Redstate

The democrats are always seeking the illegal, the multiple the dead and the non-existant to give them the vote. The democrats have so shed any semblance of ethical or patriotic caring for this country as to make FDR roll in his grave.

I will give today.

And they don't do they? They don't need anything legal at all to come here, work, or get on the dole, vote, and start a protest. Hell they can do it all in the same day.

   And people wonder why I am so pessimistic.

Seems to me, in the context of the second sentence, that she's just saying that people who aren't registered voters or citizens can help her campaign.  I don't think she's suggesting that people commit voter fraud.  

Some of our own people have enabled this outrage, too.

I've sent some money now. I can't say I'm optimistic given all that has happened in the last three days.

...is an invitation to what, exactly?

It's quite different from saying "Vote" or "If you're registered, vote" dontcha think?

some type of photo ID for voting.

But then the dems oppose these measure too, which pretty much confirms that democrats are more about collecting illegal votes (illegal here as in people voting who don't have the right to be, not illegal as in immigration, but they are part of the problem).

and if you put a tooth under your pillow the ToothFairy™ will leave you money.

only after you vote.

take a public stand on, this should be it. A fullproof ID should be required of all voters as proof of citizenship. An ID that could be immediately electronically verified at the polls.

This is a winning issue. To preempt any democratic opposition to the plan (disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities - what garbage) I would propose federal AID for all those who cannot afford such ID.

for the 21st Century I guess :-)

wouldn't think an ID is a good idea -- as a matter of fact, a whole heap of them would run screaming into the night at the very mention of such a thing.

bandwagon, but I'm leaning that way too.  Sounds like she just wasn't THINKING.  Not at all unusual or out of character for her, it seems.  

At the same time, I see your point.  Ah, it feels good to be a fencesitter.

I am not talking about mark of the beast here but a simple ID like our state drivers license.

Considernig the preferred term the left uses, when they MUST distinguish illegal aliens from their legal cousins, is 'undocumented migrants,' the talk of not needing papers to vote sounds awfully bad, yes.

Wow. Bilbray couldn't even get McCain to help.  The illegal immigration issue is dividing Republicans in that district.  It's a district for Republicans to lose.

So, no - illegals won't put Busby over the top.  They won't be able to vote on a ballot or machine, but if they choose to help, they can help in GOTV efforts. No crime there.

Given Billbray's views on immigration reform, illegals will probably volunteer to help Busby.  If you listen to the longer version, you here a question about voting or getting out the vote. She's responding to two issues.  I don't believe this shows she's encouraging illegals at all to vote, but rather spanish-speakers to vote. Certainly, if you're from California, there are plenty of spanish-speaking citizens.  And in a state where "whites" will be part of the "minority", she'd be a fool not to solicit spanish-speaking community's help.

She did not say it's OK to vote if you are illegal anywhere in the short or long clips.  In California, it is true - you don't need papers (i.e. green card, drivers license, passport) to vote.  You register, the rolls are checked, your name is on a list when you show up at a polling place - if you're on the list, you get a vote.  That's why purging the lists have been such a big deal.

If you force people to basically throw away their privacy for a whole heap of personal information so that they may vote, that's going to bug people.

As far as I'm concerned, we need a new form of government identification, one that doesn't put you in any database, before we can start mandating this justly.

Bilbray is a moderate, but Busby is a liberal.

Don't you think that this race matters just a little?

Or do you just mean that you can't vote in this election, therefore you're a fencesitter?

what I'm divided on is the statement she made--as to whether or not she MEANT to imply that illegals should vote for her and that they could without paperwork.  Sorry, I should have clarified.

they mistate.

In this case, I don't think Busby would mind a few votes from illegal aliens.

Either way, this should go into a last-minute TV ad, if the Bilbray Campaign has time to put it together.

Yup, you will have completely lost me. The last thing we need is another federal program to track of all of us.

Yeah, it would start with just voting, but can you imagine how far this would go in 20 years?

NO THANK YOU -

Aren't we the party of small government

If you live there (unlike Bilbray), work there and pay taxed there, you should have the right to vote. It seems unAmerican to think otherwise.

I live in the district and am a Republican. I am not sure who I will vote for. Bilbray is a poster child for all that is wrong in Washington.

