Two things non-citizens are not supposed to do in America, and yes, there are more, but let’s try not to get lost by insisting everything be viewed from 30,000 feet: vote and serve on a jury. Having experienced the call only once in my many decades in the same town and county, here in New Hampshire, my experience is limited. But I’m familiar with the process.
There are documents to complete, appearances to be made, questions to be answered, and several ways to get yourself into all sorts of trouble if you are dishonest about any of them. And while no system imagined, constructed, or executed by mankind is perfect or foolproof, we can say with reasonable certainty that there is vetting and it mostly works.
Approximately 75,000 noncitizens are summoned for jury duty in the Garden State every year, according to newly disclosed figures from the New Jersey judiciary.
The revelation comes as state officials are already scrambling to explain how thousands of self-identified noncitizens were improperly added to New Jersey’s voter rolls and how hundreds reportedly cast ballots. …
“Prospective jurors are asked about their citizenship and other qualifications when they complete the mandatory juror qualification questionnaire,” McAleer told the New Jersey Globe.
“Those who advance are reminded of the eligibility requirements during jury orientation and are directly questioned about their citizenship during jury selection by the judge and, as permitted, the attorneys,” he added.
Juries decide the fate of actual citizens, so the system attempts to ensure that only citizens decide their fate. And elections are arguably more important because the people who show up to vote decide who makes laws, with which juries are presented when asked to consider that fate.
Jury nullification falls into the 30,000-foot view, and we’ve covered that elsewhere, so don’t go off on some tangent just yet.
Voting is significantly more important to the majority of the public, many of whom will never sit on or face a jury, but could or might. Elections decide things that affect everyone’s daily life, and yet we can’t seem to get more than a fraction of Democrats, and not even a majority of Senate Republicans, to take voter vetting seriously.
The Democrat party vets people who register to attend its events, and you can’t enter a party klanbake without ID. Obama’s cinder-block library opening was likewise ridiculed for the layers of security applied prior to admittance, while his party bemoans ID to vote.
Maybe we need contempt of voting statutes.
If we vetted voters like Jurors and applied a similar level of response to liars and scofflaws, we might see fewer “software errors” in states like New Jersey. Where you are made to understand that if you vote illegally, you may go to prison, even if it’s just for a day or two.
Fines.
How about we fine and deport non-citizens who vote illegally? Maybe out-of-state college students as well, while we’re at it. Sorry, you can’t go to school here anymore, but thanks for the interest.
There ought also to be consequences for accomplices. We have evidence that you aided and abetted theft of a vote in [insert state, city, county, polling place] on said date, etc. You are in contempt of voting and sentenced to X days in county jail.
Opponents of voter ID and proof of citizenship would insist that this is draconian and will suppress turnout. Having to register suppresses turnout. Preventing non-citizens from voting suppresses turnout. Requiring you are the person listed on the registration suppresses turnout.
Voting isn’t a Rave. You don’t just show up and party because there’s a door and people inside. Everything about elections suppresses everything else about elections. We work diligently to ensure the candidates are eligible, that the people who donate to them can do so, but anyone can show up and vote, and it’s a burden for them to prove they are a citizen and the person registered (and eligible in that precinct). Before they decide who can make laws and raise taxes, and impose any sort of unelected regulatory state?
What sort of retard thinks that’s a good idea?
Increasingly progressive retards, more often than not.
If voters were treated like jurors, we’d have fewer “mistakes,” but the mistakes are the point. The party that demands ID for its events, presidential center openings, library cards, fishing licenses, cigarette and alcohol purchases, and to get and keep access to public welfare or food, health care, and housing programs wants you to distrust that system.
The left loves ID so much they want digital ID and digital currency so they can track your location and behavior and punish you for stripping off their plantation. But they need non-citizens and other ineligible persons to vote because they will vote for them.
If illegals, criminals, college students, and drive-by voters were more likely to vote Republican, we’d already have a system in place to vet voters like jurors. Laws with teeth.
That ought to tell you all you need to know about why we need them. If having them helped democrats we would, which is why we don’t.
