How Come Mexico Can Require Voters To Prove Citizenship And Arizona Can’t?

The news from the U.S. Senate is bad enough: the new 1200 page Hoeven-Corker “Border Surge” amendment to the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill will be voted on Monday—requiring Senators to read 24 pages an hour for 16 hours a day over the weekend. But the Supreme Court made things even worse last week by striking down Arizona’s attempt to require voters in federal elections to prove citizenship.

Let that sink in just a moment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was bad for the state of Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voters. In a serious country, this wouldn’t even be an issue. And it isn’t —in Mexico.

The real culprit here, legally speaking: the Motor Voter Act, passed in 1993, to “make it easier” for folks to register to vote by letting them register when applying for driver’s licenses. According to our Supreme Court, nothing besides the actual Motor Voter form can be added by any state, without special permission.

And, incredibly, all the Motor Voter act requires is for an applicant to state that he is a citizen—without requiring any proof whatsoever!  Which means it’s easier to register to vote in this country than apply for a video rental card.  Well, priorities are priorities.

In the Supreme Court hearing on the case in March, Thomas Horne,   Attorney General of  Arizona pointed out that the Motor Voter form, “…is extremely inadequate. It’s essentially an honor system. It does not do the job.”

Wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, however, responded that “Well, that’s what the federal system decided was enough.”

As VDARE.COM readers are well aware, Arizona has been Ground Zero in the battle to resist the illegal invasion, and has put up a bigger resistance than the other three border states (California, New Mexico and Texas) put together. That’s why the state is the target of federal mugging on immigration–related matters.

In 2004, the voters of Arizona passed Proposition 200 which required applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. That sounds totally fair and logical. But the voting registration part has now been struck down.

To their credit, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, displayed some common sense in voting no. Justice Thomas wrote that the Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”

Arizona still has an option: to ask the federal government to add state-specific material requiring additional documentation on the Motor Voter form. The state of Louisiana successfully obtained that. The problem: the Election Assistance Commission, to which Arizona would apply, currently has no members. New members are supposed to be nominated by the president.

El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, combined the Arizona story with one about in-state- tuition-for-illegals in New Jersey. It began:

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled yesterday against an Arizona law that requires persons to present proof of citizenship to register for the voter rolls, the same day that legislators in New Jersey approved a proposed law to permit immigrants that are in the country without authorization [AW: i.e. illegal aliens] to have access to lower rates in state universities. [AW: i.e. to discriminate in favor of illegals and against Americans from other states].

Note, though, that in the comments section, a reader remarked: “In Mexico they are stricter and nobody says anything.”

Which is simply the truth. Mexico’s voter registration system is much better, and much stricter, as I have observed firsthand and described several times:

In Mexico, every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, supplied by the government, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.

At the Mexican polling station, the card is used in conjunction with a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there's a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person's name and see if the photo matches up.

When he votes, the Mexican voter's thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he's already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)

Notice, that the Mexican government supplies the card. Apologists for slipshod voter registration claim that it’s too hard for many minorities to use photo ID. Given today’s inexpensive photo technology, I really doubt that. But, in Mexico the government provides the card anyway, at government expense.

In order to register for the voter card, a prospective Mexican voter must prove his citizenship.  And Mexico doesn’t just take his word for it. Documented proof must be provided.  According to the website of the Mexican IFE (Instituto Federal Electoral), the applicant must either produce

(1) A “certified copy of a birth certificate”, or

(2) A “document that authorizes the Mexican nationality by naturalization.”

Isn’t that great? Why can’t we do that? What’s so difficult about it?  If Mexico can do it, why can’t we?

SOURCE





Australia:  Tony Abbott (conservative leader) attacks Gillard (Leftist leader) over restrictions on legal immigration

Pauline Hanson is a generally conservative independent politician who is known for her criticism of Asian immigration into Australia.  Many of the skilled workers whom Gillard wants to bar are also Asian.  Abbott is generally sympathetic to minorities so is appalled by Gillard's stance

OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has called Julia Gillard worse than Pauline Hanson and used the government's chief spin doctor's foreign worker visa to attack and mock legislation to crackdown on 457 visas.

After accusing the government of "dog whistling" and creating a distraction from its failure to stop tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving on boats, Mr Abbott told Parliament the Prime Minister was dividing Australia.

"I never thought I would see the day it wouldn't just be an independent Member of Parliament, a disendorsed member of a political party but it would be the PM of this country (seeking) to deliberately divide Australian from Australian to serve a political purpose, it is an embarrassment," he said.

The proposed laws which would force employers to market test and advertise to prove no Australian was available to fill a position was "false patriotism from a failing government," he claimed.

Mr Abbott mocked Ms Gillard's head of communications John McTernan, who is working in Australia on a 457 visa, calling his employment a case of "complete hypocricy."

"I've got nothing against the Prime Minister having someone working in her own office on a 457 visa, if he is the only person who can do the job, fair enough," he said, mocking the new legislation.

"For all I know there wasn't a single Australian capable of giving political advice to the current Prime Minister. For all I know not a single Australian wanted the job.

"I don't say that person is stealing the job of an Australian, I assume that person is making a unique and special contribution to our country. But if it is right in the PM's office, why isn't right for the other employers in this country?

"If the PM didn't have to advertise, if the PM didn't have to engage in six months of labour market testing why should every other employer in this country?"

He claimed the government "can't get tough on illegal arrivals by boat so they've decided to get tough on legal arrivals by plane."

"It is happening because this government has a political problem. Never mind the facts, never mind that everyone who has seriously looked at this knows the system is working well and if there are one or two problems or abusers they can be sorted out in the normal course of events," he said.

"The government has got a political problem, so what do they do? They look for someone to blame, they look for more people to demonise in their attempt to hold onto office.

"This government has a serious political problems, it's the border protection disaster which has meant since August 2008 we've had more than 700 illegal boats, we have had more than 44,000 illegal arrivals by boat. A problem this government cannot solve, a problem this government has effectively surrendered to the people smugglers."

SOURCE