- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mitch McConnell today regarding SAVE Act
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:35 am to TBoy
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:35 am to TBoy
quote:
millions of Americans do not have, when it is entirely unnecessary.
Actual Americans can obtain those documents in about 10 minutes online, and it is in fact necessary because there are millions of people who poured in under Biden that aren't Americans
1
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:35 am to andoman
quote:
Citizenship documentation would be required to register to vote, those already registered would only need ID to vote.
This. You need a birth certificate to register to vote and only a state issued ID to vote.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:38 am to TBoy
quote:
The answer is that millions of us do not have passports. Millions of us do not have original birth certificates. And millions more use a last name that is different than their birth certificate. The SAVE Act blocks those millions from voting.
Lmao you can acquire and fix all of these things pretty quickly on the damn internet.
Democrats just want to cheat, period. Sorry if 100% of Americans want legitimate voting.
frick off.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 9:40 am to Corso
quote:
Actual Americans can obtain those documents in about 10 minutes online,
Then issue those documents for free to all citizens.
The fact is that it isn't as easy as you represent. Do you even know the procedure for obtaining a new birth certificate for a woman who has married and taken her husband's name? Or a woman who is recently divorced and has gone back to her maiden name? Is it 10 minutes on the internet?
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:13 am to TBoy
quote:
We already require ID to register to vote.
- And there are 19 states in our union that issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. If the idea is to prevent non-citizens from voting, as it is a requirement to be a US citizen to vote,( USA.gov) an ID doesn't prove that you have a constitutional right to vote.
quote:
The federal government already has a cross check database that shows whether someone is a citizen. It has been in place and operational for more than twenty years.
- False. A simple chatgpt search was all it took.
quote:
The statement is not accurate as written — the federal government does not currently have a long-standing “cross-check database” that shows whether any person is a U.S. citizen and has been operational for more than twenty years. Bottom line;The government has long had systems (like SAVE and others) that can verify some immigration/citizenship information by querying underlying records.
But it has not historically operated a single “cross-check” database that explicitly shows whether every individual is a U.S. citizen for all purposes, and this has not been in place and operational for decades.
quote:
Why do republicans estimate that the SAVE Act would deny more than 20 million American citizens the right to vote?
-Do you have supporting evidence for this claim? Everything I have found regarding that 20 million number you cite have come from critics of the bill, not from republican lawmakers.
quote:
The answer is that millions of us do not have passports. Millions of us do not have original birth certificates. And millions more use a last name that is different than their birth certificate. The SAVE Act blocks those millions from voting.
-This is a nice slippery slope and false cause fallacy combo. You're taking the worst case scenario and applying it universally. Just because someone lacks the documents at this point in time does not automatically mean they will lack those documents in the future, thus creating a false dilemma relative to their inability to cast a vote. You're effectively making the same logical argument that because someone has the flu today and cannot attend school, that means they will be blocked from getting an education entirely.
quote:
This has nothing to do with a simple identification. This is about requiring a specific kind of identification that millions of Americans do not have, when it is entirely unnecessary.
-One could make an argument that if the prior administration had not allowed open borders and million to enter the country illegally, these measures may not be needed. You're yelling at the janitor from cleaning up the mess that you left on the hallway floor.
You can try again if you'd like but your arguments were incredibly easy to dismantle.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 10:15 am
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:18 am to antman123
Mental competency tests would be a place to start.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:44 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
The federal government already has a cross check database that shows whether someone is a citizen. It has been in place and operational for more than twenty years.
- False. A simple chatgpt search was all it took.
Your chatgpt prompt was obviously off the mark. This is a simple google search result:
quote:
Yes, the federal government uses the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to check citizenship and immigration status. It is used by authorized government agencies to verify eligibility for benefits, licenses, and recently, to verify voter registration.
Following the 1986 legislation that authorized the database, the program began providing verification services in 1987. So I was wrong. The citizenship verification program has been in existence for 29 years, going on 30 years, not 20.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 10:52 am
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:48 am to Victor R Franko
quote:
How can you get to your 60s and still want to spend what time you have left working in politics? Seems like you'd have enough money
Most of them are trying to keep from going to prison - money not worth much behind bars.
I truly believe that fully 2/3 of congress is "on the take" for something -
We NEED term limits - and a clamp down on what extracurricular activities they can engage in.
Make it be a BURDEN to be a congress critter = if they are not allowed to increase their wealth in any fashion while there. Make it a "service to the country" as the ONLY motivation to do it.
Like the original founding fathers
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:48 am to cajuntiger1010
Absolute disgrace to the REP party!
Posted on 2/27/26 at 10:58 am to ninthward
quote:
I hate him as much as I hate Pelosi
I hate him more than I hate Pelosi. At Pelosi doesn't hide what a POS she is. Cocaine Mitch tries to piss down our back and tell us it's raining.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 11:58 am to TBoy
quote:I guarantee you IF the government decided to hand every US citizen $5,000 in cash and a citizen had to do was meet the identification requirements the SAVE Act requires to voter registration, people would miraculously find those lost and misplaced birth certificates, marriage licenses, etc.
Why do republicans estimate that the SAVE Act would deny more than 20 million American citizens the right to vote?
The answer is that millions of us do not have passports. Millions of us do not have original birth certificates. And millions more use a last name that is different than their birth certificate. The SAVE Act blocks those millions from voting.