I didn't say federal ID. Just federally funded for the States to implement so there wouldn't be more excuses of unfunded mandates. It would be the same thing as the driving license except for voting. If you register to vote you get this ID. The only database it would go to would be the State database of registered voters.

Why this knee jerk response? This has nothing to do with big government. If you want to have illegal aliens, felons and dead people voting then keep kneejerking about this issue.

The ID with information that isn't stored in any database defeats the purpose of having that ID as it is completely unverifiable.

Nice one.

about "a whole heap of personal information"???

This ID for all intents and purposes would have a lot less personal information than the driver's license. A state ID with your picture, your name and address would suffice. States already have all that information on you, and they better!

It's possible to make an uncounterfeitable, verifiable ID without a database.

Read up on cryptographic signatures.  It's fascinating math.

For a republican you sure don't care about any laws or rules.

Finally a big government program that won't ever expand.

I sure trust those guys in Washington to be able to just say no to seeing this encroach our freedoms.

NOT!!!

I remember other people who didn't think much of laws when it came to taxation without representation.

I'm in steady company here.

let's say you are right, because I believe you, but don't you still have to verify if the person is from the correct district??? You still need to match that ID against the district list of valid IDs. So there is always a database involved. Granted that is some extremely limited info. So good.

I don't care what the proposal for ID is. Whatever is the best approach that would be acceptable to conservatives works for me. I just want 100% valid registered US citizens voting in a matching district. Shouldn't that be the goal?

You are comparing the laws against non-citizens voting in our Republic (incidentally based on a rule of Law) to the situation under King George?

I live in California, and this is a bit of Red Herring as an issue.

I've had to show ID to vote out here for years and years. This talk of you don't need ID to vote is false.

Can't anyone find some factual real reasons to vote for one over the other.

If this is a voter ID card, you encode the person's precinct right on the card.  No database at all needed.

Or if you want to make it a more general card, then you put the address on the card, with full zip code, then just match the zip code against a database of those.

No personal information stored centrally.

Next objection?

valid proof of being a US citizen, and residence in that congressional district you have no business voting regardless of whether you pay taxes there or whatever.

Yes, your goal is a worthy one, but not at any cost. To acheive that goal perfectly we would have to trade off other goals.

So at some point we have to compromise everything and choose something that just works well enough.

in that respect. I live in New York (chok full of illegals) and I have yet to be asked for my ID when voting. I just sign under my name with a pleasant old lady just sitting there not knowing who the hell I am.

I vote permanent absentee now, but I never had to show anything on the times when I went out to vote on election day.

...all my life never once had to show or was asked for ID - they ask your name and ask you to sign the book and write your address

as far as lawlessness, no way. Our founding fathers were frothing at the mouth radicals who are in another league when it comes to breaking the law (they did start a shooting revolution).

voter fraud is a felony.

For democrats, it is just the edge they need.

I guess Bilbray shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I do not have a problem with a Universal Federal biometric ID with everyone's fingerprints or DNA on it for 100% verification. No other information would be necessary and that has nothing to do with tons of personal info for the government. But I would settle for a compromise on it.

They didn't create a constitutional republic based on lawlessness. It's one idea to be lawless in a tyrannical dictatorship and another in a free society where Laws protect individual rights and security.

...your little band of merry men together and see how far you get!!!

Totally different time! And a pretty lame PointStick™ at that!!!

but I've come to expect that from you!

I have never seen conservatives express such utter disregard for the laws of this land.

But why not just add an immigration status component to all state IDs? We could force it on them like we do anything: withhold highway funds if they don't do it. No new scary database, no new scary card. Same card with immigration status on it. Same database with immigration status in it.

We shouldn't have to surrender fingerprints and DNA when we haven't been accused of doing anything wrong. Unfortunately there are already lots of cases where you have to put fingerprints on file without being a criminal, but only a minority of people fall into those. I know of no cases where you have to submit DNA without a warrant.

You missed the boat about 70 years ago on that. We already have a serial number. It is already on a card. It is already used as a unique key to store everything about us in massive databases, government run and not.

I think it was a mistake and wish we could go back in time and get rid of SS.

I have no objections to that. But democrats will vote against any ID requirements every single time. We need to make this an issue and put them on record.

