Jim Banks Calls for Passage of SAVE America Act to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

stevevw · Wednesday at 1:48 AM

Hans Blaster said:
I know your argument is pointless, but how about this one...

The first time I traveled to another country I didn't even *have* ID. Not "no ID on me", I didn't have an ID at all.

The exception does not make the rule. I had to jump through identity hoops to enter England. Even prove my health status that I was not bringing any diseases in. But it took a year to finalise.

You also have to remember that most nations are now much the same. Security had heightened and ID is vital in stopping illegal criminals and terrorists.

I know that ID will be vital to enter the US. If the US demands it why can't other nations do the same for people coming from the US.

Larniavc · Wednesday at 2:21 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
I'm suggesting we don't know how much funny business takes place, because how could we?

Come back when you know.

Larniavc · Wednesday at 2:24 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
When a system is constructed to prevent evidence from ever emerging in the first place, that outcome isn't surprising.

Do you have evidence that this is the case?

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 7:41 AM

Larniavc said:
Do you have evidence that this is the case?

Evidence that there is no evidence?

That was my point...

If we took radar guns away from cops, there'd be no evidence of speeding either, the lack of evidence wouldn't mean it wasn't happening.

As noted, I wasn't suggesting that there was enough funny business that would've flipped the election. My view is that Biden would have won 2020 regardless.

I was saying that in a mail-in, ID-free system, there's no way to quantify how much funny business takes place because those frameworks would make it a relatively anonymous infraction when it occurs.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 7:59 AM

wing2000 said:
Maybe that works for Germany. The U.S. Consititution relegates voting to the states. If you want a national system of voting, the constitution will need to be amended. Germany also has mandatory national ID cards. Is that what you want for the U.S.?

https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/administrative-reform/passports-identity-cards/national-identity-card/national-identity-card-node.html

A minor nitpick which may end with eggs on my face. If the German national identity card works the same way as the swedish one, it is not mandatory. It is national as in it is issued by the government if you want it.

wing2000 said:
As for North Dakota:
"North Dakota does not require voter registration, but you do need to have a valid form of identification that can be used for voting. This means you should make sure you have proper identification with you before you go to the polls to vote.

Valid forms of ID that can be used for voting are:

North Dakota Driver's License

North Dakota Non-Driver's License

Tribal ID or Tribal Letter

Long-Term Care Certificate

**********

Certain types of IDs are issued to non-U.S. citizens and North Dakota’s voter record flags anyone marked as a non-citizen so election officials can ensure only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote.

Voting in North Dakota

www.sos.nd.gov

hedrick · Wednesday at 8:14 AM

DaisyDay said:
Elections are run by the states, not by the President. This is more federal overreach.

Odd as it may seem to some, that the states are not uniform makes it more difficult for foreign states and bad actors to hack the system as a whole. Standardization can be as dangerous as mono-agriculture for much the same reason.

The constitution allows congress to make laws that limit state decisions.

One problem with the proposal is that it requires your name to match what is on the birth certificate. Married women must also show their marriage license if the name doesn’t match. Since that hadn’t traditionally been considered essential identification there’s a suspicion that this will make it harder for married women who follow tradition to vote.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 8:23 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Does "proof of citizenship" not count as a facet of identification verification?

View attachment 376397

Which one of these bullet points do people have an objection to?

Is the first numbered item correct or unproblematic?

Are there people who would have a hard time getting such a proof of citizenship?

"Update, February 3, 2025: The legislation states that “a form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States” can be used to prove citizenship. However, the Real ID Act of 2005 does not include a federal requirement for Real IDs to indicate citizenship status, and no state’s Real ID indicates citizenship status on the card. Legally residing noncitizens can also get a Real ID. As it stands, this is an unworkable provision of the legislation, unless the standard for Real IDs is federally changed. Similarly, as tribal and military IDs do not indicate citizenship status, they need to be shown in conjunction with other documentation that does, meaning that alone, they do not satisfy the bill’s requirements."

