General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Should election laws allow for procrastination?

Asked by crazyguy (2607points) 1 month ago

Most states want to change election laws to what Iowa has just passed (still waiting for the Governor’s signature):

“An Iowa bill aimed at limiting voting and making it harder for voters to return absentee ballots is headed to Gov. Kim Reynolds’ desk this week after passing both Republican-controlled chambers of the state legislature.

The bill, introduced by a Republican state senator, specifically would reduce the number of early voting days from 29 days to 20 days. It would also close polling places an hour earlier on Election Day (at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m.).

The bill also places new restrictions on absentee voting including banning officials from sending applications without a voter first requesting one and requiring ballots be received by the county before polls close on Election Day.”

If a voter chooses not to procrastinate, the law allows plenty of time to cast a ballot. However, if a voter chooses to wait till the last day and then gets delayed either in the mail, or making it to the poll station, is there any limit on how long s/he may need?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

70 Answers

stanleybmanly's avatar

Again, what abuses dictate the necessity for such laws? Why is it only CONSERVATIVES concerned with the necessity for erecting obstacles to voting? Where is the evidence that absentee ballots abuse the process? Why not make election day a national holiday, so people with jobs don’t wait in interminable lines? Why are there interminable lines usually bogged down with black folks? What’s the hurry requiring a reduction in deadlines?

hello321's avatar

@crazyguy – Name one country in which your proposed ideas have actually worked,

capet's avatar

Basically, I think yes. This bill does a number of things, but I interpret your question to be only about that last part: “requiring ballots be received by the county before polls close on Election Day,” a.k.a. not allowing procrastination.

I think allowing procrastination is good and serves four purposes:

1. Fairness: No matter who you are, there is a certain time by which, if you turn in your vote by that time, your vote will be counted. Otherwise you would be unfairly advantaging people with faster mail, etc.
2. Beginner-friendliness: New or occasional voters often don’t know anything except the time and place to cast their vote. Either they don’t understand how long things can take or they read the bare minimum amount of information, a.k.a. the time and place. We want them to be able to get their vote counted.
3. Making it easier to vote: Voter turnout in the United States is extremely low for a variety of reasons, but our administrative capacity is pretty high. Any policy that makes it easier to vote should be implemented as long as it doesn’t have huge negative side effects. In particular, side effects that strain administrative capacity should be viewed as no big deal because we have a lot of administrative capacity.
4. Stopping the slippery slope (related to #3): The anti-procrastination reforms are not offered in good faith. They are the Republicans seeing how much they can get away with. So stopping any of their voting-related proposals will not only be good on its own terms but prevent further shenanigans by either party.

On the voter turnout question: Increasing voter turnout is always good, but increasing voter turnout by allowing procrastination is especially good because it increases turnout among types of people that vote at low rates (including procrastinators, people in poor neighborhoods, people with difficult work hours or other responsibilities, the disabled, the disengaged, people who don’t speak English as a first language, and people who don’t read directions very well). That’s good because the point of democracy is to get the best possible decision by bringing together people with different ideas and interests.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I cannot believe you are taking these positions. So you are in effect admitting that fraud is but a pretense for erecting such barriers?

crazyguy's avatar

@capet Actually, procrastination plays a part in all parts of my question.

1. Aren’t 20 days of early voting enough? Should we just make it a whole month? A quarter? A year?

2. Why shouldn’t polls close at midnight? Or the day after?

3. The only part you addressed: Why shouldn’t we open absentee ballots one week after election day? Hell, how about a month after Election Day?