Even if it is just a requirement for every voter to have an existing state picture ID to vote.

Into the constitution requirements for citizenship. A country means nothing if anyone can vote in its elections. We'd have the entire cities of Paris and Berlin voting by absentee ballot and deciding who our leaders are.

Even with the ridiculous "you must pay taxes to vote plan," all they'd have to do is generate a little US income. If you include sales tax, they could just purchase something here. We also allow citizens who don't pay any taxes to vote. Making tax-paying a requirement for voting would be unconstitutional.

...to add here or is just being a smarta** part of your shtick???

That's why it's just my personal preference. I understand the chances of that happening are slim to none. I like the idea of a national ID with information that government already stores on us.

That I won the lottery and had enough money that I'd never have to go back to work for the rest of my life. That has exactly the same chance of happening as elimination of SSNs (and I don't ever buy lottery tickets). Even if we somehow eliminated the SS benefits, we would still retain SSNs for identification purposes. We would have a serious breakdown of the economy without SSNs for starters... The credit system would be totally broken. The tax system would be totally broken.

Would work. We have a citizenship document that contains no real identifying information and could've been easily counterfeited in the 16th century. That's the problem.

I just think its UnAmerican to say someone who lives here, owns propery here, works here, pays taxes here  & has US citizens as children but can't vote here.

I really have NO problem with people who want to come to the world's greatest center of freedom and opportunity. In fact, I believe that American success has to do with the fact that risk-takers and ambitious people from all over the world flocked here. I believe wanting to improve you lot in life is ingrained in the American spirit and makes us stronger. I like having people like that join our society.

on a slightly different but related topic, I did like Bush's proposal to have biometric IDs for the foreigners entering this country. I think he mentioned it for the guest worker program but we could extend it for all foreigners entering US for any reason. So any non-citizen would have to show it.

and put that money in a private retirement fund, you wouldn't need to win the lottery.

Makes the other wrong completely irrelevant it sure does.

we can't eliminate it now.

My post said that if we could go back in time.

...to break our laws to get here period.

Again your argument is pointless!!!

Of course, they would just pretend to be citizens and show their passable social security cards they made with MS paintbrush and a $25 inkjet. That's why it was clearly a fake enforcement mechanism that had no intention of making a difference, but was included to sound good.

I guess you gotta have more than that :)

We have one miserable failure of a federal identification system already, and 50 pathetic sieves of information security in the states.

Any government agent who claims to be trustworthy enough to create ANOTHER ID system already has two strikes against him.

You people that are not for a federal ID live in wonderland, YOU ARE ALL READY ON A DATA BASE... Best ideal is to establish a Federal ID, oh wait lets call it a Social Security Card;  are you getting the point. I say lets establish a real ID card, and outsource the job to Visa or Master Card. If they can track you and your spending habits they should be very well equipped to make and track phony Federal ID cards. A federal ID card to stop voter fraud is better than what we have now, which is NOTHING. Ask yourself this question:  What party is more against Federal ID cards for voting. Republicans or Democrats? Get the Point......  

An upgrade of an existing ID and it's associated database to improve its security.

We pay anyone that has worked for them in the last 20 years the big bucks to track down illegals.  If they can find out which stars have STDs, tracking illegals should be childsplay.

This says that a DL license (or state ID number) is optional to even register to vote in CA.

This says it is not permissible to ask for election workers to ask for ID.

Generally speaking, it is illegal in California to require voter identification and proof of nationality at polling places. In fact, no one can bring evidence of any kind to a polling place challenging any voters' eligibility. Such challenges can be made only to the registrar of voters and only after registration has taken place, Bell said.

Here is a voter ID bill that was just killed a couple months ago.

re: Democrats often mean EXACTLY what they mistate.

it's a bipartisan problem without a doubt.

re: I don't think Busby would mind a few votes from illegal aliens

I'd say she would NOT want those votes.  She has not solicited them.  She wants every valid vote.  She & Bilbray both do.

When I went to vote.  But now that I think about it ... it was when I went to the polling place and the woman on the list of voters said to the guy "He's a REPUBLICAN!" which I am used to living in the SF Bay area ... then I was asked to show ID.