This group seems to think it is problematic.That needs to be straightened out at least. Taken from

The SAVE Act Would Disenfranchise Millions of Citizens

The SAVE Act would require all Americans to prove their citizenship with documentation unavailable to millions and upend the way every American citizen registers to vote.

www.americanprogress.org

ThatRobGuy said:
The loudest opponents of this (progressives) certainly don't have sincere & principled libertarian tendencies, so that's not it.

The ones I linked seems to think that the problem is that some might be disenfranchised.

ThatRobGuy said:
So why would a group of people who've sought to socialize and nationalize as much as possible, draw the line at voting procedures?

Can we at least be honest about the fact that they know that universal mail-in, ID-free voting constructs favor the democrats, and that's their beef with this?

If it didn't, they wouldn't be fighting so hard against it.

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 9:03 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
Is the first numbered item correct or unproblematic?

Are there people who would have a hard time getting such a proof of citizenship?

"Update, February 3, 2025: The legislation states that “a form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States” can be used to prove citizenship. However, the Real ID Act of 2005 does not include a federal requirement for Real IDs to indicate citizenship status, and no state’s Real ID indicates citizenship status on the card. Legally residing noncitizens can also get a Real ID. As it stands, this is an unworkable provision of the legislation, unless the standard for Real IDs is federally changed. Similarly, as tribal and military IDs do not indicate citizenship status, they need to be shown in conjunction with other documentation that does, meaning that alone, they do not satisfy the bill’s requirements."

I think the American Progress article is conflating two things...

"paperwork consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID" isn't the same as claiming "The REAL ID indicates proof of US citizenship"

To use another legal example for a documented status.

The paperwork, requirements, and background checks required for a gun purchase/transfer are consistent with the requirements for getting a concealed carry license. However, they're not interchangeable and are ultimately used for different purposes (despite checking the same things and overlapping application requirements)

Or to put it more plainly in terms of this scenario.

"We need to know where you were born and what nation you're currently a citizen of" (for access to air travel)
and
"We need to make sure you're a citizen of the US"

...both would be satisfied by the same kinds of documents.

Since the TSA wasn't looking to restrict air travel to just US citizens, that's why current citizenship status isn't indicated by the real-id. But the underlying paperwork for satisfying both inquiries would be consistent.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 9:11 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
I think the American Progress article is conflating two things...

"paperwork consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID" isn't the same as claiming "The REAL ID indicates proof of US citizenship"

To use another legal example for a documented status.

The paperwork, requirements, and background checks required for a gun purchase/transfer are consistent with the requirements for getting a concealed carry license. However, they're not interchangeable and are ultimately used for different purposes (despite checking the same things and overlapping application requirements)

Or to put it more plainly in terms of this scenario.

"We need to know where you were born and what nation you're currently a citizen of" (for access to air travel)
and
"We need to make sure you're a citizen of the US"

...both would be satisfied by the same kinds of documents.

Since the TSA wasn't looking to restrict air travel to just US citizens, that's why current citizenship status isn't indicated by the real-id. But the underlying paperwork for satisfying both inquiries would be consistent.

How about tribal and military id's do they indicate citizenship? Is there a group of voters that would be disenfranchised by the save act (how about someone that don't have a passport or a birth certificate with the correct name on it), that reasonably should be allowed to vote is the overarching question. If so it seems like a bad idea to vote it through.

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 10:05 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
How about tribal and military id's do they indicate citizenship? Is there a group of voters that would be disenfranchised by the save act (how about someone that don't have a passport or a birth certificate with the correct name on it), that reasonably should be allowed to vote is the overarching question. If so it seems like a bad idea to vote it through.

In the true sense of the term, no it's not disenfranchising voters. It's just establishing new requirements that need to be met (that they're able to meet if they so choose) prior to the next iteration of voting. Voter ID laws and citizenship proof don't explicitly deny anyone the right to vote that wouldn't have been eligible.

Whereas true disenfranchisement is categorical and explicit, like felon disenfranchisement -- where laws directly strip voting rights away from a defined class of people.