Most states that I know of allow the serious voter to be notified upon receipt of his/her mail-in ballot. So why can’t the voter make certain that his/her ballot has been received? And if it hasn’t been received by the day before, why can’t the voter make arrangements to vote in person? If that is hard, the voter can mail his/her ballot much earlier.

hello321's avatar

I’d like to propose that we address the serious problem of people bringing portable copiers into poll booths and making copies of ballots. This serious issue is probably resulting in about 22% of bogus votes. They have refused to investigate this, so there is no evidence. But believe me – why wait for a problem to come up with a solution? The solution would be to require voters to strip to make sure they’re not carrying mini copiers? I hear that these mini copiers can be smuggled into the polling locations by men taping them to their taints. We’ll need to do a full taint massage inspection to guarantee that our elections are free from fraud!

twoprimarycolorsmixedcanine's avatar

Also, why make it all so easy for people to cast their vote, especially those that vote for the other party.
There is this disgusting habit in some countries to make it as easy as possible, for literally everybody to vote.
They have several polling stations in every neighborhood, even in train stations so that commuters don’t have to rush to make it in time (07:00 (some places as early as 12 Am) – 21:00).
Only thing you need to bring is your ballot and your ID.

crazyguy's avatar

@twoprimarycolorsmixedcanine I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or not. I think you are.

I am 100% in favor of having voters with government-issued id’s vote at their convenience. My beef lies in not checking IDs and even resisting signature matching on mail-in ballots. Heck, trust deeds require notarization; are they more important than your ballot?

JLeslie's avatar

So, an in-person voter can procrastinate (your word) but not a mail-in voter.

Got it.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie A mail-in voter can procrastinate. Per
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-7-when-states-mail-out-absentee-ballots.aspx

every state sends out mail-in ballots at least 20 days before the election. Therefore, the mail-in voter can indeed procrastinate. But s/he should take into account the vagaries of our post office.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Every voter can find out who is on the ballot 20 days before the election. The in-person voter doesn’t have to decide until Election Day. What if the person you plan to vote for does something horrible a week before the election but you already voted. Oops.

I am in favor of mail-in actually having to be postmarked a few days before Election Day, but I’m talking the Friday before the Tuesday, not weeks.

JLeslie's avatar

How does the date the person mails the ballot affect whether the voter made an honest vote? Isn’t your main concern fraud? Casting your vote by Election Day means your vote was cast by Election Day. How fast the mail moves is not the individuals responsibility.

capet's avatar

@crazyguy Sorry, I assumed you were focused only on the procrastination part.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie That is easy in some states, but not all. I would be in favor of allowing voters to change their minds. Heck, it may have even helped defeat Biden in 2020.
See
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-you-change-your-vote-trump-clinton-early-voting-2016-11

mazingerz88's avatar

Yes election laws should allow for procrastination. Procrastinating is a natural trait some human beings simply possess. Another natural human trait is when those who lost an election turn desperate coming up with silly excuses to disqualify votes from procrastinators.

kritiper's avatar

Just what the world needs: More procrastination.

JLeslie's avatar

Just thinking about the irony. Last October I had Republicans all over my Facebook boasting about going in person on Election Day. Source of pride for them. So, they wait until the last minute and they are somehow better Americans.

NY didn’t have early voting until 2019! That horrible blue state wanted everyone to procrastinate until finally they gave opportunity to people to vote early.~

JLoon's avatar

I smell smoke and I see mirrors. It’s not about procrastination, it’s about who gets to participate.

Election laws should allow for lawfully registered voters to make their choice freely and have their ballots counted accurately – Regardless of their party affiliation, place of residence, race, or income. Making this process possible for more citizens is the only way to ensure true democracy survives.

Period.

But what’s really happening in places like Iowa is that politicians in power are trying to insulate themselves from change, and choose their voters rather than allowing citizens to choose who governs. Changes to voting laws made in this way put pressure on individuals trying to participate in free and fair elections, and do nothing to build the capacity of state and local governments to really count votes more efficiently
or report accurate results in a more timely way. It demands more from ordinary people, and promises nothing from the governments they pay for.

In the end it’s not some enlightened reform, just the same old corrupt self interest. And both parties will play the game as long as the public lets it go on.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLoon If you read the proposed Iowa law, it does very little:

1. It reduces early voting from 29 days to 20.
2. It requires polling stations to close at 8pm instead of 9 pm.
3. It requires mail-in ballots to arrive on Election Day or earlier.

The current laws encourage procrastination, the new laws will require less procrastination. It may enable a result to be announced on Election Night.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie If you read the proposed Iowa law, it does very little:

1. It reduces early voting from 29 days to 20.
2. It requires polling stations to close at 8pm instead of 9 pm.
3. It requires mail-in ballots to arrive on Election Day or earlier.

