What prevents illegal immigrants from voting?

February 22, 2006 2:53 PM

What prevents illegal immigrants from voting? Assuming illegal voting occurs how do you feel about it (looking for opinions from all sides)?

I have thought about this question for a while as I realized in my own local elections just how little identification was required.

Given we have a federal election in two years I am concerned about the impact of election outcomes with illegal votes (whether it be illegal immigrants or legal immigrants).

For those that are curious I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I will say that if it is happening I can't say I am a supporter of it. This question has been bugging me for a while so I am seeking the wisdom of MeFites.

For my state, all that is required is one of the following for voting day registration. I know many states have similar requirements:

* Minnesota driver’s license, learner’s permit, identification card, or receipt for one, with your current address
* Tribal ID**
* If the Minnesota license, Tribal ID or MN State ID has a former address, you may bring a recent utility bill* to use with your license
* “Notice of Late Registration” postcard
* U.S. passport with utility bill*
* U.S. military photo ID card with utility bill*
* Prior registration listed on roster at former address in precinct
* Oath of a registered voter in precinct ("vouching")
* If you are a student, you can use...
o Student ID, registration, or fee statement with your current address
o Student photo ID with utility bill*
o Student ID if you are on a student housing list on file at the polling place
o Someone who is registered in the precinct where you live who will vouch for your residence

posted by gnash to Law & Government (50 answers total)

nothing. but you knew that already. . .
posted by tiamat at 2:56 PM on February 22, 2006

in most places, you have to actually be registered to vote, and the identification required is to verify that you're on the rolls as a registered voter. So having the ID only gets you as far as them checking the list. Getting on the registered voters' list is a little tougher.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:07 PM on February 22, 2006

Yes, what JekPorkins said. You need ID, and your name needs to be on the voter rolls.

Where I live, if you can't prove your identity and registration to vote, your ballot is treated as "provisional" and will be subject to additional verification before it's tallied.
posted by mbrubeck at 3:20 PM on February 22, 2006

JekPorkins: note that the ID requirements gnash outlines are for registration, not just matching you to an already-registered name. Although Indiana does not have same-day registration (you must register at least 30 days in advance of the election) the identification requirements for Indiana registration are about the same as Minnesota's. (Ooh, there's a question which asks whether you're a US citizen. Good thing everyone is truthful when filling that out.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:22 PM on February 22, 2006

I just noticed that you're talking about "voting day registration," so the comments about voter rolls don't apply. (WA state requires registration a minimum of 15 days before the election; no registration on election day.)
posted by mbrubeck at 3:23 PM on February 22, 2006

Apathy?
posted by designbot at 3:24 PM on February 22, 2006

Most states don't have same-day registration, and I would imagine that states with bigger Migrant worker populations have more stringent requirements.

In order to get a drivers license you probably need to show a valid social security card, or a passport, or something.

Anyway, as Illegal immigrants probably mostly vote democratic if they do vote, I'm not too worried about it.
posted by delmoi at 3:25 PM on February 22, 2006

Well it's basically the same thing that keeps you from making up an new identity and voting twice.

Think about how difficult that would be, and that's how hard it would be for non-citizens (wether they are here legally or not) to vote.
posted by delmoi at 3:27 PM on February 22, 2006

Anyway, as Illegal immigrants probably mostly vote democratic if they do vote, I'm not too worried about it.

Um . . . illegal activity is ok if it helps a cause I like?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:28 PM on February 22, 2006

"I'm not too worried about it" is not synonymous with "I think it's OK."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:33 PM on February 22, 2006

Hence the question mark.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:33 PM on February 22, 2006

If you're illegal, its easy enough to get fake ID card and thus probably get registered as a voter. But why they would do this is the question. Its hard enough getting legal voters to vote; with illegal voters its just not happening.

