TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, passed the House with every Republican and four Democrats voting for it, while 98% of Democrats voted against it, despite 84% of Americans supporting voter ID. One argument against voter ID is that it suppresses voting among elderly, poor, and minority groups, echoing post-slavery laws. Obtaining a valid ID can cost $10-$30, and updating documents or traveling to ID offices can be inconvenient. Recently, it was revealed that Social Security numbers were given to millions of illegal immigrants, and thousands of them were found on voter rolls and had voted. While voter ID has cons, the pros outweigh them. Subsidizing IDs for low-income people and acknowledging that voting is a shared inconvenience for all citizens could be solutions. The opposition to voter ID may stem from partisan politics, but politicians should prioritize the will of the people over party loyalty.

Efforts to prevent noncitizens from voting are gaining attention, despite it being rare. Only American citizens should vote, and in Georgia, a 100% citizenship verification process revealed that about 1,600 attempted registrations could not verify citizenship and were excluded from voter rolls. A recent court case, initiated by a coalition including Stacey Abrams' New Georgia Project, upheld the right to conduct citizenship verification before adding individuals to the voter rolls. This ruling sets a precedent for other states. All officials emphasize their commitment to ensuring only U.S. citizens vote, adhering to federal laws and state regulations. It's crucial for states to enshrine this in their constitutions, as Georgia has done.

The New York City Council voted to allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections starting from January 9, 2023. Similar measures are being considered in Vermont, Maryland, Illinois, Maine, and Massachusetts. The speaker argues that this is an attempt to turn illegal immigrants into voters, citing the example of New York City. However, another speaker points out that New York and Vermont do not represent the entire country. The speaker expresses concern that allowing noncitizens to vote goes against the constitution and threatens American sovereignty. They believe that American elections should be decided by American citizens.

The claim is that 69 million married women won't be able to vote if they took their husband's name, disenfranchising voters. Voters want ID, signature verification, chain of custody controls, and updated voter rolls. They also want partisan observers watching the voting process. The only reason to be against these measures is if you want illegal aliens to vote in large numbers. Every other country requires an ID to vote. The idea that married women, a Republican voting demographic, can't get ID is a dumb talking point. The REAL ID Act creates an ID at the DMV that proves citizenship. Democrats want illegal aliens to vote. The Biden administration gave millions of illegal aliens Social Security numbers, making it easy to vote, collect welfare, and get free government benefits. They want illegals to steal elections.

It's legal for illegal aliens to vote in federal elections if they believe they are citizens, according to a provision in the US code. Concerns arise about the 2020 election's lawlessness and the upcoming 2024 election. The hope is to raise awareness and demand accountability before November to determine if citizenship is truly a state of mind.

This proposal is a serious matter. People who register and vote illegally disenfranchise actual US citizens. The speaker objects to the suggestion that their motive is to disingenuously sow fear and uncertainty about election legitimacy, calling the accusation inaccurate and lacking proof. The speaker believes there is ample reason to bring the proposal forward and expresses deep disappointment that it cannot pass. It is not too much to ask to put teeth into existing laws stating that only US citizens can vote in US elections. The House passed it, and the Senate could pass it now. It is inexcusable not to.

Voter ID laws are a vestige of post-slavery laws where Black people had to prove their right to vote, often failing due to tests or lack of appropriate ID. These laws also affect married women whose passports may differ from their birth certificates or driver's licenses. Less voter ID laws allows more people to vote, which is how most democracies operate, unlike the United States.

The speaker believes that demanding vaccine IDs while opposing voter ID laws is hypocritical. They claim the purpose of not requiring voter ID is to enable large-scale election fraud that cannot be proven, because it's impossible to prove without ID. The speaker dismisses the argument that voter ID laws are racist, calling it "insane" and "patronizing" to suggest people can't obtain identification. They argue that it's nearly impossible to live in the country without an ID, as it's required for almost everything except voting.

Mail-in ballots are problematic, and so is the lack of voter ID requirements. It's baffling that some argue against needing ID to vote, especially since IDs are required for many everyday activities, like getting a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID status, raising questions about the rationale behind it. At the Democratic National Convention, extensive identification was required for attendees, yet voting—an essential civic duty—does not have the same requirement. Many people, including Democrats, believe voter ID should be mandatory, but some politicians oppose it, possibly to facilitate cheating. Ultimately, it's hard to understand why there would be resistance to ensuring the integrity of the voting process.