The current laws encourage procrastination, the new laws will require less procrastination. It may enable a result to be announced on Election Night.

My standard comeback to Democratic whining is:

OK, let’s allow one full month of early voting. Is that enough, or should we make it 3 months or a year? Should we keep the polls open until midnight? Should mail-in ballots be allowed to arrive whenever?

crazyguy's avatar

@kritiper I guess your cryptic comment means you see the wisdom in Iowa’s proposed laws?

crazyguy's avatar

@mazingerz88 I think the question has grown into: “Just how much procrastination should be allowed?”

JLoon's avatar

@crazyguy – You mean Senate File 413 and House File 590.

Yeah, I did read all that . I think you should re-read these bills yourself – And look at what local news reporters are saying about what’s actually going on :

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/17/legislature-republicans-advance-bills-shorten-early-voting-iowa-restrict-absentee-ballots/6780255002/

You keep coming back to the notion that voter “procrastination” is something that has to be punished. Responsible voting means making informed choices. But the effort needed to wade through the misleading garbage spewed by deceitful politicians takes more time in every election. And it goes on while elected officials use denial, bureaucracy, blame, and delay to drag out their legislative process and avoid doing the peoples business.

Who’s really being protected by junk laws like this Iowa manure?

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy So, you don’t want people to procrastinate, but you’re ok with shortening the days of early voting? Do you prefer early voting or procrastinating? I’m confused.

Are they having trouble getting people to work at 9:00pm? Why is that change necessary?

If someone votes a week before and drops their ballot in the mail and the post office doesn’t get the ballot to the elections office until Wednesday the person shouldn’t have their vote counted? The USPS made a mistake and the ballot went to the wrong place so don’t count that vote. PLUS, you don’t like ballot boxes where elections would be directly picking up ballots.

There needs to be cut-offs and limits of course, but voting late doesn’t mean the vote is a fraud, it means the person was too late according to the law. You are happy to not count their vote. Maybe they simply misunderstood and thought the ballot just needed to be postmarked on time. I’m not saying just let ballots trickle in for weeks after Election Day, I’m only saying laws should be reasonable with the goal of allowing everyone who wants to vote to be able to vote.

You seem to be ok with Iowa trying to make it more difficult to vote. 20 days for early voting isn’t terrible, but if 29 was working why change it? Early voting helps minorities vote. It’s purposeful that the proposal wants to make it harder for Democrats. The most important thing to me is it covers at least two weekends, three is better.

Smashley's avatar

@crazyguy – Yeah, I’m not really interested in debating the moral status of procrastination, but I am really getting sick of how often you dodge the accusation that Republicans are using whatever useful justifications they can, so long as the net result is disenfranchisement. Their goal is disenfranchisement because working against democracy works in the favor of the Republican party, full stop. Admit bad faith, and we can jaw over what better policy might look like.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I know you to be a reasonable person. And I consider myself a reasonable person (correct me if I am wrong). And reasonable people can disagree. In this case, I do not find any reason to assume that disenfranchisement is the goal. Proposed changes 2 and 3 are in line with getting a result on Election Night, which to me seems like a laudable goal. We can argue over 20 days vs 29; I think 20 is ample for any voter who gives a damn.

@Smashley My whole point is that the goals of changes 2 and 3 serve a purpose; get the results of the election on Election Night. Change number 1, shortening the early voting period from 29 days to 20 days seems arbitrary. However, even allowing for people’s busy schedules, you would think that 20 days is enough to schedule something as important as voting.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy The topic is tainted because so many Republican politicians say it outright. They say they have to do something to stop Democrats from voting or they will keep losing. Then there is the history of voter suppression that no one can deny.

Any reasonable request will likely be discarded along with the unreasonable ones. That’s what happens when people spend years and years trying to block votes, people won’t have trust. I’m not saying every suggestion is a bad idea.

It reminds me of the time I was watching a group of squirrels where I lived and then suddenly realized one of them was a rat. He thought he was incognito I guess, but I saw his long tail.