Also, illegal immigrants are probably trying to stay "off the map" and getting on voter rolls and possibly summoned for jury duty does not fit in with this strategy.
posted by vacapinta at 3:38 PM on February 22, 2006

What prevents illegal immigrants from voting?

Not wanting to draw attention to themselves/general fear of beauracracy.


In order to get a drivers license you probably need to show a valid social security card, or a passport, or something.

These days it's tougher, but most illegals already here already have a licence.
posted by jamesonandwater at 3:47 PM on February 22, 2006

I wish it were easier for undocumented immigrants to vote.

Voting rights should be universal, and people should be able to vote where they live. If elected officials are making laws that affect your life, you should have a say in who those elected officials are. Do people not agree with that? 'No taxation without representation' seems pretty basic to me.

Secondly, do you really think this is a big problem? That undocumented immigrants who live in constant fear of being forcibly separated from their families are lining up to tell the government where they live in exchange for 0.0000008 percent input into a decision over which president's justice department is going to try to deport them?

Is this really on your list of issues to worry about, while other Americans don't have the right to elected representation? Like Washington DC residents, ex-felons who've served their time, New Orleans residents displaced by Katrina, and legal immigrants?
posted by crabintheocean at 4:03 PM on February 22, 2006

crabintheocean hits the nail on the head in regards to legal immigrants. If you live in the country and pay the taxes then why shouldn't you have a say in how things in that country are governed? I'm a permanent resident alien (woot! i'm an alien!) in the US and i never fail to see the funny side behind the "no taxation without representation" mantra.
posted by schwa at 4:14 PM on February 22, 2006

To answer the question:
Nothing but trust, really. It's not that difficult to get the vote if you really want it.
As far as how I feel about it, I think it shouldn't be allowed, but there are much bigger things to worry about in the voting process (dead people voting, people voting twice, etc) before bothering with the fairly small number of illegal immigrants who manage to vote.

Schwa: Citizenship is fairly easy to achieve once you've gotten permanent residency, once you do that, you can vote all you like.
posted by madajb at 4:25 PM on February 22, 2006

See this Article in today's Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2136776/

Here's my quick summary: There is no major problem voting fraud problem, and requiring ID is often a Republican tactic to reduce the number of poorer (and thus likely Democratic) voters. There is a problem with voter registration fraud, mostly with people paid per voter registration they receive.
posted by ShooBoo at 4:35 PM on February 22, 2006

Best answer: Here in CT, not much (and the same applies for legal immigrants.) You check a box on the form affirming that you're a citizen and sign an oath at the bottom. Technically you could be prosecuted for perjury, but I'd be surprised if they ever follow up on it.

How do I feel about it? Conflicted, but tending towards the opinion that the right to vote is one of the benefits of citizenship.
posted by Opposite George at 4:40 PM on February 22, 2006

I was just thinking... we all hear about how voter turn-out is low, but those percentages are certainly calculated based on the # of people eligible to vote and # who actually do.

But if people twho aren't eligable to vote are voting, then the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote must be even lower than reported, at least by a little bit.

As for my feelings - I guess I figure if you're living in a country and planning to stay living there, you should vote for the country's leadership even if you're not a citizen. But in a perfect world, I think only citizens should vote, and be required to vote as well. If you don't care enough about a country's leadership to vote for it, maybe you shouldn't be a citizen of that country.
posted by chudmonkey at 5:12 PM on February 22, 2006

I live in Canada. The brother and mother of someone I knew well both used to vote illegally. They were legally in Canada, but they were not citizens. They knew that they weren't allowed to vote, but they voted anyway. It still bothers me to this day. They had been in the country 25 years and weren't willing to become citizens or accept the responsibilities of citizenship, but they were willing to break the law to gain the privilege of citizenship. However, I don't know what could be done about it. All they need to show is their driver's licenses, which don't say a thing about citizenship.
posted by acoutu at 5:14 PM on February 22, 2006

I wish it were easier for undocumented immigrants to vote. … 'No taxation without representation' seems pretty basic to me.