That they do not need "papers" to vote, that is solicitation. To suggest that she doesn't want these votes after going through considerable risk to solicit them is ridiculous on its face. She wasn't taking about zig zag papers to roll their joints in. Papers means one thing in the immigrant community. She knows what she said.

They didn't order a blood test and a full psych workup.

Cost $100 and you can get them at any flea market in a town with a large Hispanic community. At least they cost $100 at the flea market in San Jose.  You just need to know which stall to go to and what to say.  That according to a friend of mine that grew up in San Jose.

Go to the polling place

When they ask for ID, I refuse

If they insist I tell them that none of the other polling places required that I show them ID!

that little joke? :)

That you were trying to vote for a Democrat you could certainly get on the news. :)

that sore loser "Rpublican" who is running as an Independent to GET OUT OF THE RACE NOW!!! Bilbray opposes McCain-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty, yet he is still being stabbed in the back by the "it's better if we lose this time around" crowd.

Over at Flopping Aces

but in 04 I looked at the register when I gave the poll worker my name and right there above mine was my son who had since moved to CA.  I said, "Oh look, my kid is still registered here.  I'll be back in half an hour to cast his vote!"  The poll worker looked at me and said, "OK, we don't require ID."  And he wasn't kidding...

All you need to register is a utility bill with your name on it or someone to vouch for you, in theory. In practice I imagine you don't even need that. To vote you need nothing at all, you just have to give them a name that is on the rolls.

You are going to mail in the absentee ballot for him, right?

You can register on the web.

California Law doesn't require, you, the voter, to carry "papers" into the polling place. So the statement "you don't need papers to vote" is true for registered voters.  She then followed that true statement by soliciting help in getting out the vote from anyone.  That is totally different than soliciting, as you suggest, after the CA voter registration deadline, for a bunch of illegal aliens to go to the polling booth and vote knowing their names cannot be on that list CA Sec of State.

The district is 105,504 Democrats to 156,437 Republicans source.  The only way Busby wins is for 51k Republicans to sit it out or vote for others, and absolutely all registered Democrats to vote.  It's a long shot for her to win; and thus, no need read into her words meanings she did not state.

the original poster, imo, picked the wrong example for a pretty basic plea: get out the Republican vote so CA-50 doesn't switch to a Democratic seat.  That's all.

Actually, I liked the "Victory Wing of the Republican Party" link as well. Too bad the "teach a lesson" crowd is acting like my 14 month old when she doesn't get her way.

it should be confiscated at the same time he is deported.  As things stand now there are just a few ways an illegal can purchase real property in the US.

• Qualify for an "illegal immigrant" loan in WI and a couple of other states.  Very, very few of these have been funded and very few more will be funded.
• Purchase the property through a "straw man" buyer who is a legal resident of the US.  This is serious fraud, will get you prison time. Along with the mortgage guy and real estate guy who put the deal together.
• Purchase the property using a stolen ID.  See comments on fraud.

That's it.  If an illegal owns property he not only broke our laws getting here, he has likely committed serious felonies to acquire the property.  Deport him.  After he gets out of prison for fraud.

People like this are not the ambitious risk takers you are lauding over.  They are thieves and felons.  

I am with the President on this issue. Legalize the ones that are here, make the process of getting here easy enough that there is no reason to do it illegally, toughen the border and get off this "punishment" kick.

We need to catch them before they have the chance to own property.  But if for some reason they do own property, that makes them a property tax payer.

Exacly what serious felony did he commit?  Working for a living?  Going to church on Sunday?  Please.

We have a 4.6% unemployment rate in this country, about as low as it gets, rates up there in historical low rates.  We would do more damage to the economy by deporting them than by letting them stay.

Do you have to appear in person for an absentee ballot?

Have legal papers, it wouldn't really matter one way or the other, now would it? So why did she mention it? For those who don't have legal papers. Maybe they have forged papers that they don't want to expose to any extra scrutiny. Or maybe they don't have papers at all. Those are the people who she was addressing that comment to. That is what she was saying at the end of that recording. It couldn't have been more clear.

vote knowing their names cannot be on that list

Illegals can and do certainly end up on the voting rolls, say when they get their driver's license (with the fake birth certificate they bought from someone) and are registered to vote at the same time. Or a previous GOTIV effort by the Democrats.

