Why Rhode Island Passed Voter ID: Or, Who is 'El Macho'?
Marc Comtois
Simon Van Zuylen-Wood--Brown grad and writer for the liberal New Republic--has written a piece trying to explain how "blue" Rhode Island has joined "red" states in passing a Voter ID law. His first instinct is that it's about race.
The perpetrators are all Hispanic and the accusers are mostly not. This underlines what is most likely at play in Rhode Island— anxiety over the state’s changing demographics. Since 2000, the state’s white population has declined by 55,000, while its Hispanic population has increased by 45,000, or nearly 50 percent. The immigration boom, coupled with a 10.8 percent unemployment rate (the third-worst in the country), has contributed to the open hostility toward Hispanics.
Zuylen-Wood also basically tags Senator Jon Brien as sort of the white puppet master manipulating fear and distrust amongst minorities to get Voter ID passed.
Voter ID proponents subtly capitalized on these fears. The bill’s main House sponsor, conservative Democrat Jon Brien, has “anti-immigrant credentials like no other,” says Latino activist Pablo Rodriguez. Brien has argued that illegal immigrants are usurping government resources, taking American jobs, and now, voting.
However, Zuylen-Wood doesn't think its solely a racial thing; apparently a form of modern day
Know-Nothingism is also present as "here-firsters" are aggravated by newbies, regardless of whether they are in the same racial demographic:
A couple of established Latino state representatives voted for the bill, suggesting that they too may have concerns about the political influence of newly arrived immigrants.
Meanwhile, liberal college professors and anonymous state legislators thinks its much ado about nothing:
Besides, as Providence College professor of political science Tony Affigne told me, minority legislators who voted for the law weren’t necessarily fabricating their tales of voter fraud—they were just ascribing too much importance to them. “I’ve seen [some voter fraud] with my own eyes,” Affigne told me. “But it’s certainly not the kind of problem that [necessitates] a statewide draconian law.” One state legislator agreed, telling me, “I think they’ve fallen for the urban legend stuff,” adding that, because of their naïveté, they’re “being used as pawns by the anti-immigrant conservatives.”
Poor pawns, can't think for themselves. That brings us to the story of 'El Macho':
How does this alleged voter fraud work? According to [State representative Anastasia] Williams, a candidate hires a “recruiter,” who obtains a list of likely non-voters, and then pays willing foot soldiers to cast ballots in their place. A large Hispanic man who calls himself “El Macho” and works for the Providence Water Supply Board is rumored to be the most prominent recruiter. George Lindsey, a prominent South Providence African American, told me that candidates have long paid El Macho five or six thousand dollars per election. “What he’ll tell you is he’s basically a hired gun.”
I bet it would be interesting to figure out who exactly 'El Macho' is and get him to talk. Seems like there's a story to tell there, no?
"Newly arrived immigrants"can't vote until they become naturalized citizens.
Affigne and the rest of the leftists can't even keep their BS minimally believeable.
Is it "draconian"to show ID when cashing a check or buying alcohol?
Or buying a firearm?Oh-a firearm?The leftists would want you to have a chip implanted for that if they could.
Putting aside "sammy"who is a bad joke-we can always expect baseless accusations of "racism"from the resident 'progressives"here.They never can actually illustrate a concrete example-and even if they could-it wouldn't extrapolate to a larger population.
This is all part of an attempt by the Obama zombies to drag every vote they can out of whoever they can get to show up-legitimate or not.
"The immigration boom, coupled with a 10.8 percent unemployment rate (the third-worst in the country), has contributed to the open hostility toward Hispanics."
How could anyone possibly prove or disprove an assertion like this? It's completely baseless and unfalsifiable. I could just as easily assert that Zuylen-Wood's paranoid-delusional fears of racism under every stone stem from too much television as a child. If a writer is going to make serious accusations against people, he should have a concrete basis to support them and not just speculation. Also, he apparently does not understand what "open hostility" means. I think what he meant is "veiled hostility." The law does not "openly" target any racial group. Is this the kind of drivel that Brown produces?
Translate the concern of White liberals over how "minority"legislators are deluded into acting against "their"own interests into nothing but filthy patronizing racism.
White liberals still think "minorities" are occasionally intelligent pets.That they think en bloc.
Boy,are they the stupidest thing going.
They gather in their coffee shops and congratulate themselves on how "progressive"they are in looking out for people who quite capable of looking out for themselves.
