Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Please feel free to provide evidence that what I wrote is factually wrong. I'm sure there is plenty of opinion baked in, but where was I wrong on the facts?

You are conflating the real issue. 

The issue before us today, the hot topic of our time, the reason for all the political energy is this, and only this:

Should voting rights be reserved for US citizens, or extended to others who reside here, legally or otherwise. 

On one side you have folks who feel strongly one way, and on the other side folks feel strongly the other way.  Those groups happen to correlate strongly to political parties. 
So, why does one side want to allow non citizens to vote?  Why those who want it to be for US Citizens is obvious. 

To then throw the debate over to voter ID laws is disingenuous.  It’s the default argument for those who want to allow non citizens to vote- so they don’t have to defend their position- which is indefensible. 

And- it is a super weak argument anyway. 
People of age have a right to vote/ of course. Those same people have aright to purchase a gun, or a bottle of bourbon, or a plane ticket. They can’t without an ID.  An ID- in the context of this conversation, is a simple way- the only way really- to prove you are a citizen. 

Have you actually researched it? I'm going to rely on the historical record easily backing me up on this. For starters: https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/ten-voting-rights-cases-that-shaped-history/

Those are just a handful of Supreme Court cases.
And I added that disclosure because I want to show that I'm not blind to the politics of it. Presumably you agree that, regardless of who they will vote for, American citizens should not be denied the right to vote because they are poor.
What's your basis for claiming that "illegitimate voters favor Democrats?" I know people make that claim in the media, but I have yet to see any legitimate research that supports it. If you know of some, please share.

 @Honestbuckeye covered it.  

The argument against requiring ID is so ridiculously weak that it is and can only possibly be cover for the real motivation.  

I also do not trust the State of California AT ALL to let non-citizens vote in local elections but then prevent them from voting in federal elections.  Fortunately, the Electoral College eliminates that problem.  I really don't care how many non-citizens vote in California elections because California still only gets 54 EV's and I can reasonably assume that they would go to the Democrat even if every last vote was legitimate.  

Providing evidence of illegal activity is inherently difficult because the activity is illegal and thus those who engage in it do their best NOT to leave a record.  That said, Chicago has LONG been known for illegal voting.  The joke in Chicago is that "Grandpa voted Republican his whole life but ever since he died he's been voting Democratic".  

It is mostly a Democratic endeavor for simple reasons that explain most crimes, motive and opportunity.  Democratic motives are higher than Republican ones because Democrats claim that Republicans are "Literally Hitler" and obviously any moral person would be willing to break minor election laws to stop "Literally Hitler".  

Leaving aside the motivation issue, Democrats have a lot more opportunity because nearly all of the Country's big cities are politically controlled by Big City Democratic Political Machines and there is nearly zero opposition in power.  

Only recently has this started to be mirrored by an increasing lack of opposition in power in Republican areas outside of the Big Cities.  As working class whites have increasingly found themselves abandoned by the Democrats, there just aren't many Democratic voters in Republican areas anymore.  Over time this will increase opportunity for Republicans but for now opportunity still favors Democrats.  

There is also a volume issue.  Even if a Republican elections official in a small suburban County has an easy and untraceable opportunity to cheat for her side, she knows that she simply can't cheat all that much.  There are limits numerically to any vote-fraud scheme before it becomes manifestly obvious.  In a small Suburban County this means that any cheating done will have only a negligible impact on statewide elections which further erodes the motivation.  

The underlying situation is different if you are a Big (Corrupt) Democratic Machine Political operative in a Blue City in a Purple State (Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philly, etc).  

I work with two Venezuelans.  Talk about not wanting to see the same shit here, they dealt with there.  They are as MAGA as it gets.

That's what I sense when talking to Latinos here. We have a good number of South Americans in Florida - and much more on the East Coast as @Mdot21 and @Honestbuckeye can probably attest to.

Agreed.   They don’t want open borders and they want criminal illegals removed.  

Man, everyone always gets excited about stem, but we open this board up, and the rhetoric majors showed off their skills.

