Voting

A Priest Is Being Deported After Committing the Heinous Crime of Voting

Father David Boase was led to believe that he was eligible to vote. His mistake caught up with him 12 years later.

|

|||Bizoon/Dreamstime.com
Bizoon/Dreamstime.com

A year after immigrating from the England to the United States in 2004, Father David Boase went to the Illinois DMV to take his driver's test. As Boase tells the story, an employee then asked Boase if he wanted to register to vote. Boase registered, and in 2006 he voted on a ballot measure to increase resources for the local fire department. It was the one trip he ever took to an American ballot box.

Twelve years later, that vote has ended his dreams of doing "priestly work" in the United States.

The Washington Post reports that the Episcopalian priest now faces deportation for the vote. Since a federal candidate, Rep. Jerry Costello (D–Ill.), appeared on the same ballot as the fire funds, casting a vote in the election was a federal crime. It was a federal crime whether or not he voted for Costello, who was running unopposed.

Boase admitted to the action during a 2017 interview with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In August, he received a summons to appear in immigration court, and the deportation process was set to begin. David Cox, who is representing Boase, says that the summons mentioned only the single vote and no other factors.

According to Cox, USCIS had the legal discretion to ignore the offense. He tells the Post that he believes that the decision to deport Boase is part of USCIS' newest policy to align the agency with the Department of Homeland Security's "enforcement priorities," outlined in a 2017 executive order from President Donald Trump.

NEXT: Houston, We've Got a Problem—with Robot Brothels?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Boase registered, and in 2006 he voted on a ballot measure to increase resources for the local fire department.

    Once again proving the case that immigrants are a bunch of big government tax-and-spend types that threaten to destroy any small chance of the US ever achieving Libertopia.

  2. Sorry, but this is a specific reason to deport.

    I don’t care WHY you did it — you voted when you were not allowed to.

    Fuck your whole “Oh, the poor fella” bullshit. He voted illegally. He lessened the vote of people here legally.

    1. Yep, Zuri thinks it a nothingburger to inflict harm upon the system by which we govern ourselves.

      He also doesn’t want to say the guy voted for higher taxes.

    2. You ought to care WHY he did it — the DMV told him he could. Does that matter less to you? How many others voted because the DMV told them they could?

      Telling that you care more about one immigrant who voted illegally than the DMV clerk who told an unknown number of immigrants to vote illegally. We know where your priorities are.

      1. You ought to care WHY he did it — the DMV told him he could. Does that matter less to you? How many others voted because the DMV told them they could?

        Given that the DMV doesn’t run voting, no, I don’t care what he claims they told them. It’s akin to Jon Jones defense for his drug failure — “I didn’t know I was taking steroids”.

        Nobody ADMITS to it. I don’t care if you did not know. Ignorance of the law, as has been said, is not a defense.

        Telling that you care more about one immigrant who voted illegally than the DMV clerk who told an unknown number of immigrants to vote illegally. We know where your priorities are.

        Who said I don’t care? Fire his ass and his supervisors’ asses too.

        The clerk didn’t MAKE the guy vote.

        1. So the DMV either intentionally or not doesn’t inform the millions of people intelligible to vote of that fact when they blithely sign them up under the motor voter rules and that’s not important to you?

          Maybe it’s rogue clerks doing this for political purposes, maybe it’s just lazy clerks because it’s easier to follow one process than two or maybe ithey can’t do otherwise because they’re not allowed to ask and the verification is supposed to go on somewhere else but doesn’t. I’d think it’s important to know the difference.

          He may have not made the guy vote but he provided no information otherwise and every indication that he was being setup for a legal action in voting.

          1. So the DMV either intentionally or not doesn’t inform the millions of people intelligible to vote of that fact when they blithely sign them up under the motor voter rules and that’s not important to you?

            Nope. Mind you, I support repealing Motor Voter wholesale.

            You act as if this was not the INTENT of Motor Voter.

            Maybe it’s rogue clerks doing this for political purposes, maybe it’s just lazy clerks because it’s easier to follow one process than two or maybe ithey can’t do otherwise because they’re not allowed to ask and the verification is supposed to go on somewhere else but doesn’t. I’d think it’s important to know the difference.

            Nope. You know if you’re a citizen or not. If you’re not, you don’t vote. Your EXCUSE why “Well, this time is different” is immaterial.