In the same sense that, provided it's being applied equally...
"We changed the law, you now need to get this particular type of license to buy this type of gun" isn't 2A disenfranchisement
and
"We passed a new city ordinance, you'll now to apply for this new kind of permit in order to hold your rally/demonstration in any city owned parks" isn't 1A disenfranchisement

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 10:35 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
In the true sense of the term, no it's not disenfranchising voters. It's just establishing new requirements that need to be met (that they're able to meet if they so choose) prior to the next iteration of voting.

Are they able to meet it if they so choose? Also, if one put the system in place close to an election it could practically bar a high number of earlier eligible voters from making their voice heard. That would normally be seen as a bad thing.

Do everyone in the US that gets to vote have social security number? Couldn't they use that to make the electoral rolls, and then have only an ID/drivers license to make sure that it is the correct person? What's the difference between the SAVE act, you might ask yourself? Because then it would open up the possibility that someone else with a ID can attest the identity of the person without ID, or they might be known to the vote receiver. That is how we deal with those without IDs here.

ThatRobGuy said:
Voter ID laws and citizenship proof don't explicitly deny anyone the right to vote that wouldn't have been eligible.

Whereas true disenfranchisement is categorical and explicit, like felon disenfranchisement -- where laws directly strip voting rights away from a defined class of people.

In the same sense that, provided it's being applied equally...
"We changed the law, you now need to get this particular type of license to buy this type of gun" isn't 2A disenfranchisement
and
"We passed a new city ordinance, you'll now to apply for this new kind of permit in order to hold your rally/demonstration in any city owned parks" isn't 1A disenfranchisement

rjs330 · Wednesday at 11:02 AM

Hans Blaster said:
I don't know what an "ID for welfare" is.

It's not a welfare ID. You have to show ID in order to get welfare. I am guessing you knew that, as you have proven yourself to be intelligent, and were just trying to be a bit obnoxious with the statement.

Hans Blaster said:
There is no "ID for traveling".

I am also believe that you know that in the US you have to have real ID or a passport in order to fly. That is traveling. Although it is only one method. If you are riding a bus you also need an ID. If you are traveling by car and are driving you need an ID in order to travel on the roadways. So, in specific circumstances you do need ID to travel, but not in all. Maybe his statement was too broad. But in general it may be true.

Hans Blaster said:
I have a voter registration card, but they never ask for it at the polling place. Before I moved here I didn't even have one of those.

I suppose that could be used as voter ID. I think I would tighten that up with a picture if that is not already required.

When you sign up to vote, you have to provide Citizenship evidence and then you get your voter ID card with a photo and you are good to go.

ThatRobGuy · Wednesday at 11:04 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
Are they able to meet it if they so choose?

Absolutely, anyone who's a US citizen should be able to procure the appropriate things needed if they want to.

Stopped_lurking said:
Also, if one put the system in place close to an election it could practically bar a high number of earlier eligible voters from making their voice heard. That would normally be seen as a bad thing.

Do everyone in the US that gets to vote have social security number?

Stopped_lurking said:
Couldn't they use that to make the electoral rolls, and then have only an ID/drivers license to make sure that it is the correct person?

The overwhelming majority do. Issuing of SSNs typically happens at birth now and has been that way since that way for several decades.

It's also a requirement for anyone who's ever worked, banked, or applied for any sort of benefits.

So when you chisel it down to who that would actually impact (with regards to US citizens)

- Citizens who were born abroad to American parents, before the 1980's, and who've never worked, opened a bank account, applied for credit, applied for benefits. Or religious objectors like some sects of Amish who wish to remain detached from modern society for religious reasons.

And even then, there's alternative procedures available to that vanishingly thin minority of people in the form of things like a DS-11 (which will allow the aforementioned to get a passport, and thereby, prove US citizenship)

Just for kicks, I asked Anthropic what the current estimates were for people who fit that extremely narrow criteria, the estimate was 100,000-200,000 people, (80,000 of which are Amish).

To put that in perspective, there are more non-citizens with Social Security numbers than there are citizens without one (by a multiple of 10)

Which goes to your other question. The reason they can't just automatically add everyone with an SSN to the voter rolls is because non-citizens can get an SSN issued (for certain work authorizations and foreign exchange programs)

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf

rjs330 · Wednesday at 11:06 AM

essentialsaltes said:
You click a radio button in my state.