If a "minority"doesn't toe the liberal predigested line,they are (usually)gently chided on being misled by the terrible conservative movement.
That's only when the minority individuals are viewed by the progressive elite as harmless, Joe. When conservative minority individuals are able to attain positions of any significant power or influence, the true hate and racism of the progressive movement comes out in full force, and they brand them as "race traitors," like Herman Cain, or "Uncle Toms," like Clarence Thomas.
I asked a question that got me an interesting answer over at GCPVD:
Do you think people who aren't citizens SHOULD be able to vote?
The answer I got:
"I think anyone who resides in Rhode Island, is 18 years of age, and is not currently incarcerated should be able to vote in local and state elections, yes... I don’t think sworn citizenship should be a barrier to participation in the local and state political process."
I don't think it's fair to hurl accusations of racism at people (like me) who just want to add authentication to the most fundamental exercise of our rights. If you want to open up local elections to non-citizens I can at least UNDERSTAND why (I disagree, but I understand the logic behind the opposition). What I can't handle is being told that asking for the same level of trust with our democracy that I need when using my credit card is 'racist'.
"I think anyone who resides in Rhode Island"
First, I think we need the definition of "resides in". How long do you need to be here until you can say that you "reside in".
"is 18 years of age, and is not currently incarcerated should be able to vote in local and state elections, yes"
Wait, so this person wants to let non-US citizens vote in a local US election but they don't want to let US citizens who have taken up a certain secure and "gated community" vote? That makes no sense.
This whole thing is nonsense. Providing ID is a fact of life for citizens for any major purchase or activity today. This bill targets no one and the only people negatively impacted would be people who are not legally eligible to vote per the law on the books. Anyone who shows up at a polling place who cannot immediately furnish photo ID is still allowed to fill out a "provisional ballot" which will be counted once their eligibility is verified. The law isn't trying to prevent citizens of any stripe from voting, its aim is to ensure that people who were never supposed to vote do not interfere with the democratic process. There is no racist intent.
This is not a race issue. This is an issue of stealing elections. If you fill it with a bunch of folks who are not here legally, tell them what to do, and couple that with the general population that is too lazy to vote, you have problems. There is plenty of voter fraud, you just have to open your eyes to it. Our forefathers are probably rolling over in their graves with the turn this country has taken
Voter fraud doesn't even necessarily involve people who are here illegally. All it takes is people voting as people who are deceased, or people who are voting in multiple districts, or in places they shouldn't be voting. It is "race/immigration neutral." Voting is the most important contribution to democracy that any one citizen can make. It should not be negated or diluted by people trying to manipulate or disrupt the system.
Posted by Mangeek:
"The answer I got:
"I think anyone who resides in Rhode Island, is 18 years of age, and is not currently incarcerated should be able to vote in local and state elections, yes... I don’t think sworn citizenship should be a barrier to participation in the local and state political process.""
I believe this is a shibboleth in ultra liberal communities. It has certainly been advanced in Cambridge, MA and Berkeley, CA, I am not sure it has taken effect. Previously, both of these cities were "sanctuary cities". Doesn't the "18 years of age" present some sort of barrier, isn't this "ageism".
Posted by Kathy
"This is not a race issue. This is an issue of stealing elections. If you fill it with a bunch of folks who are not here legally, tell them what to do,"
In a prior immigration boom, I believe this was known as "ward heeling".
foreign nationals living here,legally or not,generally have the right to vote-in THEIR countries.By absentee ballot or whatever-it's up to their countries of orgin and none of our business.
Refugees are a different issue-but they are here because of our humanity and should be grateful for that-they have no need to vote here until,like legal immigrants,they are able to naturalize.
I encourage naturalization-hardly a "racist"or anti-immigrant position.
Voting by foreign nationals was legal at one time-the law was changed around 1917(the same year Puerto ricans became US citizens)because of widespread abuse.
After all,a legal immigrant has no requirement to swear allegiance to the US.A new citizen does.
We can't have people who have no obligation of allegiance to this country voting.
It's not discriminatory-just plain common sense.
The left wants to eat away at virtually every tradition and belief in this country-like termites-but what happens if they scuueed?
They will inherit a crumbling edifice.
That is why the left is the enemy of the nation.
I don't have a problem with producing identification in order to vote. If this law secures the legal right to those who wish to participate then it only then falls to it's implementation. At least Rhode Island has not been the universal embarrassment that Florida was in 2000. I do wonder if ALL voters will be required to produce their identification at their voting places. As a side note I am forced to enter a Christian house of worship in order to vote.
