This organization was originally funded by Soros' foundation, a partisan organization, and it explicitly does not even attempt to collect data on non-citizens voting. [1]
Also given in states like California they removed less than TWO (not thousand) voters in a single year, seems like this partisan organization was used primarily to paper over voting by non-citizens.
>"Under no circumstances shall the members transmit any record indicating an individual is a non-citizen of the U.S."
"David Becker, who helped found ERIC while he was working at the Pew Charitable Trusts a decade ago. "
It has roots to Pew, a platform that pushes out low quality humanities research that somehow coincidentally is always following democrat politics. With the researchers, universities and field in general funded by a blue fed.
The money comes from somewhere, and we know the honest truth doesn't pay.
18 states issue drivers licenses to non-residents.
This rule was to shield the identities of those people from the federal government, so that those states would participate.
You may not like that but being in the United States without permission is not a crime, it is a civil offense like operating a radio station without a license or pirating a DVD, and it is up to the states to decide if they want to help the federal government with non-criminal civil cases.
I am an election judge in a state that issues drivers licenses to non-residents, primarily people in the years-long process of applying for asylum (which, by definition, makes them neither illegal nor undocumented) and I can assure you that processes are in place to keep them off the poll books.
There are more instances of republican candidates' wives voting multiple times for their husbands than there are cases of non-residents voting.
edit: the explicit reason it is not a crime to be in the country without permission is because if it WAS a crime then people accused of being in the country without permission would be granted due process, be subject to stricter rules of evidence, and have the right to access to representation, which they are not if it is a civil offense.
The government does not want due process, stricter rules of evidence, or the right to representation for people it says are in the country without permission, which is why thousands of US citizens have been deported by mistake. (but people don't seem to care because those US citizens' names end in vowels and they are deported to countries where color graders throw a yellow filter on the footage whenever a film is set there)
This seems like a non-sequiter. My question is, so what? The matter is straitforward. If states can't be trusted to provide transparent information then, especially if those states fall along one side more than the other, the system is untrustworthy and there's no reason to humor it neither by the federal government nor by the side that isn't obfuscating its information. There's no legitimate reason for federal elections to not be the most secure elections by design.
I'm a little confused here. You say being in the US without permission is not a crime. But that means you crossed a border illegally to get here which is in fact more than a non-criminal civil case.
It is stated in the first paragraph. "for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."
He's playing word games by pretending that an edge case is the general case.
If you come over as an adult, you have committed a crime. Most illegal immigrants fall into his category. If you come over as a child, you lacked agency to commit a crime, and your continued presence in the country is not a crime.
> But that means you crossed a border illegally to get here which is in fact more than a non-criminal civil case.
It does not.
For the last 20 or so years, the majority of persons entering the United States without authorization entered legally on a visa or visa waiver and then overstayed their allotted time.
Of the remaining, many of those are asylum seekers and it is explicitly legal to enter the United States by any means possible for the purpose of seeking asylum.
>Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival...
No you are just straight up lying now. If a person entered the country with a visa or visa waiver and overstayed their welcome then they entered the country legally. The vast majority of person enter the US without authorization are not the ones enter the US legally because they in fact have authorization. All of the ones entering the county without authorizations are the ones that do not have a visa or visa wavier or asylum and hence entered illegally and broke the law.
Your ridiculous claim because you are not arguing in good faith at all and will most likely edit your post:
"For the last 20 or so years, the majority of persons entering the United States without authorization entered legally on a visa or visa waiver and then overstayed their allotted time."
Also the asylum number (in 2022 25k admitted, 89,461 added to the wait list, 750k on the waitlist from all of time) is currently way lower than the 2.76 million caught illegally crossing last year. Seems like way way more people try to illegally enter.
I will give you some people could be in the US without have entering illegally but that is not what you claimed. You left off the word some in your statement.
It's amazing to me the US has not passed (emergency) voting reform laws after the 2020 election. It's basically going to come down to craziest brinksman wins.
Individuals voting without a right? I agree, it's a irrelevant.
State legislatives based on horrendously gerrymandered districts overturning elections because they don't like the results? That seems very likely, it almost happened in 2020.
Various groups at various levels from courts to executives to administrators rigging elections by removing all the ballot boxes from areas that vote "wrong" or refusing ballots to people based on things like skin colour? That's already happening.
What happened to the swathes of articles pre-2020 about electronic voting machines and how easily hackable they were. Suddenly everything is okay? "Voter fraud isn't an issue" has become a political shibboleth to show which side you're on.