            He may have not made the guy vote but he provided no information otherwise and every indication that he was being setup for a legal action in voting.

            Lesson learned. Don’t believe idiots at the DMV. You still committed a crime.

      2. The DMV asked if he would like to be registered to vote.

        The DMV asks if you would like a drivers license. That does not give you a right to violate traffic laws.

        1. One of these is not like the other.

          1. Not sure how. They shouldn’t be permitted to drive here, either.

            If I let you open a bank account but fail to mention “Robbing us is illegal”, it is not my fault if you’re nailed for robbing a bank.

        2. Your comment is not like the truth.

        3. The DMV asks if you would like a drivers license. That does not give you a right to violate traffic laws.

          When the DMV issues you a driver’s license, it’s telling you that it is OK with you driving on public roads.
          Voter registration (voter’s license) is the state saying that it’s OK for you to vote.

          1. DMV does not sign you up for voter registration. The DMV sends your info to voter registration. The people in charg eof coter registration sign you up to vote.

      3. “You ought to care WHY he did it”

        Because he didn’t read the fine print on the legal declaration he signed?

        Because he was smart enough to get through seminary but had no clue that voting privileges generally involve citizenship?

        Uh huh.

        1. @ThomasD: I wouldn’t expect a seminary in England to teach the students about American voting laws. It probably doesn’t even teach much about British voting laws.

          I doubt that the DMV clerk was unaware that this guy was a foreigner. I’d expect that they started by asking for his previous driver’s license, which was probably then followed by research or asking other clerks for whether a license from Great Britain was acceptable and what procedures had to be followed… So a government official who knew he was a recent immigrant filled out the voter registration forms for him. He’d have to be rather untrusting of government to think that he ought to check out whether that government official was screwing up…

          Now I would – but I began highschool when the official US military strategy was Win Hearts and Minds with Napalm.

    3. Why stop at deportation? I mean this guy went out and voted in a local election! How can we expect our way of life to survive such an attack?! Let’s hang him for treason!

      1. Nah. Deport him for voter fraud. Don’t allow him to re-enter.

      2. Naw, just deport him.

      3. Foreigners can’t commit treason
        They can be enemies, but they can’t commit treason

        1. Exactly. Foreigners have no allegiance to the USA. Which should be another reason to not allow them to vote.

    4. Actually, this is why the “Motor Voter Act” or the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was such a fucked up idea. While on the face of it, it’s a good idea to facilitate voter registration (it really is a burden for some citizens to go to the County Supervisor of Elections, or whatever you have in your state, during office hours etc) no controls were put in place to have DMV employees act as gate keepers to ensure that only legal voters were enrolled.

  3. This is the kind of case that tends to get forgotten in discussions of voter fraud. There’s a lot of hysteria about “illegal immigrants” voting, but in practice it’s much more likely that it will be legal residents (Green card holders) who end up on the electoral roll.
    And this priest is not alone – the issue pops up pretty regularly in naturalization cases (when long-term residents apply for citizenship, the background check shows that they’ve already been voting for years…).

    1. There are cities where they have a special Welcome Wagon kit for immigrants – and it includes a voter registration application.

  4. This raises the question of how many non citizens are voting because of the motor voter laws and DMV workers do not ask if the person is a citizen and the state Secretary of State offices don’t cross check?

    1. Indeed. If the DMV, an agency of the State, offers you an opportunity to register to vote, there is an assumption, I would argue a valid, even if incorrect, assumption, that you are eligible to vote.
      Who would assume otherwise? Whose is the malfeasance here?

      1. Deport him and savagely punish the state doing it.

        If the state won’t stop, then the Feds might need to oversee their electoral process

        1. What do you mean by “savagely punish the state”?

          If the state won’t stop, then the Feds might need to oversee their electoral process

          Huh. So much for federalism

          1. It’s no more legal to allow illegals to vote than to prevent minorities from doing so.

            One would be a no-brainer fed involvement case. The former should be one as well.

            1. Wait, so you support the Voting Rights Act now?

              1. It was a necessary evil that ran its course.

                It needs to be brought back due to states trying to allow illegals to elect our President or members of Congress to spend our money.