Not so long ago, when I lived in Tennessee, the mayor of the town one up from mine wrote this about Obama on his facebook “you obama [sic] people need to move to a muslim [sic] country,” and adding, “you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different….....” Here’s the article that talks about it. He received a lot of “likes” and agreement on the facebook thread before he finally took it down.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I understand all that. However, we are talking about a specific piece of proposed legislation; and I would hope independent thinkers can separate the language in this legislation from everything that has transpired before. How else can we move forward?

JLeslie's avatar

The only way to build trust is for the people who committed the bad deeds to be overly transparent and trustworthy for an extended period of time. That means if someone in the party says they want to curb the Democrats from voting, the rest of the party needs to denounce that person and bend over backwards to allow everyone to vote. That’s the only way I see out.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I think we should have clear objectives that can be discussed and agreed upon. Once that happens, we can move forward with detailed regulations.

One objective that I would like to include is

A definite time by which all results are available, and decisions can be announced by 11 pm EST on election nights.

Pandora's avatar

@hello321 Are you being serious or joking? If serious there is no way in hell that wouldn’t be spotted. If joking. That’s funny then.

Pandora's avatar

@crazyguy Checking signatures is a joke. My signature has changed several times over the last few years. So essentially I will be letting someone who isn’t a signature expert decide whether my vote counts or not. Mail in ballots are already sent to your address and sent back from that address. So unless I have somehow gotten a hold of someone else’s forms and address, I think that is confirmation enough since it will only be sent to actual voters. Next on your list. 20 days is enough for mailing. It should be but we seen people get mail 3 to 4 weeks late. What do you think that may mean for ballots? Now, the post office could come with a dead line. Like you must drop off your ballot 4 days before. So they have time to deliver it on time. During the last 4 days it can only be dropped off at a drop box. But there needs to be ample drop boxes. I do like the idea of putting the boxes in stores. Preferably stores that stay open late and has a person next to it. Like, Walmart who has a bag checker on the exit. The machine could be next to them with a camera fixed to it. And someone comes and picks up the ballots every day before the store closes. Just using Walmart as an example. Grocery stores would also work. Put the machine near the customer service desk.

mazingerz88's avatar

How many times have I said it or other people have said it…as long as Republicans keep worshiping in the altar of trump whatever legit or rational things they try to do it will be seen being done in bad faith. Republican voters should kick out from office deranged clowns in their political ranks.

Seems CPAC has a mass today and their orange god is supposed to honor them with his glorious presence. I bet he will mention in his insane rants the need to protect votes by way of suppression. This orange douche started on this misleading narrative months before the election in anticipation of his losing in the election. He already knew the pandemic will lead to his defeat.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy It has not been 11pm on election for as long as I can remember. The Republicans wouldn’t even want that if they really thought about it. The military usually votes for Republicans and their absentee ballot usually can arrive after Election Day. It’s impossible to count everything by Election Day. It probably hasn’t been one in over 50 years. You even said 11pm EST, so 8pm PST? Eight o’clock?! All counted? That’s completely unrealistic.

You are functioning on people knowing who they are going to vote for weeks before the election. There is a percentage of people who don’t know. It took me 3 hours to research everyone on my ballot.

sadiesayit's avatar

If shortening the number of early voting days from 29 to 20 and reducing the voting hours per day by an hour results in a reduced voter turnout, then it was not “plenty of time” for some number of voters.

If you believe that election fraud is a large and pressing danger to the state of the union, you’ve bought into a fiction that is most often used to strategically restrict access to voting. It’s a bogeyman. See it for what it is.

crazyguy's avatar

@sadiesayit As with all things, you reach diminishing returns. Adding days to early voting, adding extra hours on Election Day, and adding extra days for mail-in ballots to be received, will obviously increase voting. However, you must admit that, as with all things in life, you have to make a decision that enough is enough. Either a person takes his/her election seriously or s/he doesn’t.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Do most tax returns get filed by the deadline? Do we have deadlines in other areas that are non-violable? What we should do as a nation is agree what is reasonable and make it nationwide. And make it non-violable.

crazyguy's avatar

@mazingerz88 You say: “Republican voters should kick out from office deranged clowns in their political ranks.” Are there any ‘deranged clowns’ in Democratic ranks? Who gets to decide?

crazyguy's avatar

@Pandora So you admit that the current system allows no confirmation that a mail-in ballot is actually filled in by the voter it was intended for? And therefore, it is not as secure as an in-person ballot?

