutiny was more like “whatever the legislature wants.”)
Courts will defer to the wishes of legislators who wish to protect the election process. There was no evidence of fraud in the Indiana case; there’s none in the Pennsylvania case or the others currently being heard. State officials claimed to be worried that someone somewhere might think there was fraud.
This is deference to bureaucrats that neither courts nor citizens would tolerate where a right considered truly important is at stake. Consider the right to free speech. The majority in Citizens United brushed aside public perceptions of corruption to allow unlimited “independent expenditures,” even though far more citizens are cynical about campaign donations than about “fraudulent” voters. What about freedom of religion? Would we tolerate licensing of churches so atheists won’t worry that “fraudulent” religion is being practiced?
Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, “All individuals have the right to vote.” It simply rules out specific limitations on “the right to vote.” A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn’t really a “right” in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.
But if the Constitution has to say “here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person,” there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution is more in the “rights-preserving” than in the “rights-proclaiming business.” The First Amendment doesn’t say “every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion.” In the Second, the right to “keep and bear arms” isn’t defined, but rather shall not be “abridged.” In the Fourth, “the right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures” isn’t defined, but instead “shall not be violated.” In the Seventh, “the right of (civil) trial by jury” — whatever that is — “shall be preserved.” And so on.
In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any federal or state election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The Fifteenth states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” can’t be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can’t be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” in federal elections can’t be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote.”
So if our courts treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, they aren’t reading that in the Constitution but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a “right,” but a “privilege” — something granted by the powerful to the deserving.
But the fundamental inferred and stated that CITIZENS are those in the U.S. whose rights to vote “shall not be abridged.” CITIZENS are the only people who can legally vote in federal elections.
Summary: “The Democrat Party Illegal Voting Plan”
Before we summarize and discuss the objective of the Democrat Party as a whole regarding illegal voting, here’s what Independent Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Democrat Party said about criminals’ right to vote WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND BARS:
“I think that is absolutely the direction we should go. In my state, what we do is separate. You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders explained. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.”
The average American voter cannot understand why Democrats are so resistant to stopping illegal immigration at all costs. In spite of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts committed by illegals against American citizens, Democrats refuse to take whatever legal measures are necessary to stop this criminality! And those Americans want Democrats to work with Republicans to do just that: STOP IT!
Voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats want to stop it. Cutting foreign aid is one tool voters are willing to consider. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious.
One would think Democrats — who will say and do anything to pave the way to seize total control of Congress AND the White House in 2020 — would examine these polls and assist conservatives in creating and implementing immigration legislation to streamline the existing legal immigration laws, shorten the process for immigrants to become U.S. citizens, while ferreting out the gang members, human traffickers, and cartel drug traffickers who are by all accounts flooding across our southern border. Democrats unwillingness to enter this process that MUST begin by demanding enforcement of ALL immigration laws prove their objective can be one and only one thing: get enough illegals into the U.S. and find ways to surreptitiously insert them in the election system to vote in the 2020 federal election. There can be NO other explanation for Dems resistance.
Oh, they couch it with fake stories about caring for the abused and poor who inhabit Central American countries that wish only to find a “better life” for their family members. How can we say their charitable feelings are fake? If they REALLY care for those people with legitimate issues mentioned above, they would DEMAND immediate repair to the U.S. immigration system so as to pave the way for the American Dream these immigrants supposedly desire — and many do.
What price is being paid for Democrats open-border policies? Forget about the hundreds of billions of dollars. Just look back at our stories about illegal immigration from March of this year to get statistics that validate the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts perpetrated by illegals against American citizens. They range from purse-snatching to auto theft, assault and battery, all the way to child sex trafficking, rape, and murder. AMERICANS ARE PAYING THE PRICE DEMOCRATS FORCE US TO PAY FOR THEIR QUEST TO GET NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS! And the price is often the losses of our sons and daughters.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: how many more must die, be trafficked, robbed, assaulted, or raped before you think enough is enough and that Americans should NOT have to beg you to stop the criminality at the southern border?
I close with this: Isn’t it a travesty that Americans even have the need to have a conversation because our elected officials want ICE and U.S. Customs to simply turn their backs on illegals flooding across our southern border? Democrats are hoping that “Mob Rule” will cause our resistance to illegals to crumble and that Americans will just say, “OK. We give up. Let’s just give them all blanket amnesty and citizenship.”
Members of Congress: Are you going to continue to allow that to happen?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