IF the government cut off all financial aid, SNAP, Welfare, Medicaid, WIC, etc. until recipients produced the identification requirements in the SAVE Act, people would immediately find a way to retrieve their forms of identification.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 12:00 pm to TBoy
quote:
Your chatgpt prompt was obviously off the mark. This is a simple google search result:
Okay, let's see whatcha got.
quote:
Yes, the federal government uses the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to check citizenship and immigration status. It is used by authorized government agencies to verify eligibility for benefits, licenses, and recently, to verify voter registration.
You're omitting key information about the SAVE program and what it actually does to misrepresent my argument. You're attempting to use the SAVE program as evidence that calls for additional verification of citizenship is redundant and unneccesary since we already verify these people through the program. While you are correct that the program does do all the things you listed, you conveniently left out the fact that those verfications are targeted and not administered in a blanket manner. It only works through vetting the applications to the program from interested immigrants, so you tell me, how does the SAVE program verify the status of people who do not first submit an application?
If you're attempting to use the SAVE program as justification as to why we don't need further measures to verify the status of tens of millions of illegal aliens, it's ignorant at best and outright dishonest at worst to present it as a blanket verification measure.
quote:
Following the 1986 legislation that authorized the database, the program began providing verification services in 1987. So I was wrong. The citizenship verification program has been in existence for 29 years, going on 30 years, not 20.
It's irrelevant to the argument if the program is 1000 years old or 1 day old. Your claim was that the government has means to verify the citizenship of millions of illegal immigrants and tried to use SAVE as evidence. Your argument doesn't hold water.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 2/27/26 at 12:11 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
While you are correct that the program does do all the things you listed, you conveniently left out the fact that those verfications are targeted and not administered in a blanket manner.
If that is true, it should be easy enough to change. How about a law that requires all voter registration authorities to run all registered voters against the database? Any registrations that are flagged can be subject to a requirement of additional information. That would ensure that voters are citizens without imposing extra costs on citizens.
No problem with that.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 12:30 pm to TBoy
quote:
If that is true, it should be easy enough to change. How about a law that requires all voter registration authorities to run all registered voters against the database? Any registrations that are flagged can be subject to a requirement of additional information. That would ensure that voters are citizens without imposing extra costs on citizens.
On the surface that could work but when you dig into the nuance, it could present some challenges.
- If you're concerned about the SAVE act taking too much time and thus limiting the voting access of Americans, the time it would take to run every citizen for verification through the SAVE program would likely be quite expensive and time consuming. This could be a big issue particularly if the verification is done close to an election, some may not have their verification done on time.
- Once flagged, there would need to be certain measures to allow flagged persons to prove they actually do belong on the voter rolls. Those measures would likely be some of the same documentation requirements that people are fighting against with the SAVE Act so it basically arrives back at the debate point we have today.
- Apparently, not all voter registration authorities have access to the SAVE program, which would take new federal rules to rectify.
In a nutshell it basically comes to the idea of when do you want voter verification to occur? The SAVE Act is pushing to do the verification on the front end with registration being the point in which documentation is required. Is that better and more efficient than having to go back and verify potentially incomplete or inaccurate voter rolls and then purge them of the ones that dont belong?
I would imagine it would be a more efficient and financially tenable process to go Save ACT and verify once to register and then you are set moving forward as opposed to having to go back and essentially re-approve your entire voter rolls and then make arrangements for false positive citizens to reinstate their status as citizens for voting purposes, especially considering to reestablish themselves, they'd have to likely present a combination of the documents the SAVE Act is requiring in the first place.
I am encouraged to see that you're not completely opposed to any form of voter verification at all though.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 2/27/26 at 12:38 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
I am encouraged to see that you're not completely opposed to any form of voter verification at all though.
Thank you for noticing.
But what it extremely clear is that the SAVE Act is being pushed at this moment to try to restrict new voters for the midterm elections coming up this cycle. They aren’t attempting to conceal that this law is designed to make it more onerous for individual American citizens to register and vote now, when there are already means available today to ensure the security of the system.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 12:40 pm to biglego
quote:
Whose vote is being suppressed?
The fraudulent ones
Posted on 2/27/26 at 12:53 pm to TBoy
quote:
But what it extremely clear is that the SAVE Act is being pushed at this moment to try to restrict new voters for the midterm elections coming up this cycle. They aren’t attempting to conceal that this law is designed to make it more onerous for individual American citizens to register and vote now, when there are already means available today to ensure the security of the system.
I just don’t agree. Can you provide evidence for any of the claims you made because all of that just seems like a lot of your opinion. Is it at least possible that our elections and election systems aren’t as secure as you maybe previously thought?
Are you willing to consider that maybe the administration truly is interested in securing the elections so that authentic American votes aren’t negated by illegal votes? Logically there is no difference between stripping a person of their rights to vote and allowing illegal votes to be cast. In either case, the sacred voice of the American voter is being suppressed. I think Americans deserve to have their voices heard in secure elections.
This post was edited on 2/27/26 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 2/27/26 at 1:02 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
I just don’t agree.
That’s ok with me. I wouldn’t expect to change your mind.
Just consider something briefly mentioned in another thread, why do you think that the SAVE Act is being held up by republicans? My best guess is that Republican leadership wants every vote it can get in the next cycle and they know that rural voters are the most likely to not have passports or certified birth certificates. The SAVE Act may block more rural republicans than urban democrats.
Other factions of republicans simply assume the opposite.
Posted on 2/27/26 at 1:12 pm to cajuntiger1010
Kentucky gonna Kentucky...
Posted on 2/27/26 at 1:13 pm to antman123
quote:
term limits for congress is probably the most important issue that no one really talks about enough, and it probably will never happen sadly
It's actually campaign finance reform. That's what entices the swamp creatures.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News