Undocumented immigrants don't pay income tax.
posted by designbot at 5:14 PM on February 22, 2006

People should be able to vote where they live. National boundaries are arbitrary imaginary lines drawn to escape the natural moral responsibility and beneficience one feels towards one's fellow humans.
posted by ontic at 5:16 PM on February 22, 2006

People should be able to vote where they live.

Then should they not be able to vote in their country of citizenship if they're living abroad? Or maybe everyone in the world should be allowed to vote in every country's elections. U.S. policy has arguably as great an effect on many foriegn nations as those nations' own policies do, so perhaps everyone in Europe, for example, should also be allowed to vote in U.S. elections, and vice versa.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:46 PM on February 22, 2006

Round here you at least have to say the name of someone registered to vote, whereupon they cross you off the list, generally because they know you since you were five and now they're somewhat proud you are a man. Registering to vote requires a birth certificate and a power bill, or two pieces along those lines.
posted by sled at 6:07 PM on February 22, 2006

"Undocumented immigrants don't pay income tax."

1. Undocumented workers usually aren't paid well enough to owe income tax even if they filed for it.

2. Neither do unemployed and some working poor U.S. citizens. And the obscenely rich don't carry their fair share of the tax burden. Shall we take their votes away too?

3. Undocumented workers pay other taxes, like sales tax (which disproportionately burdens the poor). The argument stands.

3.1 Even if were true that undocumented immigrants paid no taxes at all, value is extracted from them by other means as well -- as they are often exploited for below-minimum-wage labor, which takes money the worker should be getting and puts it in the pockets of the ruling class by way of selective enforcement of laws geared to benefit employers -- laws that the undocumented worker has no say in.

We can get there the short way or the long way, the outcome is the same.

You do realize, right, that you're sitting around pontificating about people who have it 3,983,243 times worse than you, arguing that it should be 3,983,244 times worse? How does that feel?
posted by crabintheocean at 6:47 PM on February 22, 2006

And it's provably false that undocumented workers don't pay income tax. As many as half are "on the books" and make paycheck deductions just like any other worker. You didn't think they were all day-laborers did you?
posted by crabintheocean at 6:55 PM on February 22, 2006

The list of people who have cast ballots is open to scrutiny by representatives of the candidates, among other interested parties.
posted by winston at 7:07 PM on February 22, 2006

We're not illegal immigrants, but I know at least five people (myself included) who could have voted twice each in the last November election.

Two of my brothers (now 24 and 21) and I (28) all registered to vote in Virginia and cast our first ballots there when we were 18. I left the state in 2001 and registered to vote in Oregon, then to vote in Washington in 2004. My 24-year-old brother left in 2002, and registered to vote in New York. My 21-year-old brother left the state in 2003, and registered to vote in Ohio.

We all voted in our new states in the presidential election and then those of us with state races voted again in November 2005. When my parents took my 18-year-old brother to vote for the first time last year, the poll worker asked if the other three Supafreaks would be coming in later. Our non-resident names were still on the ballot.

Meanwhile, a colleague and his wife moved from one county in Washington to another -- both vote-by-mail counties. They each received mail ballots for both counties, and could have cast four votes for covernor as two people (though they did not).

The idea that it's too easy to vote in the U.S. is not one that I agree with.

As to this:
In order to get a drivers license you probably need to
show a valid social security card, or a passport, or something.

When I got my driver's license in Oregon, all I needed was a Virginia license and a bill with my home address on it. When I registered in Washington, all I needed was an Oregon license and my signature promising that I really do live where I say I live.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 9:24 PM on February 22, 2006

Where "covernor" = "governor." Only, der, the governor wasn't on the ballot this November. But you get the idea.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 9:25 PM on February 22, 2006

I would be more concerned about organized vote fraud.
posted by trevyn at 9:49 PM on February 22, 2006

Who worries about this? Like there's suddenly going to be a run on ballots, and those damned immigrants are gonna make us do all our government business in Urdu. Welfare fraud has a much larger impact, and even that is fairly negligible.
posted by klangklangston at 11:56 PM on February 22, 2006

Welfare? What welfare?