We are committed to ensuring that only U.S. citizens participate in elections, and so far, there is no evidence of noncitizen voting. However, there have been instances where noncitizens voted; this year, 135 were identified as having voted, with another 400 registered but not yet voting. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean we shouldn't have measures in place to prevent it, similar to how we maintain TSA for air travel security.

Mail-in ballots pose significant issues. Voter ID requirements are also contentious, with arguments against them often lacking clarity. It's perplexing why some oppose having ID, especially since it's required for many everyday activities, like obtaining a driver's license. Recently, Gavin Newsom signed a bill prohibiting inquiries about voter ID, raising questions about the rationale behind such a decision. In contrast, organizations like the Democratic National Convention require extensive identification for their events. If ID is necessary for various transactions, why not for voting, which is crucial? Many citizens, including Democrats, support voter ID, but some politicians resist it, possibly to maintain opportunities for fraud. Ultimately, the lack of voter ID raises concerns about the integrity of elections.

Speaker 1 outlines a plan to revisit all 50 states and 'clean up voter rolls' and 'ensure as best they can that people are citizens when they're registering to vote in a federal election.' He notes letters have been sent to states under two statutes: 'Help America Vote Act' and 'NVRA, National Voter Registration Act.' States must maintain data, keep rules up to date, and have procedures for federal registrations to safeguard citizenship. He says many states are 'sloppy, cutting corners, not doing this, certainly not doing the list maintenance required,' and not properly ensuring people are on the rolls. The goal is that 'every citizen, whatever their party, whatever their views are, they should feel confident in the outcome of the election.'

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states are not requiring proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia issued an executive order to clean up voting rules. The Biden administration's Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to try to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern because everyone should want the law to be followed.

The speaker claims the Biden-Harris administration and some states are undermining election integrity, not them. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting, but states have issues. The speaker says the House passed the SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, but Chuck Schumer and the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. The speaker alleges the open border policy is a Democratic strategy to enable non-citizen voting. They estimate 16 million illegal aliens are in the country since the border was opened, raising concerns about their potential illegal participation in elections, where some races are decided by very few votes. The speaker also cites California's ballot harvesting and unmanned ballot boxes in Wisconsin as potential sources of fraud.

There are concerns about noncitizens potentially voting in elections due to lack of citizenship verification. Democrats oppose a bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Loopholes exist, allowing noncitizens to vote without consequences. Democrats are accused of exploiting this for political gain. The issue is seen as election interference and a threat to American voters. The conversation highlights the impact of illegal voting on citizens' rights.

I, of course, want to remove every non eligible voter from our voter rolls. That is not in dispute. I, of course, want to remove every non eligible voter from the voter rolls, especially those who don't support my core values. That is not in dispute.

My colleagues claim that common sense voting laws, like requiring a government ID, are racist. I have multiple government IDs, showing personal responsibility. I have a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Obtaining these IDs is not impossible, it's personal responsibility. I fought for this country as a helicopter pilot to protect free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not racist, it's American. Translation: My colleagues argue that basic voting laws, such as needing a government ID, are discriminatory. I have various government IDs, demonstrating personal responsibility. I possess a global entry card, military ID, Texas driver's license, license to carry, congressional card, and passport. Acquiring these IDs is not impossible, it's about personal responsibility. I served as a helicopter pilot to defend free and fair elections. Having a government ID is not discriminatory, it's American.

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states do not require proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order to clean up the state's voting rules. The Biden-Harris administration Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern in the minds of many Americans.