                1. Huh, so much for federalism then.

                  I mean, the people who have been hunting for voter fraud by illegal immigrants, like Kobach, have largely come up short. Kobach managed to find about a dozen people in Kansas who committed voter fraud, and they were largely college students and elderly people. I don’t think any of them were undocumented immigrants.

                  By contrast, the VRA was in response to a widespread effort by many states to deliberately suppress the black vote. It wasn’t this hard to find thing. They weren’t even shy about it either. It was all out in the open. And it very quickly turned into a vehicle for Democrats to create blue districts in otherwise red states. In other words, whatever noble purpose the VRA had, it was very quickly corrupted and became just another exercise in two-party power.

                  But now you think this is a great idea, I imagine largely for the same reason – this would be a chance now for Team Red to “use the left’s rules against them”, and force blue states to adopt rules to make their voting procedures more friendly to Team Red, under the pretext of “stopping illegal immigrants from voting”.

                  1. I mean, the people who have been hunting for voter fraud by illegal immigrants, like Kobach, have largely come up short. Kobach managed to find about a dozen people in Kansas who committed voter fraud, and they were largely college students and elderly people. I don’t think any of them were undocumented immigrants.

                    Shockingly, many states refusing to check ID for voting might make proving voter fraud more difficult. Easy to claim no evidence when you refuse to check for evidence.

                    By contrast, the VRA was in response to a widespread effort by many states to deliberately suppress the black vote. It wasn’t this hard to find thing.

                    Because they sought to get the evidence, not cover it up.

                    1. Kobach did check. He got a special grant of power from the legislature to hunt for voter fraud. And he hunted all over the place. He found almost none.

                      And even the voter fraud that Kobach did find, it was not some organized deliberate attempt to subvert an election, it was random people who made honest mistakes.

                    2. Kobach did check. He got a special grant of power from the legislature to hunt for voter fraud. And he hunted all over the place. He found almost none.

                      …from polling places that didn’t require ID to vote.

                      Again, if you don’t collect evidence, the lack of evidence is duly noted.

              2. You think that is a result of the VRA and not the constitution?

                Wow, that’s a special kinda stupid even for you.

      2. Voter fraud is the malfeasance.

        1. And inducement to fraud is not?
          pfeh

          1. One cannot MAKE somebody else commit fraud.

            If I say “Why don’t you rob that bank?”, I’m not liable if you decide to rob that bank.

        2. To Shirley knott, same-same

      3. A non citizens should be able to comprehend that someone offering you a chance to register does not actually give you a right to vote. On the other hand, we have a broken registry system which I suspect has been broken deliberately as one party expects to gain from the chaos.

        1. Comprehend? Of course, but that doesn’t seem to be at issue.
          Why should a non-citizen suppose that a legal registrar of votes is making an invalid/illegal offer?

          1. All these excuses.

      4. “Whose is the malfeasance here?”

        The man who signed the false declaration. That he did so upon receiving bad advice, or no advice – offering the registration document does not necessarily imply that you qualify – does not absolve him of his own responsibility.

        Personal responsibility being a very libertarian concept I can see how you and others might not recognize the crux of the problem.

    2. This raises the question of how many non citizens are voting because of the motor voter laws and DMV workers do not ask if the person is a citizen and the state Secretary of State offices don’t cross check?

      Technically, you shouldn’t be able to get a straight license in IL as a non-citizen. We have Temporary Visitor’s Driver’s Licenses for that purpose. Now, does the DMV have the investigative wherewithal that ICE has? No.

      1. Assuming the Priest had a green card – he can get a full drivers license. There’s a lot of conflation in these comments between illegal immigrant and legal resident.

        1. Exactly, not all states distinguish the way IL apparently does.

      2. Temporary Visitor’s Driver’s[sic] Licenses are for Temporary Visitors, ie for those people on temporary work or foreign government service or military assignments or their families*. None of those things apply to Green Card holders who are permanent legal residents not Temporary Visitors.

        *Such people are among those who are not under the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. Their children born in the USA are not citizens and their children of draft age are not required to register with the Selective Service nor are the subject to the draft. They are however subject to internment if the USA enters a state of war with their home country.