The district is 105,504 Democrats to 156,437 Republicans source.  The only way Busby wins is for 51k Republicans to sit it out or vote for others, and absolutely all registered Democrats to vote.  It's a long shot for her to win; and thus, no need read into her words meanings she did not state.

You don't think any of the other 100,000 registered voters are going to vote? And what does it matter if she wins or not? She is still encouraging voter fraud. I guess that's OK unless you get enough votes to win?

Under normal circumstances (except for the loans-for-illegals-programs you mentioned) if you are here illegally, but you can certainly buy property. We have no requirement that owners of property be residents of the US. Anyone anywhere in the world can buy a building or parcel of land here if they have the money.

They are paying property taxes, no matter what their status. The county is doesn't care what their status is. They better see their check once or twice a year if they want to keep the property.

That Democrats are able to get a lot of dead people and unqualified voters to the polls, they have mastered it.  That is why they fight so hard against voter identification.  That isn't news. It would never get in the news.  It is like reporting that the sky is really black when you get high enough up.  We already know that.

The reason those people vote Democrat is that they are afraid the Republicans want to make them felons, take away their property, and ship them out of the country when all they want to do is work for a living.  The Dems promise not to do that to them so which way do you think they will vote?

Now if the Republicans reached out to them and offered them a shot at being solid citizens, think that might eat into a solid Democratic demographic?

So if some parts of the Senate bill pass, some on the far right are threatening not to vote.  Think there just might be enough new legitimate voters that are thankful enough to the Republicans to make up the difference?

in my mind.  Two things:

1. Securing the border and ending catch/release
   
   
2. Taking away a huge demographic from the Democrats.

that she meant what you imply from the info {long audio, short audio, the referral website, and Google news} available to me through the links in the original post... She did not say what you suggested - unless you got the translated transcript (I don't speak spanish).  The whole story is not available.  But the short story makes for good political drama.

I'm not gonna speculate, read minds and the like, I'll see where the chips lie tomorrow.

She was speaking English and it is clear as day that she said "you don't need papers to vote and you don't need to be registered to help." It's pretty clear what that means:

1. You don't need to have papers (papers proving citizenship) to vote
   
   
2. If you aren't registered, you can still volunteer

It is statement #1 that is the problem. You just need the capacity to understand English, not the ability to read minds. No speculation is required.

Whether she meant what she said or not, if she was referring to something else or not, each side will spin it there own way... it goes more to the fact that this lady should known better! Last night she said on national TV Immigration isn't a big issue here in San Diego??? Anyone who says or thinks that (especially from San Diego for god's sake) shouldn't even be considered worthy for the post!!!

she replied to were in Spanish, her English is plain. I heard it, you did too.  Reminds me of a conversation I had with my wife today, but that's another story...

1. "you don't need papers [proof of citizenship - ed.] to vote"

True, exactly. But, you need papers [proof of citizenship - ed.] (that yes, as pointed out elswhere, can be forged, pilfered for $100, etc.) to register to vote.  

She simply didn't imply, instruct, or direct anyone in any language to go do that in that context.  In English, she's responding to a translated-from-Spanish question. Her reply will be translated-to-Spanish, so keep it simple.  Thus,

#1. at a minimum she has plausible deniability from your argument; or it's the plain English I heard. and,

#2. we have no argument.

"Taking away a huge demographic from the Democrats. "

Really? Thats more important than doing the right thing?

Guess what? There is NO WAY they are leaving. All that is happening is that very religious, hard working people with incredible family values are being permanently pushed to the democrats.

I don't consider it a terrible crime to cross a border so you can feed your family. Have you ever really been hungry? Have your ever seen your kids really hungry?

I do think it stupid and short-sighted to have people as permanent members of this society and not be citizens. To me, its UnAmerican - much more than finding a way to feed your children.

In my church, I have dealt with many illegals (I know - you want to send us to jail) and have found them to be incredible people and a great addition to this country.

How has the economy been hurt? Unemployment? Tell me.

You misunderstood my position, we are on the same side.