Your disagreement doesn't make the statement untrue.   

I had Death Penalty Law taught by a pro-crime idiot so I've heard the arguments.  

https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1915459109497036953
[img width=365.994 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/2KETXgR.png[/img]

This is THE issue.  

I said when Trump started running that I thought he'd win because of THIS issue and it is THE reason that he won twice and came close a third time.  

The Republican rank and file has been strongly anti-immigration for a LONG time but the donor class is strongly pro-illegals and the politicians followed the will of their donors rather than the will of their voters.  Trump forced the issue and now Republicans are pretty uniformly anti-illegal at least in pubic but a lot of them have to be watched closely because they'll turn on their voters for a buck from their donors if given the chance.   

The Democratic side of this is more interesting.  The rank and file even among Democrats is anti-illegal but less strongly than Republicans.  The leadership sees it as a donor bonanza AND a great long-term strategy because the illegals' kids will eventually be Democratic voters.  Even if Hispanics continue to trend a bit more R, for now at least that only closes the gap, Democrats still win.  

This is all from the WaPo article that I linked earlier:

"In Texas, Kennedy's 46,000-vote margin was the closest statewide race there since 1948, when Kennedy's running mate, Lyndon B. Johnson, won a Senate seat by 87 votes (the origin of the nickname "Landslide Lyndon"). Morton's operatives, aided by local Republicans, uncovered plenty of political chicanery. For instance: In Fannin County, which had 4,895 registered voters, 6,138 votes were cast, three-quarters of them for Kennedy. In one precinct of Angelia County, 86 people voted and the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.

On and on it went. The Republicans demanded a recount, claiming that it would give them 100,000 votes and victory. John Connally, the state Democratic chairman, said the Republicans were just "haggling for headlines" and predicted that a recount would give Kennedy another 50,000 votes.
But there was no recount. The Texas Election Board, composed entirely of Democrats, had already certified Kennedy as the winner.

In Chicago, where Kennedy won by more than 450,000 votes, local reporters uncovered so many stories of electoral shenanigans--including voting by the dead--that the Chicago Tribune concluded that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory."

A new biography, "American Pharaoh," quotes Mayor Daley defending his city by claiming that Democratic fraud in Chicago was no worse than Republican fraud in downstate Illinois:
"You look at some of those downstate counties," he said, "and it's just as fantastic as some of those precincts they're pointing at in Chicago."

Robert Kennedy, his brother's campaign manager, shrugged off the whole controversy: "A tempest in a teapot."

A Republican National Committee member filed suit to challenge the Chicago results. The case was assigned to Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kluczynski, a Daley machine loyalist.
On Dec. 13, Kluczynski dismissed the Republican suit. Less than a year later, on Mayor Daley's recommendation, Kennedy appointed Kluczynski to the federal bench.

Ultimately, a special prosecutor, Morris Wexler, was appointed to investigate the Chicago fraud allegations. Wexler brought charges against 650 election officials but a Democratic judge's pro-defense rulings crippled Wexler's case and the charges were dropped.

Finally, in 1962, after an election judge confessed to witnessing vote tampering in Chicago's 28th ward, three precinct workers pled guilty and served short jail terms."


Note that Daley didn't even bother to claim that fraud didn't happen, he simply claimed without any evidence that the other side did it too.  Also note that Chicago's votes got reported later and that this was because Daley's corrupt machine waited until the other votes were in so that they'd know exactly how many votes they needed to manufacture.  

The corrupt Judge who got the thieves off got a cushy Federal Bench appointment.  

Three low level members of Daley's Corrupt Democratic Machine served short jail terms then probably had their choice of cushy appointments once they got released.  

There has always been vote fraud and the bulk of it happens in Corrupt Democratic Big Cities, always has, always will.  Later in the article a reporter who actually looked into it did find some instances in Republican areas downstate in Illinois but not nearly enough to overcome "a cemetery where the names on the tombstones were registered and voted . . . or a gutted and empty house where "there were 56 votes for Kennedy in that house."