  5. By “priestly work” I assume they mean buggering young boys?

    1. Episcopalian, not Catholic.

      But they probably all look the same to someone as privileged as you. /sarc

      1. Do the Episcopalians have any official doctrine against any form of buggery anymore?

        1. my mom’s Episcopal priest is a girl who prefers girls, so not likely

  6. Another example of voter fraud.

  7. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    1. It’s a misuse of taxpayer resources to devote the man-hours and paperwork hours to deport guys like this guilty of minor non-violent crimes (this one sounds like a dumb mistake) when serious criminals are caught up in the system and not getting deported in a timely manner. First things first.

      1. It’s a misuse of taxpayer resources to devote the man-hours and paperwork hours to deport guys like this guilty of minor non-violent crimes (this one sounds like a dumb mistake) when serious criminals are caught up in the system and not getting deported in a timely manner. First things first.

        Voter fraud is a massive problem, a blow against the legitimacy of our entire system. It warrants an INSTANT deportation.

        1. In-person voter fraud by undocumented immigrants is a “massive problem” only for the paranoid nutters.

          1. We have specific evidence of it happening here.

            Again, if you don’t care about voter fraud, just say so.

            1. The Lefties cannot say they dont care about voter fraud.

              Then Mueller’s entire mandate is a lie…even to Lefties.

            2. Yes. There is specific evidence of tiny amounts of in-person voter fraud.

              It’s not the “massive problem” that you imagine it is.

              1. It is a massive problem. You don’t mind, nor does Reason, which is expected.

                Personal responsibility is no longer a thing “libertarians” believe in. If Daddy Government doesn’t warn you of all things, then its not YOUR fault…

                1. It is a massive problem.

                  Where is the evidence for the “massiveness” of this problem? The people who have been hunting for evidence, like Kobach, have very little to show for their efforts.

                  I have no doubt that there is some in-person voter fraud. I have no reason to believe that it exists on a scale large enough to make much of a difference in the result of any election beyond that of perhaps a councilperson for a small city.

                  You are whining that Reason isn’t taking your hysteria seriously. Well, why should they?

                  1. I read an article a few years ago that stated that the tens of thousands of people from New York who had moved to Florida were still registered in both states. Over 60% were registered Democrats, while left in 20% were registered Republicans. How many voted illegally in both states any elections over the years? How many voted in the very close Florida election in 2000? We don’t know. Is anybody doing research on this issue? Think of all the people from other states who have moved to Florida.

                    1. “…less than 20%…”

          2. One instance of voter fraud is a massive problem.

            Its worth ending the experiment that is the USA.

        2. Voter fraud is problem, I’m not exactly sure how massive it is, but the problem here is a system which failed in a catastrophic way.

      2. If we cannot have fair elections, then this experiment is over.

        Anyone who commits voter fraud should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Voter fraud is unacceptable.

    2. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.*

      *Unless you’re a cop. See Heien v. North Carolina.

    3. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” – unless you are a government official paid to enforce the law, then you have qualified immunity.

  8. Someone is putting this guy and his unique case up as the poster instance to distract from the fact hundreds of thousands of illegals are being deliberately registered to vote and encouraged to vote by activists for the Democrat Party.

    Is that easy to prove? Of course not, Democrats have systematically made voter fraud almost impossible to prove. In Washington state my Republican Party tried it and after wasting a huge amount of money on lawyers were told by a judge, “In our state voters are on the honor system.”

    It is a nasty, intrinsically dishonest, inherently anti-constitutional election system we have in place. It will not be easy to deconstruct. It will not be easy to replace.

    1. the fact hundreds of thousands of illegals are being deliberately registered to vote and encouraged to vote by activists for the Democrat Party.

      How do you know this?

      1. Because the Democrats have ALWAYS done this.

        1. How do you know this?

          1. Sorry if the history of Democrat machine politics is so unknown to you. It’s pretty basic knowledge. Tammany Hall isn’t this obscure historical group that nobody knows much about.

            Again, all the Dems have done is go from running small plantations in the South to running the country as a large plantation.

            1. Tammany Hall is long gone. How does Tammany Hall relate to voter fraud in the modern day?

              1. And CA signing up non-citizens to vote in “local” elections is today. But you’re *sure* that they will never crossover into a fedeal election. Amazing how conveniently your confidence increases when the circumstances demand.

                1. If undocumented immigrants are voting in such large numbers so as to be able to sway the outcome of elections, then *show us all some proof of this*. Just saying “lol Democrats” isn’t proof.