The right thing honestly is to accept that the people here are here.  Give them a legal status, most are going to want to go home and are here seasonally.  Allowing them to do so this fall and come back legally next spring would most likely result in more of them actually going home over the winter.  For the ones that actually want to stay, I have no problem giving them a way to do that.  It shouldn't be fast or easy.  The last proposal I saw for "path to citizenship" was to take 11 years and during that time they had to keep a job, learn english, stay out of jail, and generally behave as any other American would be expected to.  I don't have a problem with a process that takes 11 years.

I agree that 99.9 percent are hard working people who just want a better life for their kids than they had ... same thing I want out of life.

and we've moved since then.  I would have to mail in a form to have the absentee ballot mailed to our old address and they will not forward.

I can't change his address to our new one because he got a CA drivers license and his AZ was automatically cancelled so I can't do an internet change of address because they check with MVD.

What I ment was that if we show some compassion, provide a legal way for them to be here and for those that wish, give them a shot at staying, the Republicans stand to have a good chunk of that vote for the ones elegible.

If we demand that we "punish" them by making them felons, seek them out, treat them like animals we not only have a shot of damaging our own economy, we drive them right to the Democrats.

I do believe in ending catch/release and making a strong border.  Have a program for those already here and stop new ones from arriving.

There are only two or three legal loan programs available for illegal immigrants and they write maybe 100 to 200 loans a year - NATIONWIDE.

You cannot qualify for a mortgage if you do not have legal status in the US.  And we now check every social security number for fraud.  It doesn't matter how long you've lived here, how much you pay in taxes or where you go to church, if you don't have a legal SSN (which you can't get as an illegal immigrant) you cannot qualify for a mortgage.

There used to be rings of people, typically a real estate agent working in collusion with a mortgage broker who would falsify documents with either a stolen SSN or a straw purchase to sell to illegals.  A bunch of those guys now live courtesy of the feds in small rooms.

Loan fraud is a serious crime.  For that you go to prison.  Illegal immigrants have absolutely no right to break our laws to come here and to break our laws to acquire property.  Their property should be siezed and sold at auction - which can be done at any time by the lender if they find fraud in the transaction.  They should to go prison and be deported.  And I'm perfectly happy having them picked up on Sunday either before or after church.

The President is just flat wrong on this.

if not all states, you still have to provide proof of identity which is a driver's license, state issued ID card and a SSN or green card.  A deed cannot be recorded in most states without that proof of ID.

With respect to cash purchases, the vast majority of the 12MM illegal Mexicans who live here didn't have the cash to pay for a house when they crossed the border.  Since they've been here, most seem to send money back to Mexico and most are not in jobs that will allow them to earn enough money to save up for an all cash purchase of a house.  After all, jobs like that, Americans are willing to do.

This sounds like the liberal democrat defense of looters because it's ok for them to steal if they need something. Need makes right. Hunger makes right.

In some posts you almost sound like a Reagan republican, in others like many lib dems I debate with.

They're getting open about it, too

I live in a NYC neighborhood that's packed tight with illegals of all sizes, shapes and colors, and I get asked for a photo ID every time I go to vote.

And for what it's worth, the pleasant old ladies are very nice while they're looking me up in their books and matching my signature. Until they see that I'm a registered Republican. That's when their eyes turn into daggers.

are normally proponents of law and order for our own citizens, and who would support the punishment of those who break them, are willing to overlook those same laws when an illegal alien breaks them. And the reason is because they "work for a living and go to church".

It just goes to show the effectiveness of the strategy the multi-cults and socialist liberals are using in wrapping the illegals in "innocent victim" status. Even many of those who lean right have bought into it, to the point they give preference to an illegal over a U.S. citizen in overlooking the breaking of felony law.

Or are you proposing we should throw out the felony law of loan fraud? Should we overlook it in the case of a U.S. citizen as well?

Or in the case of a fraudulent loan to an illegal, should we prosecute the mortgage banker, the mortgage broker, and the real estate agent, and send them to federal prison, but leave the illegal alien out of it and allow him to keep the house?

Please clarify yourself by answering these questions, since this is the position you have staked out for yourself.

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. I think she meant to say something like, "You don't need voting papers to help with my campaign."

Go to Google Translator and type in "voting papers" and translate it to Spanish. You get, "papeles de votación" - papers of voting, or papers for voting.

I think she was merely saying that you don't need voting papers to help with her campaign.