Phil-I am sure that if you are grievously offended by having to enter a Christian house of worship to vote,you can always get an absentee ballot.
And yes,I certainly believe everyone should meet the ID requirement-same deal with the E-verify requirement.
Joe
I vote in person. I would prefer to vote in one of the public buildings in town supported in part with my tax dollars. Do you really believe that everyone is going to have to produce an ID? Just refer back to your incredibly long list of those you hate and pick a couple of prominent names and ask yourself if they will be required to fumble around with their wallets or pocketbooks in front of the poll workers who know them by sight.
I vote at a Catholic school-I'm not Catholic-I never thought about it-you like to be offended,don't you?
I certainly expect everyone will have to produce ID-try getting into Women&Infants without ID-no way-same can be done for voting.
Right Joe There's a lot of things that you do without thinking.
You're right-answering you is definitely proof I don't always think about using my time intelligently.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
"Newly arrived immigrants"can't vote until they become naturalized citizens.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 8, 2012 10:08 AMAffigne and the rest of the leftists can't even keep their BS minimally believeable.
Is it "draconian"to show ID when cashing a check or buying alcohol?
Or buying a firearm?Oh-a firearm?The leftists would want you to have a chip implanted for that if they could.
Putting aside "sammy"who is a bad joke-we can always expect baseless accusations of "racism"from the resident 'progressives"here.They never can actually illustrate a concrete example-and even if they could-it wouldn't extrapolate to a larger population.
This is all part of an attempt by the Obama zombies to drag every vote they can out of whoever they can get to show up-legitimate or not.
"The immigration boom, coupled with a 10.8 percent unemployment rate (the third-worst in the country), has contributed to the open hostility toward Hispanics."
How could anyone possibly prove or disprove an assertion like this? It's completely baseless and unfalsifiable. I could just as easily assert that Zuylen-Wood's paranoid-delusional fears of racism under every stone stem from too much television as a child. If a writer is going to make serious accusations against people, he should have a concrete basis to support them and not just speculation. Also, he apparently does not understand what "open hostility" means. I think what he meant is "veiled hostility." The law does not "openly" target any racial group. Is this the kind of drivel that Brown produces?
Posted by: Dan at February 8, 2012 10:44 AMTranslate the concern of White liberals over how "minority"legislators are deluded into acting against "their"own interests into nothing but filthy patronizing racism.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 8, 2012 12:09 PMWhite liberals still think "minorities" are occasionally intelligent pets.That they think en bloc.
Boy,are they the stupidest thing going.
They gather in their coffee shops and congratulate themselves on how "progressive"they are in looking out for people who quite capable of looking out for themselves.
If a "minority"doesn't toe the liberal predigested line,they are (usually)gently chided on being misled by the terrible conservative movement.
That's only when the minority individuals are viewed by the progressive elite as harmless, Joe. When conservative minority individuals are able to attain positions of any significant power or influence, the true hate and racism of the progressive movement comes out in full force, and they brand them as "race traitors," like Herman Cain, or "Uncle Toms," like Clarence Thomas.
Posted by: Dan at February 8, 2012 1:42 PMI asked a question that got me an interesting answer over at GCPVD:
Do you think people who aren't citizens SHOULD be able to vote?
The answer I got:
"I think anyone who resides in Rhode Island, is 18 years of age, and is not currently incarcerated should be able to vote in local and state elections, yes... I don’t think sworn citizenship should be a barrier to participation in the local and state political process."
I don't think it's fair to hurl accusations of racism at people (like me) who just want to add authentication to the most fundamental exercise of our rights. If you want to open up local elections to non-citizens I can at least UNDERSTAND why (I disagree, but I understand the logic behind the opposition). What I can't handle is being told that asking for the same level of trust with our democracy that I need when using my credit card is 'racist'.
Posted by: mangeek at February 8, 2012 3:28 PM"I think anyone who resides in Rhode Island"
First, I think we need the definition of "resides in". How long do you need to be here until you can say that you "reside in".
"is 18 years of age, and is not currently incarcerated should be able to vote in local and state elections, yes"
Wait, so this person wants to let non-US citizens vote in a local US election but they don't want to let US citizens who have taken up a certain secure and "gated community" vote? That makes no sense.
Posted by: Patrick at February 8, 2012 4:47 PMGCPVD??