                  1. We don’t need proof. All that matters is allegations these days. Prove that they are not. That is your standard.

              2. Tammany Hall is long gone. How does Tammany Hall relate to voter fraud in the modern day?

                Oh, that is quite humorous. You really believe that, don’t you? Nothing like Tamany Hall is going on right now. Sure.

                1. Always look to motives.

                  Why would Lefties dismiss evidence of voter fraud and not want an investigation or rules to limit voter fraud? The same reason that lefties want Mueller to spend millions and almost two years investigating Russian voter fraud that is nonexistent.

                2. Nothing like Tamany Hall is going on right now. Sure.

                  Then show us the modern-day version of Tammany Hall, if you’re so convinced it exists.

                  1. You mean all of those progressive funded groups defending and protecting illegals?

                    Fuck, sanctuary cities are just Tammany Hall at a larger level.

                    1. The OP in this thread claimed that “hundreds of thousands of illegals are being deliberately registered to vote and encouraged to vote by activists for the Democrat Party.” Where is the evidence for this specific claim? Then you decided to throw sand in the discussion by talking about Tammany Hall and machine politics. As interesting as those topics are, Tammany Hall is long gone and the existence of sanctuary cities is not proof of this claim.

                      I’m still waiting for proof of this claim that “hundreds of thousands of illegals are being deliberately registered to vote and encouraged to vote by activists for the Democrat Party.”

                    2. You think this priest was an outlier?

                      Why do you think they passed Motor Voter and then CA decided to offer drivers licenses to illegals?

                      Kindness?

                    3. You think this priest was an outlier?

                      Seems that way, yes. Do you have any proof that there is this massive problem of in-person voter fraud?

                      Why do you think they passed Motor Voter and then CA decided to offer drivers licenses to illegals?

                      Kindness?

                      So it was a grand conspiracy to get undocumented immigrants to vote? Do you have any proof of this conspiracy?

                    4. This is proof of voter fraud.

                      A quick look on google brings up other incidents of voter fraud.

                      There is voter fraud and worse is a concerted effort to hide voter fraud.

      2. The Democrats tend to fight tooth and nail against any proof of registration and purging of voter rolls. It is not credible that this man’s case is an unusual aberration.

        1. Yes they do, but this alone is not proof that non-citizens are purposely being registered to vote by Democrats.

          1. It isn’t conservatives demanding more “rights” for illegals.

          2. But they *could* do it. They are *capable* of doing it, right? And that satisfies the jeffy standard.

        2. And Republicans tend to fight tooth and nail to limit voting hours in minority districts and purge voter rolls even after it’s been proved their methods are full of false positives. But y’all keep assuring us that’s all coincidence, and any racist outcomes are an unusual aberration.

          1. Your citation fell off.

            Local regions get to decide voting hours. Local regions get to decide voting rules with Congressional approval.

          2. Limit voting hours in minority districts to match the same ones in others, mind you. Not sure why some districts deserve LONGER hours. Why do you think minorities are unable to get their voting done as white folks do?

            And they always provide information to the impacted to dispute their removal. If they do not, c’est la vie.

          3. Every employer lets you off work to vote.

            If its important to you, then vote.

            1. And if you’re in line when the poll closes — they STILL let you vote.

              1. Exactly.

  9. Deportation is a ridiculous punishment for this type of crime.

    1. Is he being deported as punishment?

      Or is he being deported because, being no longer eligible for citizenship, he no longer has a valid reason for remaining in the country?

      Yes there is a difference.

      1. Only people on track to becoming a citizen should be allowed to live in the country?

        1. Yup. Or you need a visa.

  10. If the minister (or “priests” as Episcopalians call him) wanted to do pastoral work in Illinois, you’d think he’d have educated himself about the political corruption in that state.

    He should have been on his guard against the assumption that people being encouraged by local officials to vote actually had the right to vote.

    As suggested above, they probably selected this guy as a poster child in a campaign to cover up Dem voter fraud – oh, look at the poor reverend!

    But an educated man like him, supposedly someone who was briefed about the pastoral situation in the place he was serving, would have less excuse, not more, than some other immigrant, to vote illegally under government encouragment.