View attachment 376324

And then "New voters may have to show a form of identification or proof of residency the first time they vote"

A terrible way to do it. I swear I am a citizen, no really I am.

Larniavc · Wednesday at 12:53 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Evidence that there is no evidence?

That was my point...

If we took radar guns away from cops, there'd be no evidence of speeding either, the lack of evidence wouldn't mean it wasn't happening.

As noted, I wasn't suggesting that there was enough funny business that would've flipped the election. My view is that Biden would have won 2020 regardless.

I was saying that in a mail-in, ID-free system, there's no way to quantify how much funny business takes place because those frameworks would make it a relatively anonymous infraction when it occurs.

Evidence of a cover up.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 4:23 PM

stevevw said:
The exception does not make the rule. I had to jump through identity hoops to enter England. Even prove my health status that I was not bringing any diseases in. But it took a year to finalise.

Entering perfidious Albion has nothing to do with the ordinary use of ID in the US. (The comparison class you were trying to make with all of that stuff about booze, etc.)

stevevw said:
You also have to remember that most nations are now much the same. Security had heightened and ID is vital in stopping illegal criminals and terrorists.

Even criminal and terrorist US citizens have a right to vote.

stevevw said:
I know that ID will be vital to enter the US. If the US demands it why can't other nations do the same for people coming from the US.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with voting in the US.

stevevw · Wednesday at 6:42 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Entering perfidious Albion has nothing to do with the ordinary use of ID in the US. (The comparison class you were trying to make with all of that stuff about booze, etc.)

They are exactly the same. Have ID to stop fraud and illegal activity.

Hans Blaster said:
Even criminal and terrorist US citizens have a right to vote.

Oh so terrorist and criminals can illegally come into another nation without ID and then also vote without any ID. Sounds familiar. What a radical idea.

Hans Blaster said:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with voting in the US.

Yes it does. The exact same principle. You need ID to prove who you are when travelling or puschasing alcohol or getting a drivers licence to stop fraud and illegal activity.

Same principle. You need ID to stop voter fraud and illegal activities.

NxNW · Wednesday at 7:54 PM

Valletta said:
If you have to show ID in order to buy alcohol or rent a car, you should have to show ID in order to vote.

The first two are not constitutional rights.

Valletta said:
People also have to show ID to get on an airplane or to receive government benefits. It is time.

Neither one of those are constitutional rights.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 7:54 PM

stevevw said:
They are exactly the same. Have ID to stop fraud and illegal activity.

What about ID for persons entering a country prevents "fraud" or "illegal activity"? (Spoiler: Nothing. Visitors and immigrants can commit fraud and other crimes. The purpose of ID [or to be clear, passports and visas] is to control *who* enters, not prevent crime.

stevevw said:
Oh so terrorist and criminals can illegally come into another nation without ID and then also vote without any ID. Sounds familiar. What a radical idea.

I said US citizens. Do you even read what is written? US citizens have the right to enter the US and vote.

stevevw said:
Yes it does. The exact same principle. You need ID to prove who you are when travelling

Again, no ID is needed to travel inside the US. Leaving the US to enter other countries is not part of US law. Its part of *their* law. If the Swiss want to stop me from voting, that's up to them.

stevevw said:
or puschasing alcohol

Like with going to another country, the first time I tried purchasing alcohol legally I was not asked for ID. (It was a grocery store.)

stevevw said:
or getting a drivers licence to stop fraud and illegal activity.

A driver's license is require to prove you can legally operate an automobile. It does not stop any illegal activity. (Especially speeding.)

stevevw said:
Same principle. You need ID to stop voter fraud and illegal activities.

Really you don't.

And for the 50,382,234th time:::::

THIS IS NOT A VOTER ID BILL!!!!

NxNW · Wednesday at 7:55 PM

Valletta said:
When you register to vote, the very first time, you show that you are an American citizen. When you go to vote you provide photo identification. Simple and easy.

Except the GOP doesn't want to accept most photo ID.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Jim Banks Calls for Passage of SAVE America Act to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

inquisitive

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Call Me Al

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Call Me Al

Well-Known Member

Similar threads