You also say: “Mail in ballots are already sent to your address and sent back from that address.” I did not know that anybody can confirm what address something is sent from.

You know full well that a mail-in ballot offers additional opportunities for mischief. Notice I am not alleging that such mischief has occurred – I am just saying that I do not understand why we continue to not only allow that opportunity, but constantly engineer the laws to increase the opportunity. Do you know why?

sadiesayit's avatar

You know full well that a mail-in ballot offers additional opportunities for mischief. Notice I am not alleging that such mischief has occurred…

———

Article: How Much Do Voting Restrictions Affect Elections? (source: FiveThirtyEight)

———

@your response to me, @crazyguy—is your argument that the changes the Iowa Republicans have pushed through will not make a difference (diminishing returns), or that you think it’s good to make voting difficult enough that only those people who are “serious” can vote? And how does either of those things do anything to address what you claim is your concern over voter fraud? (Never mind that “voter fraud” is as much a present issue as asbestos in cereal—see the comic in the first link for the reference).

And when the data shows that such restrictions do not actually address “voter fraud,” but rather disproportionately affect people of color and older people, why is your reaction to say, “Well it will stop the procrastinators, then!” rather than saying, “Huh, maybe this isn’t actually doing what I thought it would do”?

“Either a person takes his/her election seriously or s/he doesn’t.” >> If this were true, if participation were purely a matter of how “seriously” someone takes their election, you would have the same number of voters participating no matter the voting setup. But because, as you put it, ”[a]dding days to early voting, adding extra hours on Election Day, and adding extra days for mail-in ballots to be received, will obviously increase voting,” then this is obviously an overly simplistic way to look at voting. There are obviously other factors coming into play.

Response moderated (Spam)
stanleybmanly's avatar

But yours remains a circular argument. It is irrelevant from whence a ballot is mailed or who mailed it if a single ballot is insufficient to sway an election. Unless you can posit a method whereby an individual or organization can falsify votes in numbers sufficient to alter the results of a contest, what is the threat to be countered? Again, you are insisting that we search for a cure to a problem for which there is no evidence. There is NO solution for a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie The reason I said 11 pm EST is because the West Coast is so predictable that the states of Washington, Oregon and California are usually called at 8.01 pm PST. And Alaska and Hawaii rarely matter, if ever. As far as military ballots go, if we change the arrival deadline to Election Day, the change would of course apply to military ballots as well.

However, if you guys are hell bent on using the Covid-caused election law changes for ever,...

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Allowing military ballots to arrive a week, some states more, after election is NOT a covid change. Republicans like military ballots.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie
I believe that election results should be announced on election night. Whatever is necessary needs to be evaluated, whether it was prevalent before Covid or not. Rarely do military ballots affect the final call. However, nothing should be left hanging after Election Day.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Ok, yeah, that’s your Republican messaging brainwashing you. Some counties don’t have all the ballots ready until just a month before the elections. If it has to be done with paper then it has to go through USPS to military mail (APO/FPO or even DPO) to a foreign country to wherever the person is stationed. Could be near a front line. Then, filled out, and returned through the mail by a similar route.

We aren’t going to disenfranchise our citizens working hard and sacrificing for our country are we?

States can make it easier by allowing a photo or scan of the ballot count. Maybe some states do that, I really don’t know.

The US allows time to count after election day for a reason. Even if there was no mail-in vote, counting machines can break, electricity can go out, there can be a need for recount, there is every reason not to make the results due on election day. Really think about it.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Of course, there can be many a slip between the cup and the lip. However, objectives should be determined, before any plan is made.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy I completely agree objectives should be determined. Several Republicans have stated they need to change the laws or Democrats will win. What is their objective? To allow everyone to have reasonable access to voting? Or, to prevent Democrats from voting?