    If he’s truly doing God’s work in some of the crookedest neighborhoods in America, Congress can pass a special act for him allowing him to keep his green card and reapply for citizenship once his civic literary has improved.

    1. Seriously, if he were assigned to minister in a country and province notorious for political corruption, you’d think he’s be skeptical of local officials trying to foist ballots on him.

      “By Jove, something fishy here…I’m not even a citizen of this country, what are these bureaucrats playing at? I better get some legal advice before voting…”

      1. What if some immigrant in his parish went up to him and said, “they’re going to let me vote, rev, and I don’t even have to be naturalized to do it!”

        To give a good pastoral response, he’d have to be smart and wise enough for his BS detector to go off – “hold on a minute, let me get the church’s lawyer on the phone and see if this is allright…oh dear, I talked to the lawyer and they might be trying to put you in a sticky wicket….I suggest you go to the constabulary with your story and tell them who it was telling you that you could vote.”

    2. Demonstrating an inability to learn and abide by the rules is a reasonable basis for restricting access to citizenship.

  11. I fully expected the priest voted in some country where voting is technically allowed but strongly discouraged, like Zimbabwe. (Didn’t Mugabe call an election, and then declare it void after he lost badly?)

    But the U.S.? Wow.

    Still, it’s a slippery slope. If you start letting Episcopal priests vote for garbage collection and fire district taxes, next thing you know you might get presidential elections where people are expected to choose between shrill, entitled, dimwit outlaws and loud, obnoxious TV charlatans! We can’t have that, can we?

  12. Also, this is a perfect illustration of why the motor-voter bill should be thrown in the dustbin of history.

    (I said “dustbin,” not “trash can,” because we’ve got an English theme going in this post)

  13. Okay then, if deportation is an appropriate punishment for this crime, then I suppose what this country really needs is an army of LEOs to enforce every single law right down to the letter.

    1. Yup, perfectly logical demand there.

      Sorry if you think voter fraud is akin to jaywalking.

      1. Chemjeff is pissed because he and his fellow left-liberal democrats need all those illegal votes in order to compete.

        1. It’s excusable as long as it’s on their side.

      2. This guy’s voter fraud is tantamount to jaywalking, yes.

        1. I am not surprised you don’t care about voter fraud. I didn’t expect anything more.

          1. Oh good Lord. It is not about “not caring about voter fraud”. It is about having the punishment fit the crime. You exaggerate the problem of in-person voter fraud and use this hysteria to promote a heavy-handed federal government “solution” to this nonexistent problem, of some type of new VRA-style law, in a transparent attempt to force blue states to submit to the will of Team Red, JUST LIKE Team Blue has successfully used the actual VRA to force Red states to create Blue districts within them. This entire charade has nothing to do with actual voter fraud. There is very scant evidence of voter fraud *on the scale that would actually tip an election*. You know this and don’t care, but are happy to use the issue in a cynical move to do battle against blue states. That is the bottom line here.

            1. Oh good Lord. It is not about “not caring about voter fraud”.

              Yeah, it is. You can dress it up as you wish…but that is the factual reality.

              1. If you were actually concerned about voter fraud, you would take it seriously and not turn it into this hysterical moral panic.

                The evidence is very weak that there is some tremendous problem regarding in-person voter fraud. You know this. You cannot point to any proof of in-person voter fraud in any but a handful of cases. All you can do is just smear people and beat the hysteria drums some more.

                You are the one who is not taking voter fraud seriously, not me.

                1. One case of voter fraud means that there are people not making sure elections are fair.

                  If elections are not fair, then fuck this experiment and lets get civil war 2.0 kicked off.

        2. Jaywalking is a federal felony? Who knew?

        3. It wasn’t even fraud. He honestly believed all those years ago that he was allowed to vote.

          1. Lies

  14. So, a religious huckster committed vote fraud in order to increase the level of forcible theft engaged in by the state, and all we’re doing to him is throwing his worthless ass out? No prison time, no fines, nothing?

    1. The criminal SoL may have passed, if it was 12 years ago.

    2. This comment reminds me just how far down the ‘libertarianism as kinder-gentler statism’ path this publication has gone.

  15. Well this certainly seems credible. And in this new wokatarian age feelings are all that matter. Sorry, he’s gotta go.