A crowd gathered at the Saint Paul Armory after the governor signed a measure making driver's licenses available broadly, described as “driver’s licenses for all,” effectively serving as a photo ID for all residents, regardless of citizenship. The discussion then centers on how these licenses interact with voting and registration processes. One speaker notes that if someone comes in with a driver’s license, they would receive a photo ID and register accordingly, even if their social security number is incorrect or missing. The concern raised is whether that person, after obtaining a driver’s license, could then cast a vote despite incomplete registration information. The dialogue explores the potential for a non-citizen who possesses a driver’s license to participate in elections. In response, another participant—referred to as the chair—addresses the procedure for handling incomplete registrations. The chair explains that the designation on the roster for someone whose registration is incomplete can be resolved if the person presents an acceptable identification document. In such a case, the challenge from the roster would be cleared, and the individual would be permitted to cast a ballot. A subsequent aside acknowledges the potential problem inherent in this approach, with a speaker named Anderson prompting clarification. The core question remains: could a person who is not a citizen, but who presents a driver’s license at the voting point, be permitted to vote? The chair provides a definitive statement regarding eligibility: at both the time of registration and at the time of submitting a ballot, every voter signs an attestation affirming their eligibility to vote, including that they meet all eligibility requirements that they are a US citizen. This underscores the requirement that, despite the availability of driver’s licenses to a broad population, the attestation of citizenship remains a binding condition for voting. The exchange highlights a tension between broad ID access and the constitutional requirement of citizenship for voting, with the chair reiterating that citizenship is required to vote, even if driver’s licenses are issued more inclusively.

The Senator believes the Save Act, requiring proof of citizenship for federal election voting, must come up for a vote in the House and Senate, ideally attached to the next spending bill in September. He claims 3 out of 4 Americans agree only US citizens should vote in federal elections and should prove citizenship when registering, similar to the I-9 form for new jobs. The Senator hopes Mike Johnson will attach the Save Act to a continuing resolution to highlight the contrast between parties. He questions whether Chuck Schumer would risk a government shutdown to allow non-citizens, including 10 million illegal immigrants, to potentially influence the election outcome.

The speakers claim that noncitizens could sway elections if even a small percentage voted, alleging it's easy for them to register. They say there are no federal requirements for states to verify citizenship before voter registration. A proposed Republican bill to mandate proof of citizenship is expected to fail in the Senate. They cite Title 18 US Code 611, stating noncitizens can vote in federal elections if they reasonably believed they were citizens. They suggest that migrants granted asylum could claim they thought they could vote, avoiding penalties. They claim states like New York allow voter registration without ID or a Social Security number, only requiring a utility bill or similar document. One speaker alleges Democrats are working to conceal the number of illegal votes cast. They argue that providing noncitizens with benefits and pressuring them to register to vote is a deliberate strategy to gain illegal votes. They suggest a scenario where Chinese nationals could register and vote for Biden to avoid Trump's tariffs, calling it election interference. They conclude that illegal votes disenfranchise citizens and that Democrats prefer noncitizens over US citizens.

The speaker states that there is no dispute: the conduct of our elections, the way government comes into power, is a national security issue, and the security of our elections is incredibly important. The speaker says they are comforted as a citizen and as someone at the Department of Justice by the fact that national security eyes are on this, as well as criminal and civil rights review. They add that, at the end of the day, as a voter themselves and someone involved in politics before taking the job, they like every citizen to vote. They note that a lot of people don’t vote, don’t have confidence, and don’t care. It is important that people have confidence in, accept the outcome of the elections, and also be more likely to vote. The speaker concludes that this is a very good thing, whoever they’re voting for.

In California and New York, it is illegal to ask for or show ID when people vote. According to the speakers, there is no logical reason for this law other than to facilitate election fraud. To commit fraud, one would eliminate the need for ID and allow mail-in ballots.

Some believe that many millennials, dreamers, and undocumented people, who contribute to the country, are fearful of voting because they worry immigration will find them and deport their families. One speaker claims that this is untrue because voting is confidential and voting rolls are not transferred for investigation. Another speaker expresses disbelief, stating that the President is questioning whether an illegal person is voting, and reminding people that only citizens can vote. The speaker believes the President is saying not to worry about being caught for illegal voting. The speaker emphasizes that undocumented people cannot vote because they are not citizens.

The speaker expresses shock at the idea of allowing people to vote without an ID. They mention that some people believe all Indians and Chinese look alike, making it difficult to identify individuals. They argue that anyone could show up and vote, even pretending to be someone else. The speaker believes that having an ID should be a basic requirement for voting and suggests that everyone should be required to provide identification.