I think many here are overreacting.

and 12 million of them did not come here because their "children were hungry". People in Mexico are not starving. There are exceptions, but it is not at all prevalent. So please stop with the emotional euphemisms. This is just more of the "wrapping of illegal immigrants as innocent victims" arguments, meant to morally marginalize those who disagree with your position. (Oh, you heartless people, you're against the children). If we're going to debate this, argue it head on, by its merits, instead of the emotional end run about hungry children.

And why is it that people who argue your open-border position always end up measuring its moral validity by whether or not they are "hurting our economy"? Has it come down to money that decides our moral and legal barometer, or determines the sovereignty of our border? Its an easy thing to appeal to the dollar.

"You do not need papers for voting" is what she said, not "You do not need papers to vote". The latter would be the common English construction if she were encouraging them to vote.

"Capacity to understand English" would include the knowledge that "papers for voting" can mean "voting papers".

She was speaking to a group of Spanish speakers, and Spanish doesn't use the latter construction. ("Votación papeles" isn't used, "papeles de votación" would be.)

I think the Government has no business in  trying to regulate and control the job market. They have no business telling people who they can hire or can't hire. I am not a believer in the government trying to control the economy or job market.

To me crossing the border is as serious an offence as a traffic ticket - I worry about as much about the lawlessness of them as I do about people who don't put in enough quarters.

I do think that adding hard working people to the economy makes us stronger and will build wealth for us all.

Any group who comes here will be fully Americanized in a generation or two.

If the worst you can say about them is that they broke the law, well, then fix the law.

I hear plenty about the need to have the government regulate the job market to protect those people here who can't compete against uneductated people who can't speak the language. That sounds like a lib idea to me.

I say let the market decide who works & at how much - a free market strengthens all of us, even if there will be winners and losers.

So, if it does help the economy and it does add good citizens, I fail to see why the government needs to be involved.

I do think we need to secure the border for security reasons - North and South.

out of the labor market. I'm all over that. It is not their Constitutional mandate.

It is their Constitutional mandate to protect our border and to regulate immigration. We're simply calling on them to do that.

You want the border controlled for security reasons. I want the border controlled because of rampant illegal entry. Let's seal the border, increase ports of entry, and reform immigration policy. For whatever reasons we have, we'll both be happy.

I think his plan works.

the Presidents plan, it is a montage of indefinite and contradictory reasoning that doesn't address security or enforcement in any meaningful way. It is amazingly like the '86 plan in its "we'll get to it" compromise.

I support the Pence plan, which in the end I believe the President would support as well. It is very practical in many aspects, but is a good compromise for those who want a "guest worker" plan which the law does not currently allow.

It would help the labor market, addresses illegals currently here, secures the border, and provides for strong enforcement of the law. This addresses all issues on both sides of the debate, and would serve the needs of the Nation.

The problem, once again, is Congress...

Your penchant for selective hearing is amazing.  Did you even hear what she said??  She said that those who aren't citizens can HELP HER CAMPAIGN.  Not that they can vote!

You know, when you people lie about something, and claim to have "the smoking gun," if you had any brains at all you'd actually edit out the exculpatory evidence first, like a good Republican prosecutor would.

Ah, wing-nuts!...

that closely, and I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

When you say "papers" in a community of illegal immigrants (why is a politician talking to illegal immigrants in the first place instead of calling ICE?) and voting in that close proximity to each other, you are doing the old Monty Python nudge, nudge, "know what I mean?" routine. IF we had elected officials who cared about legitimate elections, a complaint shouldn't even need to be filed: the local election commission should just immediately dispatch a team to investigate (not coverup) voter fraud. Period.

There's no translation involved.

e-mail me Mike D in SC for another Mike D is also in SC

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/2006/05/28/news/local/14686592.htm

offices and start checking for documents.  Bring a bus, find the illegals today and have 'em back in Mexico before election day.

She's performing a public service.

She says you "don't need papers to vote and you don't need to be registered to help." She didn't say "you don't need papers to help."

And I hope ICE shows up at her HQ to check for immigration documents.  I think it would be a hoot to get some dark blue T-shirts with gold letters "ICE" on them and just walk up and down in front of her campaign office.  Maybe with a camera.