  16. I know voting isn’t a big deal to normal people, but to beurracrat types, voting is the most important thing ever: the justification do their jobs, their livelihoods, and the authority of the state altogether.

    So yeah they will freak out and deport over it, with never a worry about racism.

    1. To people who rightly fear Leviathan voting is one of the most important things ever.

      1. One of the most important things to discourage others to stop taking seriously, yes.

        1. Mother fucker.

          *encourage

  17. “There is no vote fraud in America, and when it happens it should just be ignored.”

    -Reason

    1. +1

    2. “Look, he’s only an educated professional. How could he have had any idea that only citizens are allowed to vote? God, you people suck.”

      Reason is awful anymore, not even so much in the positions we see here in H+R, but in the lack of thoughtfulness and argumentation we see.

      Emoting isn’t … Reason, guys.

      1. Reason is pretty bad about that whole bigotry of low expectations thing.

        “How can you expect a dark-skinned man to understand anything about the law?”

        1. To give the priest a (slight) benefit of the doubt – in the UK lots of foreigners are eligible to vote (Commonwealth citizens in all elections, EU nationals in EU and local elections). So the idea that having a Green Card gave him similar entitlements might not have seemed COMPLETELY insane.

          Bear in mind that he was offered the chance to register by a government official, having presumably just shown them his Green Card and FOREIGN PASSPORT as ID to get the drivers license.

    3. Where was the fraud? It was an honest mistake.

  18. Remember when Lefties and Reason was saying that voter fraud is made up.

    Trump said it happens.

    Trump is correct again.

    1. Trump is technically correct once in his life, you mean?

    2. At least you admit he was correct on this point.

  19. So the abbot’s being deported, even though he didn’t vote for Costello?

  20. So…a priest, a minister and a rabbi go to register to vote in Illinois.

    But they see how, on the application form, they have to attest they’re citizens, and since they’re not, they throw the forms away and decide not to register after all.

    (has the registration form changed in the last 12 years?)

    1. Don’t confuse Reason authors with facts and principles. Using those requires, well, reason.

    2. So you want to deport the guy for not reading the fine print? Or for trusting the government official right in front of him, showing him how to fill out the form?

      Now, IMO trusting the government _should_ be a reason for losing the right to vote…

  21. This good to know. A great way to deport illegal immigrants who have been befuddled by ignoramuses running local shows. Can the DMV people get arrested and deported as well for conspiracy to commit voter fraud with a foreign national ( even if he wasn’t a Russian)

    1. Call Rosenstein, seems like he might be available by the end of the week.

      Maybe.

  22. A slight nitpick

    “Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.”

    There is no provision for a trial by jury for the alien so accused (unless he’s been convicted criminally in a state or federal court, which doesn’t seem to be the case here)

    Now, I’m not talking about what the Supreme Court says, I’m talking about what the constitution says, and I think Jefferson and Madison had the better of the argument in 1798 when they argued that if you want to accuse “alien friends” (lawful residents, no war between the U. S. and their country) with a deportable offense, you have to observe constitutional guarantees.

    1. Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, opposing the law empowering the President to deport aliens from countries with whom the U. S. is at peace:

      Virginia said the Alien Friends Law “exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution”

      Kentucky said: “this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution”

      1. From Madison’s report on the Virginia resolutions:

        “That positive provisions, in the Constitution, securing to individuals the benefits of fair trial, are also violated by the union of powers in the alien-act, necessarily results from the two facts, that the act relates to alien friends, and that alien friends being under the municipal law only, are entitled to its protection.”

        1. Also – “If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.”

          1. Seriously, if Reason really wants to be sympathetic to immigrants, why not be sympathetic when they’re actually facing the kind of mistreatment which was denounced by James Madison – i. e., denial of trial by jury – rather than focusing on the factors which make his case *less* sympathetic (OMG all he did was vote illegally)!

            I would argue that, in the eyes of the law, unless an alien friend and green card holder had a jury verdict (or a guilty plea waiving the right to a jury) that he voted illegally, then he shouldn’t be punished for it.

            1. This isn’t the same as expelling a citizen of an enemy nation, or expelling an illegal immigrant who has no presumptive right to be in the U. S. in the first place.

              1. Just to be clear – I’m not suggesting any destabilizing changes.

                Most deportation (“removal”) proceedings are like telling a trespasser to leave the property he’s moved into. Or like telling someone with property not his own to give the property back to the true owner.