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 8, 2012 5:29 PMThis whole thing is nonsense. Providing ID is a fact of life for citizens for any major purchase or activity today. This bill targets no one and the only people negatively impacted would be people who are not legally eligible to vote per the law on the books. Anyone who shows up at a polling place who cannot immediately furnish photo ID is still allowed to fill out a "provisional ballot" which will be counted once their eligibility is verified. The law isn't trying to prevent citizens of any stripe from voting, its aim is to ensure that people who were never supposed to vote do not interfere with the democratic process. There is no racist intent.
Posted by: Bucket Chick at February 8, 2012 5:54 PMThis is not a race issue. This is an issue of stealing elections. If you fill it with a bunch of folks who are not here legally, tell them what to do, and couple that with the general population that is too lazy to vote, you have problems. There is plenty of voter fraud, you just have to open your eyes to it. Our forefathers are probably rolling over in their graves with the turn this country has taken
Posted by: Kathy at February 8, 2012 6:43 PMVoter fraud doesn't even necessarily involve people who are here illegally. All it takes is people voting as people who are deceased, or people who are voting in multiple districts, or in places they shouldn't be voting. It is "race/immigration neutral." Voting is the most important contribution to democracy that any one citizen can make. It should not be negated or diluted by people trying to manipulate or disrupt the system.
Posted by: Bucket Chick at February 8, 2012 7:19 PMPosted by Mangeek:
"The answer I got:
"I think anyone who resides in Rhode Island, is 18 years of age, and is not currently incarcerated should be able to vote in local and state elections, yes... I don’t think sworn citizenship should be a barrier to participation in the local and state political process.""
I believe this is a shibboleth in ultra liberal communities. It has certainly been advanced in Cambridge, MA and Berkeley, CA, I am not sure it has taken effect. Previously, both of these cities were "sanctuary cities". Doesn't the "18 years of age" present some sort of barrier, isn't this "ageism".
Posted by Kathy
"This is not a race issue. This is an issue of stealing elections. If you fill it with a bunch of folks who are not here legally, tell them what to do,"
In a prior immigration boom, I believe this was known as "ward heeling".
Posted by: Warrington Faust at February 9, 2012 8:34 AMforeign nationals living here,legally or not,generally have the right to vote-in THEIR countries.By absentee ballot or whatever-it's up to their countries of orgin and none of our business.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 9, 2012 10:06 AMRefugees are a different issue-but they are here because of our humanity and should be grateful for that-they have no need to vote here until,like legal immigrants,they are able to naturalize.
I encourage naturalization-hardly a "racist"or anti-immigrant position.
Voting by foreign nationals was legal at one time-the law was changed around 1917(the same year Puerto ricans became US citizens)because of widespread abuse.
After all,a legal immigrant has no requirement to swear allegiance to the US.A new citizen does.
We can't have people who have no obligation of allegiance to this country voting.
It's not discriminatory-just plain common sense.
The left wants to eat away at virtually every tradition and belief in this country-like termites-but what happens if they scuueed?
They will inherit a crumbling edifice.
That is why the left is the enemy of the nation.
I don't have a problem with producing identification in order to vote. If this law secures the legal right to those who wish to participate then it only then falls to it's implementation. At least Rhode Island has not been the universal embarrassment that Florida was in 2000. I do wonder if ALL voters will be required to produce their identification at their voting places. As a side note I am forced to enter a Christian house of worship in order to vote.
Posted by: Phil at February 9, 2012 6:30 PMPhil-I am sure that if you are grievously offended by having to enter a Christian house of worship to vote,you can always get an absentee ballot.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 9, 2012 8:14 PMAnd yes,I certainly believe everyone should meet the ID requirement-same deal with the E-verify requirement.
Joe
I vote in person. I would prefer to vote in one of the public buildings in town supported in part with my tax dollars. Do you really believe that everyone is going to have to produce an ID? Just refer back to your incredibly long list of those you hate and pick a couple of prominent names and ask yourself if they will be required to fumble around with their wallets or pocketbooks in front of the poll workers who know them by sight.
Posted by: Phil at February 10, 2012 6:42 AMI vote at a Catholic school-I'm not Catholic-I never thought about it-you like to be offended,don't you?
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 11, 2012 12:30 AMI certainly expect everyone will have to produce ID-try getting into Women&Infants without ID-no way-same can be done for voting.
Right Joe There's a lot of things that you do without thinking.
Posted by: Phil at February 11, 2012 6:14 AMYou're right-answering you is definitely proof I don't always think about using my time intelligently.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 11, 2012 7:58 AM