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I think the objective of any political person is to win at all costs. Some people are honest about their desires; others hide behind all kinds of misleading statements. Why do you think Biden and Company worked so hard to pass COVID Relief, which includes $350 billion for state and local governments that have squandered their huge intakes? For instance, did you know that San Francisco’s budget deficit of $650 million will be almost wiped out by the federal stimulus?

Just why do you think the Democrats encourage illegal immigration? You think they don’t realize that they are creating extra competition for the very people they are trying to help?

JLeslie's avatar

To win at all costs? I disagree. There are people, including politicians, who care about winning fairly.

@crazyguy Democrats like immigration for many reasons. Sure, you can find some who will say immigration helps the Democrats, but mostly we support immigration because our own families immigrated here, often leaving desperate situations, and we believe in our soul that America IS a country of immigrants. I don’t want to overlook Native Americans, but the establishment of The United States of America was a new world for people wishing to leave tyranny, poverty, and oppression. People don’t walk into America and become voting citizens on day one.

So, do Republicans want to stop immigration because the new immigrants are more likely to be Democrats? Or, because they think immigrants won’t blend in culturally? Or, because they are thieves and killers? Which is it?

Why don’t you want to give others the opportunity you had?

I’m not talking about wide open borders, but you are talking like you want to stop immigration altogether. Let’s say we only let in one million people a year. Isn’t it still a problem for the Republicans? 500,000 people? 20 people? Republicans need to fix the actual problem, the reason people don’t vote for them. They need to stop spewing hate. I see that as their biggest obstacle right now. Republicans can win if they give a damn about balancing the budget, shut the hell up about abortion, and stop supporting things the alt-right WS says.

Imagine if Republicans as a large group made a big effort to make voting fair and accessible. Maybe that would be a positive change that more people would start trusting Republicans more.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie We have veered way off-topic; but I enjoy chatting with you, so what the heck?

I absolutely do want to see others get the same opportunity I had; however, it has to be done legally. That, of course, means that the lower-paid people probably would not make it, because they have no skills to bring to the table. Is that terribly wrong? Why should America become the provider of last resort, that welcomes all comers? Especially when we have our own down-trodden.

I do not pretend to understand why the Party of the Down-Trodden, welcomes more competition for its followers. Could it be that the Party is looking many years down the road, when these people will become US citizens and remember their champions?

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy You are kind of making my point. What if Republicans come together with Democrats and make legal immigration easier? Then Democrats lose that edge. Again, I am not talking about wide open borders.

America should always be letting in people who are poor. We can’t let everyone in, but we can’t only favor the wealthy. Give us your tired, your poor, ...

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I think times and economic conditions have changed drastically since those words were penned. And, in any case, those words are not as binding as our CONSTITUTION, that we take liberties with all the time.

JLeslie's avatar

The constitution doesn’t say much about immigration. Not that I remember. I guess I could read it again, it’s been a long time.

The best way to curb immigration is to help the world be a better place.

Lectures I’ve been to on immigration have said that the biggest problem is going to be climate change. Not only immigration across country lines, but within countries also. One expert felt the Middle East region was going to be the most dramatically affected first. It’s getting really hot there I guess. America will have increased pressures regarding immigration. We need to figure it out.

You make it sound like people who are poor are always poor because they are somehow inferior. Many people are poor because of circumstance, especially in other parts of the world. Caste systems, limited access to education, primitive conditions, war, oppression, so many possible factors.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie Here is a definition of asylum from
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states

Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or arriving at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Notice the definition does not include poverty as a possible reason for asylum.

JLeslie's avatar

@crazyguy Oh, I agree, poverty is not covered under asylum.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie So why do you speak of Give us your tired, your poor….?

JLeslie's avatar

Because we don’t only let people into the country for asylum. We let people in for many reasons.

stanleybmanly's avatar

If neither of you believe that poverty places you “in a particular social group”, you are beyond hope and indifferent to practical reality.

JLeslie's avatar

@stanleybmanly Define particular social group.