                Some deportation proceedings are based on the immigrant having committing other crimes like murder or rape, but generally before the immigration folks get their hooks into him, a state or federal court has to convict him. Then the only job of the immigration bureaucrats is to decide if the crime involved moral turpitude (though there’s no reason that can’t be a jury issue, too).

                But illegal voting seems to be a case where a green card holder can be deported for a crime without being convicted of a crime. Now, WTF is up with that?

                1. Actually, deportation is not considered part of the punishment for a crime. Aliens who are convicted of crimes in the USA are required to serve out their sentences as punishment for their crime.

                  After the end of the sentence, the feds determine if the offender is to be deported. It is all subject to law.

                  In some cases the offender can be deported before the sentence is complete if the home country accepts and is willing to incarcerate him til the end of his sentence. This is usually dependent on officials in the state where the offense occurred being satisfied with the severity of the home country’s penal system..

                  1. “Actually, deportation is not considered part of the punishment for a crime.”

                    That is the exact problem to which I called attention.

                    And observe my remark: “…I’m not talking about what the Supreme Court says, I’m talking about what the constitution says, and I think Jefferson and Madison had the better of the argument in 1798” etc.

                    Could I be any clearer that I *wasn’t* claiming support from the Supreme Court or the modern Congress for my position? I was merely claiming Jefferson and Madison.

                    (But in the present case, this was an administrative case from start to finish, no input from the criminal-justice system.)

      2. All constitution lovers should read this.

  23. Transfer Funds with Cash App instantly today. It is the best app for you. Visit cash app helpline number for any queries.

  24. Transfer Funds with Cash App instantly today. It is the best app for you. Visit cash app helpline number for any queries.

  25. OMG! They finally found ONE instance of voter fraud!

    1. It’s OK, he wasn’t impersonating anyone, there was no need to ask for his ID. /sarc

      1. You’re joking, but you’ve landed a fair point. Voter ID requirements won’t deal with people who shouldn’t be on the list to start with.

  26. Transfer Funds with Cash App instantly today. It is the best app for you. Visit cash app helpline number for any queries or issues.

  27. As seen from my discussion above, Reason managed to bury the lede. There’s still a law that lets a green card holder be deported for a crime without being convicted of a crime.

    1. The UK in particular has a long history of allowing some aliens to vote. So, while I applaud the firm line taken against vote fraud, some part of me still had sympathy for the guy–until I thought about it and realized how unreasonable it actually was for him to have accidentally failed to question the assumption in this instance. This was certainly sealed after you reminded me that all registration forms make the person swear to be a U.S. citizen.

      About the real injustice you are absolutely right. It was baffling that they’d missed a real Constitutional and civil rights issue right in front of their noses in favor of one that presents none of the above but hits some nebulous “socially liberal” feelz. But of course, this is Reason. A thorough discussion of the issues you bring up would have been interesting!

      1. The USA is NOT the UK. In fact the USA rejected much about the UK.

  28. This wouldn’t happen to a white immigrant. It’s always the brown people, cause white supremacy.

  29. Well, good. Not only did he vote illegally (something open border types say never happen, but does quite a bit), he illustrated the problem with them in the first place – they want more government, coming here for free stuff.

  30. He committed a felony. No sympathy.

    1. He committed a felony. No sympathy.

      Says the … libertarian?

    2. Where is the jury verdict against him, or the guilty plea in which he was informed he had the right to a jury but chose to waive that right?

      For that matter, where is the grand jury indictment against him?

      If he wasn’t indicted and duly convicted of a felony, how can he be punished for that felony?

      1. Hes not a citizen, so no trial needed. Deport him.

        Saves taxpayers and him time and money.

        1. Scroll above to see Madison: “If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.”

          1. The part about 6 alien jurors has I think been scrapped, but as an expression of the situation in the Founding era it’s good.

  31. Isn’t this just another example of England trying to undermine our democracy?

    1. When English undermine our rules for voting, mueller is NOT needed.

  32. Reason:
    1) Illegal voting is not a problem at all
    2) We can’t expect the tens of millions of foreigners in our country that are ineligible to vote to know that they’re ineligible to vote

    Open Border Uber Alles entails a lot of DoubleThink

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.