In English they mean exactly the same thing. She wasn't speaking Spanish at all... so I'm not sure why you are trying to translate. It's a pointless exercise.

For the fact that she didn't say that at all. You might as well translate her words to "please don't try to vote if you aren't here legally."

It'll work about as well as the 1986 immigration reform plan.

Amnesty always works.  And it's easy.

It just doesn't provide border security.

I don't know how many illegal Mexicans own their property free and clear, but I would imagine it isn't many. I'd let them keep their property, though. If they have a mortgage on it it will be foreclosed as soon as they find out they fraudulently obtained it. If they are one of the 100 or 200 who have illegal-friendly loans, they can keep making their house payments from Mexico if they wish. For a house they can't ever visit. Or they can stop and the house will go into foreclosure.

After listening many times, here's what I can hear in the clip:

Man: "They said they want to help, and they don't have papers."

(unintelligible)

Busby: "They're not..."

Man: "They're not. They don't have papers, but they want to help."

Busby: "Oh, well, sure, everybody can help. Yeah, absolutely. You can all help."

Man: "Todos se puede ayudar."

Busby: "Yeah, you don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help."

Busby is not soliciting illegal votes. It's obvious to me. The fact that she is speaking to a room which almost certainly is full of illegals is a whols other matter, as is the fact that she wants their help in her campaign. But the issue under discussion here is whether she is soliciting illegal votes. She's not.

As I read through this thread, I see a bunch od RedStaters pulling one sentence out of context, and misinterpreting it in order to attack a Democrat. IOW, acting just like Kossacks. IOW, acting just like Maureen Dowd.

There are tons of legitimate issues we can attack Democrats on. This isn't one of them, and doing so damages our credibility.

Spanish uses different syntax.

I used to speak Spanish much better than I do now, and if I am speaking to a Spanish speaker, I might actually form the Spanish sentence in my head before saying it out loud. If I choose to say it in English, I might preserve some of the Spanish syntax.

But this is all speculation on what might have been going on in her head. See here for my interpretation of what actually came out of her mouth.

here

and I don't like the way she apparently caters to illegals, but I don't think she was asking them to vote illegally.

here

Why does she say you don't need papers for voting? Why is that even in there? Obviously she is also saying that you don't need to be legal to help with the campaign, but that doesn't negate the fact that she said you don't need papers for voting. It doesn't mean anything different in context or out of context.

Even if it is wrong.

Everyone here of pulling something out of context to attack a Democrat, it would at least be helpful if it meant something different in context.

I just think the only responsible thing for people to be asking illegals to do is to leave.

foreclosure.

For the most part those loans have been made in states that don't have double digit housing inflation and they are underwritten and serviced by agencies of state government.  I'd love to see the states get stuck with $150,000,000 in REO property.  Kind of a small version of the S&L debacle.

. . . It would be a lot easier to get excited about this if it were in writing.  We hear her say "You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help."

If there's a comma instead of a period, what she says is irrefutable.  To voluntter to help with an election campaign, you don't need papers for voting and you don't need to be a registered voter.  You don't need papers of any kind, whether they're a voter registrtion card or something else.  You don't even need to be a registered voter.  You could be a newcomer to the political process, or you could be from out of the district (as many campaign volunteers on both sides are).

By putting a period instead of a comma in her statement, you change the implication completely for your own purposes.

You want voters in the district to base their considered decision on your dramatic interpretation of 15 seconds of ambiguous audio tape?

Here's the quote from Bribay's office

Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign.

Although you find it no big deal your side rounds up the illegals for the election campaign, I think more than "right-wingers" find that pathetic and offensive.

You must be Inspector Gadget to make that stretch without straining.

Am I going to hear a period if I listen to it?

Anyway, what's unambiguous is that she is calling for illegal aliens to help her campaign, and she is either a) calling for illegals to vote or b) calling for unregistered people to vote.

So yes, I do expect the voters in Calif. 50 to vote on the basis of one candidate getting foreign help.

it depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

"In order to help (or volunteer for) my campaign, you don't need papers for voting."  I.e. you don't need to be a registered voter to help out.  Now, maybe the implication that kids or immigrants are encouraged to work on Busby's campaign bothers you - fair enough.  But I think it's pretty deceptive to suggest that she meant "vote even if that's illegal."

email me