Who worries about welfare fraud when we've got this awesome war, AND we can pay off Halliburton under the table, and we still have cash left over to send people to Mars!?
posted by crabintheocean at 4:28 AM on February 23, 2006

Most illegals don't want to take the chance to vote because it is illegal and they want to keep a low profile. Getting on the voter rolls means providing identification with an address. Sure they can get around that providing a fake address but there is always the chance that the INS will find them. Most cannot take that risk. I'm guessing that as voter fraud goes, this is the least problematic.
posted by JJ86 at 6:46 AM on February 23, 2006

Also just to open the question a little wider in answer to designbot's comments on income tax. My girlfriend and many others I know are legal immigrants and do pay income taxes, social security, medicare, and sales taxes. She has as much in stake as anyone about the politicians that are elected and is basically a permanent resident of the US as much as any citizen for the past 8 years. But she can't vote. She can't voice her opinions on the country's direction even though this is her sole residence. It seems that taxation should be the basis for the ability to vote. After all this was one of the sticking points leading to the revolution.
posted by JJ86 at 7:03 AM on February 23, 2006

She has as much in stake as anyone about the politicians that are elected and is basically a permanent resident of the US as much as any citizen for the past 8 years. But she can't vote.

She can't vote anywhere, or she can't vote in the U.S.? If she can still vote in her country of citizenship, why should she also be allowed to vote in the U.S. without giving up her right to vote abroad?
posted by JekPorkins at 8:39 AM on February 23, 2006

JekPorkins, I think she can still vote back home, but that wasn't the point. She has more of a stake in things here because this has been her home for the past 8 years, not the country to which she has citizenship. It is the same for many foreigners that are living here. Their kids go to school here, they rarely go abroad, they have no foreign address, but they are stuck in the netherland of waiting for citizenship in the US. That process takes a long time in most cases.
posted by JJ86 at 9:51 AM on February 23, 2006

Response by poster: Good answers from everyone on this, and some points made to make me think.

Regarding legal immigrants empowered to vote - I hadn't given it consideration before, but the argument does have some merit.

Regarding worrying about organized voter fraud, I guess that is actually what I am worried about, and precisely why I asked the question. For instance, voting on any serious bills put forward to deal with illegal immigrants could be influenced by illegal immigrant population.

Assuming it is happening, a politician who has won a seat by a small percent margin that has a significant immigrant (illegal and otherwise) population percentage within their state would consider this.

If you were an illegal immigrant, and you knew that candidate X was for removing/detaining/preventing illegal immigration and to vote against him/her all you needed was a license, you can bet that it happens. You can also bet it is organized.

In closing, I didn't know the answer to what steps are taken to prevent immigrant voter fraud, and it seems that little is done.

In truth I am less concerned about legal immigrant voter fraud v. illegal immigrant voter fraud as a legal immigrant is here, well, legally.
posted by gnash at 10:38 AM on February 23, 2006

Response by poster: An additional note, to clarify I did read people's views of what prevented people from voting illegally.

I don't have a lot of confidence in the voting verification system (double votes, dead people votes - also used for fake SSN#, etc.).