JLeslie's avatar

^^Why do you think I am not empathetic to the poor? I fight for them all the time on fluther. My paternal grandfather was a poor immigrant, and thank God he was able to come to America. My father, his son, grew up extremely poor, and thank goodness NYC had great schools available for free for the poor. My maternal great grandparents fled the pogroms in Russia. If you think I don’t appreciate America for allowing the poor and oppressed to come here and for having social systems in place to allow their children to excel, you are sadly mistaken.

hello321's avatar

^ You consistently push objectively right-wing positions here that hurt poor people. And you do this in lengthy “well, actually” and “both sides” language that merely supports a system that allows the poor to suffer. Whether it’s pearl-clutching about the national debt or “how can we pay for it” or simply an embrace of radical-centrism, which attempts to find an elusive middle-ground between the positions of the two corporate right-wing parties’ positions, you have made it clear which side you’re on. And it’s not the side of poor people.

crazyguy's avatar

@JLeslie I am sorry that I may have been partially responsible for the stream of vitriol directed your way. As far as I am concerned, you are one of the few thinkers on this board. What you say usually makes sense to me.

However, on the issue of letting in the world’s poor, I believe that our economy and society will crumble under Biden. Some of the comments in response to your well-reasoned posts just indicate how progressive the Democratic Party has become. Of course, even that is not enough for some people.

JLeslie's avatar

@hello321 That’s right, I am not way off on the far left, and I don’t just look at things as simply black and white, and I try to take in the whole picture, and I do care about paying for social services, but I also care about having social services. Wanting to pay for them doesn’t mean I’m against them. I also care about the impact of them both negative and positive.

You may want wide open boarders, that’s fine. I’m actually interested in reading the theories on that. I know @caravanfan (who often is conservative on many political topics) recommended a book recently about it, which I’ve been meaning to ask him about again to read it. He is in favor of open boarders.

Your inability to see that people like me are overall on your side of the immigration issue means your coalition is smaller. Good luck with that and all the people similar to. You are an all or nothing person, I see that. You might get nothing that way.

hello321's avatar

@JLeslie: “That’s right, I am not way off on the far left”

You are right-wing by every possible definition.

@JLeslie: “Wanting to pay for them doesn’t mean I’m against them.”

Yes, it actually does mean this.

@JLeslie: “Your inability to see that people like me are overall on your side of the immigration issue means your coalition is smaller.”

You are most definitely not on my side in any way.

@JLeslie: “You are an all or nothing person”

I am absolutely not.

@JLeslie: “You might get nothing that way.”

Whatever “that way” means to you, we can know one thing for certain: your right-wing ways have been tried for decades. And guess what – they have resulted in disaster. It’s a guaranteed path of diminishing returns.

And christ – “far left”? Why not just quote Hannity directly?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@JLeslie By what line of thought are you allowed the delusion that I accuse you of lacking empathy for the poor? THAT is by NO means what I either write or imply. I am simply telling you that you cannot list a more certain or recognizable categorization of class than POVERTY. And for the dummy alleging vitriol in my comment, there is NOTHING OF THE KIND in my answer, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. It is frustrating dealing with both of you. There is no question that @JLeslie strives mightily, in fact, bends over backwards in the attempt to be fair and attempt to steer a course of reason. But what good does that do you if you come to the table minus the basic and UNIVERSAL understanding that the very concept of class revolves around the poles of poverty and wealth. And @crazyguy, your maddening inability to think beyond your own nose would drive any reasonable mind up the wall.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Poverty IS a social group. The statement by @crazyguy that Guatemalan poverty is neither America’s doing or America’s problem is both stupid and false on its face. Guatemalan poverty is OUR problem, and the proof is that GUATEMALANS show up HERE to solve it. It is OUR problem because THAT POVERTY DRIVES THEM HERE. And as to who is responsible for that poverty, turn that apparently useless penchant you have for research toward the term “banana republic”.

crazyguy's avatar

All, even though I asked the original question that started this thread, the thread has evolved into nonsense. Therefore, I am bugging out.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s right. Run away and THINK for a change.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther