LatinaLista — If ever there was any doubt that undocumented immigrants would be the scapegoats of the 2008 presidential elections, there isn’t anymore.
The writing on the wall is clear for what is the scapegoat issue of the 2008 presidential election.
The proverbial “writing on the wall” has appeared, and it leaves no question that someone campaigning for votes or readers will resort to using the one term guaranteed these days to turn passive audiences into self-righteous patriots.
The first example of this theory is in a column by Cal Thomas titled “To ID, or Not to ID?”
The premise of the column argues a valid point regarding whether or not voters will be required to show proof of identification. He points out that the Supreme Court, in one of their first cases of the new year, will be deciding whether or not voters should show ID.
The columnist, known for being Conservative, cites a Washington Post frontpage story that reported how Appellate judges named by Republicans tend to favor the requirement while Appellate judges named by Democratic judges don’t.
In a subtle build-up towards his real premise for the column, Thomas talks about all the other things in society now where ID is required. He has a point.
But his point becomes null and void when in the middle of his column he interjects the new scapegoats of this election.
The Post interviewed Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. It summarized his position on the controversy this way: “Hasen does not believe that the (lower court) decisions reflect a desire to aid one political party over another, but rather a philosophical divide on the question of whether protecting the integrity of the voting process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many eligible voters as possible take part in the process.”
Come again? If potential voters are illegal aliens (or convicted felons, or do not live where they claim) without proper IDs, how can they possibly be “eligible” to vote? How is a voter registrar to determine whether someone is, in fact, eligible without some form of legitimate identification?
Before the above paragraph, there was no mention of undocumented immigrants, and why are “convicted felons” in parenthesis? Aren’t they just as likely, if not more so, to vote illegally?
And who says undocumented immigrants do knowingly vote?
A GOOGLE search on the topic reveals that the vast majority of stories of undocumented immigrants voting are perpetrated by organizations, web sites and blogs dedicated to slandering the truth about undocumented immigrants.
The few times reported that undocumented immigrants have voted were reported to have been done innocently and unknowingly because they thought they were compelled by law to vote.
Yet, Thomas makes no mention of that.
Being the former reporter that he is, he should be well-schooled in getting his facts right before submitting them along as fact with his opinion. At the least, his editors at Tribune Media should have known.
As a matter of record, we’ve seen in states like Georgia and Oklahoma that have instituted changes in showing ID to fulfill routine obligations like getting a driver’s license or applying for welfare benefits, disenfranchises fully, legal citizens because of the measures.
Though the actions were intended to root out undocumented immigrants, state government officials have gone on record saying that undocumented immigrants trying to take advantage of the system to apply for any of these things was a non-issue because they don’t. They’re too afraid of being caught.
But that fact would ruin the whole strategy that the undocumented are out to invade and bring down American society.
As that old saying goes, “History is written by the victors” â€” any way they want.
Another example appearing in the press that illustrates this theory is what the Los Angeles Times attributes to Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson:
“You are so, so right,” Thompson responded. English should be the national language, he told the retiree, and immigrants bear some of the blame for the home-loan crisis. “A lot of them couldn’t communicate with the people they were getting the mortgage from,” he said.
There are some things too stupid to waste thoughtful analysis and commentary on. This is one such example.
Suffice it to say that Thompson should return to acting in Law & Order because when it comes to the real world, instead of breaking a leg (as is the customary saying for wishing good luck to an actor before a performance), he’s just putting his foot in his mouth.