Illegal border crossing is so common now it is hardly brazen. Given that other government services are consumed by non-citizens unquestioned I am not sure there really is much concern about voting illegally. Especially when a vote can simply be cast by someone "vouching" for me...
posted by gnash at 10:47 AM on February 23, 2006

This April 2005 NYTimes article seems relevant. The money quote:

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.
posted by WestCoaster at 11:15 AM on February 23, 2006

A $2,450 per year fine as a penalty for illegally entering and working in a country isn't what I'd call unfair (and if it were unfair, economics would suggest that it would deter illegal immigration). Evidently, the penalty is not high enough to deter violations.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:24 AM on February 23, 2006

Not all types of illegal voting are acceptable (e.g. more than one vote per person), but I tend to think that any person subject to the laws of a jurisdiction ought to have input and/or control over those laws. An illegal immigrant voting in the discrict where he or she lives is probably the least eggregious form of voting fraud I can think of, certainly less than a citizen voting in the wrong district on purpose.
posted by onshi at 12:23 PM on February 23, 2006

any person subject to the laws of a jurisdiction ought to have input and/or control over those laws.

certainly less than a citizen voting in the wrong district on purpose.

But a citizen voting in the wrong district on purpose is subject to the laws of that wrong district . . . .

And if I go on vacation in France, I'm subject to the laws of France. Should I get to vote there if there's an election while I'm on vacation (or prior to my vacation, so that my vote will affect the laws that apply to my vacation)?
posted by JekPorkins at 2:09 PM on February 23, 2006

You're just going to beat the dust out of that straw man until someone responds, aren't you, Porkins?
posted by crabintheocean at 2:36 PM on February 23, 2006

I don't think that word "straw man" means what you think it means.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:45 PM on February 23, 2006

No, it doesn't. What he meant was "wrong-headed xenophobic pedentry." Hey, if you're voting on things that will only affect anyone during the brief period of your vacation, sure. Or, to expand outward back to rationality, it's proper to vote on things in which you have a significant stake, and especially proper to vote on things based on where you spend a preponderance of your time. A college student often has more vested in the community where their campus is situated than where they "officially" live based on their drivers license, but states differ on whether or not to allow them voting rights based on that "temporary" residence.
This is something on which reasonable people can differ, but the "what about my european vacation" response is at best a canard and at worst willful stupidity.
posted by klangklangston at 3:25 PM on February 23, 2006

the "what about my european vacation" response was intended to demonstrate the silliness of the statement that "any person subject to the laws of a jurisdiction ought to have input and/or control over those laws."
posted by JekPorkins at 3:28 PM on February 23, 2006

And if I go on vacation in France, I'm subject to the laws of France. Should I get to vote there if there's an election while I'm on vacation (or prior to my vacation, so that my vote will affect the laws that apply to my vacation)?

Porkins: Pardon my imprecision.

How about, "I tend to think that any person subject to the laws of a jurisdiction by reason of their being ordinarily resident in that jursdiction ought to have input and/or control over those laws. An illegal immigrant voting in the discrict where he or she lives is probably the least eggregious form of voting fraud I can think of...

Yeesh.
posted by onshi at 12:46 AM on February 24, 2006

But a citizen voting in the wrong district on purpose is subject to the laws of that wrong district . . . .

No, in that case, they're not voting in the wrong district. 'Wrong district' for a non-illegal immigrant voter here meant to denote 'a discrict other than that in which the voter is ordinarily [i.e. legitimately] resident'.
posted by onshi at 12:49 AM on February 24, 2006

a "straw man" is a restatement of someone's argument in a way that distorts or exaggerates it in order to make it easier to refute.

ex:

me: "people should get to vote where they live"
you: SO I SHOULD GET TO VOTE IN FRANCE ON VACATION???

klangklangston: What he meant was "wrong-headed xenophobic pedentry."

I'm usually referred to with "she", but I couldn't agree more with the rest of your post. I'm voting for "willful stupidity"!
posted by crabintheocean at 7:10 AM on February 24, 2006

Imagine for a moment that you are an illegal immigrant, trying to not get caught. Why on earth would you bring yourself out from the shadows to vote? So many people who have the legal right to vote don't - what makes you think an illegal immigrant would take that kind of risk, to contribute one vote, one vote that probably won't influence the policies of a country that doesn't want them? That'd be just silly - if it didn't feel so xenophobic.
posted by questionmark at 9:39 PM on February 24, 2006