Democrats Getting Out The Illegal Alien Votes Effort

[3rdnlng]

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2015/06/24/new-yorks-illegal-alien-electorate/?subscriber=1

 

"Start spreading the news ... I'm voting today."

If the Democratic Party and its constituent groups have their way, the Big Apple's non-citizen immigrants will be singing that variation on the Sinatra anthem "New York, New York" at the polls next year.

That's the plan, as outlined at a recent press conference announcing the "Engaging Immigrant New York City" campaign, which its organizers call "an initiative to mobilize immigrant New Yorkers in preparation for the 2016 Presidential elections."

This is exactly the kind of grass-roots activism envisioned by billionaire George Soros, who has committed $5 million to expand the electorate and loosen voting requirements by getting rid of photo ID laws and other recent election reforms.

Increasingly, citizenship – a prime condition for voting – is being treated as an annoying speed bump on the way to the election booth. President Obama's Justice Department has even sued Kansas and Arizona over their laws requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote.

Although New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has not publicly embraced the idea of registering non-citizens, City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito has gone on record supporting legislation to allow legal residents who are not citizens to vote in city elections, according to capitalnewyork.com.

Meanwhile, the mayor's office is translating voter registration forms into "more common languages," according to Murad Awawdeh of the New York Immigration Coalition, who was quoted by New York Daily News columnist Albor Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz, who supports the effort, adds that officials should also "provide voter education materials in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, French, Haitian Creole, Korean, Russian, Spanish and Urdu."

[unbillievable]

The only way to prevent the left from committing voter fraud is to make it legal.

[Very wide right]

The only way to prevent the left from committing voter fraud is to make it legal.

This is really a non-issue in NYS. Illegals or not the stuck on stupid voters here will ALWAYS vote for democrats no matter what.

[Azalin]

This is really a non-issue in NYS. Illegals or not the stuck on stupid voters here will ALWAYS vote for democrats no matter what.

 

It's not that they're 'stuck on stupid', it's because the dems offer them more perks via entitlements & acceptance (if they're illegal) in exchange for their vote, while telling them that the republicans want to take away the entitlements and toss them out of the country, which in the case of illegals, is largely true.

 

What the republicans need to do is make a convincing case that people are better off making their own way than relying on supplemental programs and assistance for the rest of their lives.

[3rdnlng]

 

It's not that they're 'stuck on stupid', it's because the dems offer them more perks via entitlements & acceptance (if they're illegal) in exchange for their vote, while telling them that the republicans want to take away the entitlements and toss them out of the country, which in the case of illegals, is largely true.

 

What the republicans need to do is make a convincing case that people are better off making their own way than relying on supplemental programs and assistance for the rest of their lives.

Sure, like asking them to work at a Toys R Us isn't unrealistic and demeaning.

[Azalin]

Sure, like asking them to work at a Toys R Us isn't unrealistic and demeaning.

 

[Very wide right]

Sure, like asking them to work at a Toys R Us isn't unrealistic and demeaning.

There was a time when collecting a handout was demeaning .

[3rdnlng]

There was a time when collecting a handout was demeaning .

You don't pick up on things very quickly, do you?

[Alaska Darin]

This is really a non-issue in NYS. Illegals or not the stuck on stupid voters here will ALWAYS vote for democrats no matter what.

That's not the reason they do it.

[Very wide right]

You don't pick up on things very quickly, do you?

Not when it comes to accepting hand outs from other peoples hard work.I don't understand the mentality of anyone who thinks it's ok to be a parasite.

[Deranged Rhino]

Not when it comes to accepting hand outs from other peoples hard work.I don't understand the mentality of anyone who thinks it's ok to be a parasite.

 

Then why do you keep posting here?

[unbillievable]

Are the Democrats running out of dead people to register?

[Very wide right]

 

Since you asked GREGGY, let me explain it to you.Some people like yourself like to troll peoples comments and I guess that is why you sign on daily.I enjoy dialogue with other posters to gain their perspective and debate on different subjects.Hope that helps.By the way,thanks for being my puppet,once again I have made several posts and you have taken the time to search out every one of them to troll me today.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Very wide right

[3rdnlng]

Not when it comes to accepting hand outs from other peoples hard work.I don't understand the mentality of anyone who thinks it's ok to be a parasite.

You don't pick up on things very quickly, do you?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Since you asked GREGGY, let me explain it to you.Some people like yourself like to troll peoples comments and I guess that is why you sign on daily.I enjoy dialogue with other posters to gain their perspective and debate on different subjects.Hope that helps.By the way,thanks for being my puppet,once again I have made several posts and you have taken the time to search out every one of them to troll me today.

 

Your ego rivals OCs.

[3rdnlng]

Your ego rivals OCs.

Yes, but OC actually makes some valid points, albeit framed with a lot of emoticons. The guy that can't shoot straight here has such little intellectual curiosity that he still hasn't figured out why I am mocking him. Thanks to all of you for not telling him there's a hook in that worm-----every time.

[B-Man]

One of the more troubling exchanges in Hillary Clinton’s interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar yesterday was when Clinton dodged a question on her past support of sanctuary cities in light of the horrific murder of Kate Steinle, allegedly at the hands of a 7-time felon, 5-time deported illegal immigrant.

 

But it’s not just that Clinton dodged on her answer. Her answer was confusing and has us wondering if she understands how a sanctuary city like San Francisco actually works.