As a non-american I had no prior knowledge of ERIC but this article is probably one of the worst I've read this year. I can't tell if it's supposed to be an opinion piece or just very biased. It leaves so many questions. Why would states take fringe far-right conspiracy nuts for their word? What's the issue with ERIC? What's the claim based on that it's impossible to replicate it?
NPR is very biased against the GOP - arguably less so against the Right - because the GOP vocally wants to pull their funding.
It's a pretty simple institutional conflict result. Unfortunately, it means that NPR/PBS is no longer the true-centrist news source it was designed to be.
Why would states take fringe far-right conspiracy nuts for their word?
Because they are a large part of the voting base, and they're very influential with the rest of it.
What's the issue with ERIC?
ERIC undermines their claims about widespread election fraud. It ensures that voters can't vote in different states or allow impersonation of dead people.
What's the claim based on that it's impossible to replicate it?
It's an agreement between states to share data, and there is no other source of similar data.
23 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 62.7 ms ] threadAlso given in states like California they removed less than TWO (not thousand) voters in a single year, seems like this partisan organization was used primarily to paper over voting by non-citizens.
>"Under no circumstances shall the members transmit any record indicating an individual is a non-citizen of the U.S."
Blatantly partisan.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220316031117/https://ericstate... (they deleted the evidence when caught)
It has roots to Pew, a platform that pushes out low quality humanities research that somehow coincidentally is always following democrat politics. With the researchers, universities and field in general funded by a blue fed.
The money comes from somewhere, and we know the honest truth doesn't pay.
This rule was to shield the identities of those people from the federal government, so that those states would participate.
You may not like that but being in the United States without permission is not a crime, it is a civil offense like operating a radio station without a license or pirating a DVD, and it is up to the states to decide if they want to help the federal government with non-criminal civil cases.
I am an election judge in a state that issues drivers licenses to non-residents, primarily people in the years-long process of applying for asylum (which, by definition, makes them neither illegal nor undocumented) and I can assure you that processes are in place to keep them off the poll books.
There are more instances of republican candidates' wives voting multiple times for their husbands than there are cases of non-residents voting.
edit: the explicit reason it is not a crime to be in the country without permission is because if it WAS a crime then people accused of being in the country without permission would be granted due process, be subject to stricter rules of evidence, and have the right to access to representation, which they are not if it is a civil offense.
The government does not want due process, stricter rules of evidence, or the right to representation for people it says are in the country without permission, which is why thousands of US citizens have been deported by mistake. (but people don't seem to care because those US citizens' names end in vowels and they are deported to countries where color graders throw a yellow filter on the footage whenever a film is set there)
It is stated in the first paragraph. "for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."
You don't go to jail for civil cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
If you come over as an adult, you have committed a crime. Most illegal immigrants fall into his category. If you come over as a child, you lacked agency to commit a crime, and your continued presence in the country is not a crime.
It does not.
For the last 20 or so years, the majority of persons entering the United States without authorization entered legally on a visa or visa waiver and then overstayed their allotted time.
Of the remaining, many of those are asylum seekers and it is explicitly legal to enter the United States by any means possible for the purpose of seeking asylum.
>Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival...
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prel...
Your ridiculous claim because you are not arguing in good faith at all and will most likely edit your post:
"For the last 20 or so years, the majority of persons entering the United States without authorization entered legally on a visa or visa waiver and then overstayed their allotted time."
Also the asylum number (in 2022 25k admitted, 89,461 added to the wait list, 750k on the waitlist from all of time) is currently way lower than the 2.76 million caught illegally crossing last year. Seems like way way more people try to illegally enter.
https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+asylum+seeker+in+u...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/migrant-border-...
I will give you some people could be in the US without have entering illegally but that is not what you claimed. You left off the word some in your statement.
State legislatives based on horrendously gerrymandered districts overturning elections because they don't like the results? That seems very likely, it almost happened in 2020.
Various groups at various levels from courts to executives to administrators rigging elections by removing all the ballot boxes from areas that vote "wrong" or refusing ballots to people based on things like skin colour? That's already happening.
It's a pretty simple institutional conflict result. Unfortunately, it means that NPR/PBS is no longer the true-centrist news source it was designed to be.
Because they are a large part of the voting base, and they're very influential with the rest of it.
What's the issue with ERIC?
ERIC undermines their claims about widespread election fraud. It ensures that voters can't vote in different states or allow impersonation of dead people.
What's the claim based on that it's impossible to replicate it?
It's an agreement between states to share data, and there is no other source of similar data.