 

Here’s the exchange:

 

KEILAR:

Last week an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times killed a 32-year-old woman, Kate Steinle, in San Francisco, a sanctuary city where local law enforcement does not enforce federal immigration laws.

When you last ran for president you supported sanctuary cities.

In light of this terrible incident, does that change anything about your view on this?

 

CLINTON:

Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time. Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported. He ends back up in our country and I think the city made a mistake. The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.

So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.

However, there are – like if it were a first-time traffic citation, if it were something minor, a misdemeanor, that’s entirely different. This man had already been deported five times. And he should have been deported at the request of the federal government.

 

 

A couple of things. One, the whole point of a sanctuary city is for local law enforcement officials to limit how much information they share with ICE. In San Francisco specifically, this means the city “flat out ignores” immigration orders. From the Washington Post:

 

As a matter of policy, San Francisco limits its communication with ICE officials and flat out ignores immigration detention orders,

city and county officials reiterated earlier this year.

 

 

Clinton said, “I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.” Well, San Francisco “flat out ignores” ICE. A sanctuary city can’t work without ignoring ICE. That’s the whole point! Does Clinton still support this? We don’t know.

 

Also of note, Clinton says three times that it is the responsibility of San Francisco to deport illegal immigrants. First here:

 

Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it,

urged them to deport this man

again after he got out of prison another time.

 

Then here:

 

The city made a mistake, not to deport someone

that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.

 

And finally, here:

 

And he should have been deported

at the request of the federal government.

 

 

 

A slip of the tongue or does Clinton think San Francisco deports illegal immigrants? The only way for an illegal immigrant to get deported is for the city to hand that individual over to ICE, which San Francisco won’t do.

 

Clinton’s answer is confusing, to say the least, but Keilar never followed up and we still don’t know where Clinton stands on sanctuary cities.

 

 

 

.

[Dante]

Congrats New World Order globalists. Your plan of erasing the borders is working perfectly. Democrats locked in for life and California now officially well on its way to becoming Mexico. Looking forward to a 3rd world existence.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html

[Chef Jim]

One of the more troubling exchanges in Hillary Clinton’s interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar yesterday was when Clinton dodged a question on her past support of sanctuary cities in light of the horrific murder of Kate Steinle, allegedly at the hands of a 7-time felon, 5-time deported illegal immigrant.

 

But it’s not just that Clinton dodged on her answer. Her answer was confusing and has us wondering if she understands how a sanctuary city like San Francisco actually works.

 

Here’s the exchange:

 

KEILAR:

Last week an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times killed a 32-year-old woman, Kate Steinle, in San Francisco, a sanctuary city where local law enforcement does not enforce federal immigration laws.

When you last ran for president you supported sanctuary cities.

In light of this terrible incident, does that change anything about your view on this?

 

CLINTON:

Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time. Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported. He ends back up in our country and I think the city made a mistake. The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.

So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.

However, there are – like if it were a first-time traffic citation, if it were something minor, a misdemeanor, that’s entirely different. This man had already been deported five times. And he should have been deported at the request of the federal government.

 

 

A couple of things. One, the whole point of a sanctuary city is for local law enforcement officials to limit how much information they share with ICE. In San Francisco specifically, this means the city “flat out ignores” immigration orders. From the Washington Post:

 

As a matter of policy, San Francisco limits its communication with ICE officials and flat out ignores immigration detention orders,

city and county officials reiterated earlier this year.

 

 

Clinton said, “I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.” Well, San Francisco “flat out ignores” ICE. A sanctuary city can’t work without ignoring ICE. That’s the whole point! Does Clinton still support this? We don’t know.

 

Also of note, Clinton says three times that it is the responsibility of San Francisco to deport illegal immigrants. First here:

 

Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it,

urged them to deport this man

again after he got out of prison another time.

 

Then here:

 

The city made a mistake, not to deport someone

that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.

 

And finally, here:

 

And he should have been deported

at the request of the federal government.

 

 

 

A slip of the tongue or does Clinton think San Francisco deports illegal immigrants? The only way for an illegal immigrant to get deported is for the city to hand that individual over to ICE, which San Francisco won’t do.

 

Clinton’s answer is confusing, to say the least, but Keilar never followed up and we still don’t know where Clinton stands on sanctuary cities.

 

 

 

.

 

I love how her and Dianne Feinstein said SF should have deported the guy. Well he had been deported many times and just kept coming back. There should be some agreement that if you commit a crime in the US you're tried here and if convicted you go to prison back in Mexico. I think that would be a great deterrent. Conditions in Mexican prisons must be horrible.

[B-Man]

Can the San Francisco shooting story get more messed up than this?

 

 

Five-time deportee Francisco Sanchez has been charged with shooting and killing 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on Pier 14. Sanchez has admitted to choosing San Francisco because of the city’s willingness to serve as a sanctuary to people in the country illegally.

 

San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, a sanctuary city proponent, has defended his office’s decision to release Sanchez prior to the murder of Steinle.

 

Here’s how the story has come full circle, San Francisco progressive-style:

 

Carla Marinucci

✔ @cmarinucci

True: When Francisco Sanchez's attorney Matt Gonzalez ran for SF mayor vs @GavinNewsom in 2003, his spokesman was (Sheriff) Ross Mirkarimi

1:21 AM - 8 Jul 2015

 

You read that right.

 

According to San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, the Sheriff of San Francisco was once the spokesman for the man who is now the attorney for the confessed killer of Kathryn Steinle.

 

 

.