Speaker 1: Welcome to the Nonprofits, the weekly show that addresses current
Speaker 1: events and news items from an atheist and secular humanist perspective.
Speaker 1: In our first segment this week, we'll be putting Texas's
Speaker 1: state motto friendship to the test. Texas State Senator Brian
Speaker 1: Hughes has introduced two controversial bills. Senate Bill sixteen would
Speaker 1: require proof of citizenship to register to vote, a move
Speaker 1: critics say would disenfranchise low income and minority voters. Another bill,
Speaker 1: Senate Bill nine sixty four, proposes that Texas issue driver's
Speaker 1: licenses with a non citizen label for legal immigrants, potentially
Speaker 1: exposing them to harassment. Advocates argue this stigmatizes legal immigrants,
Speaker 1: reinforcing anti immigrant sentiment. The bill's future in the legislature
Speaker 1: remains uncertain. This story is from San Antonio Current by
Speaker 1: Michael Carlis on March twenty six, twenty twenty five. All right,
Speaker 1: so starting off with the fun stuff right away, Jimmy,
Speaker 1: why don't you give us.
Speaker 2: Your thoughts on it first?
Speaker 1: The article claims that this proposer will quote disenfranchise low
Speaker 1: income and minority voters.
Speaker 2: Exactly will this do that?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: So thank you for asking my opinion, I appreciate that.
Speaker 4: So the typical argument toward having voter id is that
Speaker 4: a lot of people can't really afford to either travel
Speaker 4: or just pay for the idea itself, and that disproportionately
Speaker 4: affects people of low income areas or of a low
Speaker 4: income background, and of course that typically falls on people
Speaker 4: of color minorities, and so you never really see a
Speaker 4: Democrat or a democratic policy being hey, let's do let's
Speaker 4: have more strict voter ideal laws. The argument is typically, well,
Speaker 4: Republicans want us to impose voter ideal laws so that
Speaker 4: you know, their wealthy kind of base or their wealthy
Speaker 4: euer base will be able to coast them into into victory. Right,
Speaker 4: So that's the typical way that this would disenfranchise people.
Speaker 4: But the second one actually would have an opposite effect,
Speaker 4: in my opinion, because they would be giving IDs to everybody.
Speaker 4: So if everybody were given an idea and they were
Speaker 4: non citizen and it said non citizen on their ID,
Speaker 4: well then that would really that's a scary thing because
Speaker 4: that actually targets people who are not citizens, which is
Speaker 4: exacerbates the problem that we're seeing in this country now
Speaker 4: where immigrants are being blamed for a lot of this
Speaker 4: country's problems, and so that's that's kind of my initial
Speaker 4: take on why that is targeting or disenfranchising minority and
Speaker 4: poor communities and then again immigrants.
Speaker 1: All right, yeah, Helen, I know that you had some
Speaker 1: to say on this too, Jimmy, So Jimmy tucking about
Speaker 1: how it's going to it seems at least target populations,
Speaker 1: specific populations in the United States. Do you think this
Speaker 1: is part of like a larger nationwide effort.
Speaker 3: I'm well with just the you know what's going on
Speaker 3: now with people being arrested, you know, without you process,
Speaker 3: you know, being here on green or or you're an
Speaker 3: American citizen and you just have an to have the
Speaker 3: right name. That seems this is a trend. This is
Speaker 3: a reflection of this because if you have an educated
Speaker 3: voting populace, guess what who Guess who's not going to
Speaker 3: make it into power Because the more educated you are,
Speaker 3: and the more and also if especially people that live
Speaker 3: in poor communities, people of color, they're going to be
Speaker 3: educated on the issues that matter to them and figure
Speaker 3: out which candidate is going to help them, you know,
Speaker 3: get resource and get out of poverty. And help with
Speaker 3: jobs and things like that, like you're going to pay
Speaker 3: attention to those things if someone says, you, guess what,
Speaker 3: we don't really like that. So we're going to make
Speaker 3: it harder for you to vote. And that's they're going
Speaker 3: to push legislation to make sure that people aren't able
Speaker 3: to vote as easily as they could, you know, because
Speaker 3: it does affect you know, these people that may not
Speaker 3: be able to drive to a voting booth, you know,
Speaker 3: or something like that. And I find it really silly
Speaker 3: because I got my voter ID in the mail. You
Speaker 3: can vote by mail. But I think that this is
Speaker 3: just a reflection of people of color and poor people,
Speaker 3: as Jimmy said, just being targeted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, to me, it just seems like very frustrating.
Speaker 1: It seems how can you get more anti American than
Speaker 1: that than taking the voice away from the people. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was really kind of one of the founding principles
Speaker 1: of the United States, at least from what I understand,
Speaker 1: is that the citizenry can contribute to the governance.
Speaker 2: Right, the citizens can vote for who they want.
Speaker 1: And if you are removing the vote from I mean,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a taxation without representation. Kind of situation
Speaker 1: if you're targeting specific groups for that disenfranchisement, for that
Speaker 1: removal from the whole election system. Jimmy, can you give
Speaker 1: us any background, I mean, are there any historical examples
Speaker 1: of similar type of identification requirements that might you know,
Speaker 1: that might give us a little bit of cause to
Speaker 1: worry here.
Speaker 4: Well, in the United States, you know, there was a
Speaker 4: time where people had had to and forgive me, I'm
Speaker 4: no expert, but they had to prove that their grandfather
Speaker 4: voted in order for.
Speaker 2: Them to vote.
Speaker 4: That was a function of the Jim Crow South right,
Speaker 4: and so of course at that point many freed slaves
Speaker 4: or recently freed slaves, their grandfathers didn't vote because they
Speaker 4: were slaves, so then they be able to vote. Right.
Speaker 4: But the most popular example, of course, and this isn't
Speaker 4: necessarily a voter id law, but this is an identification
Speaker 4: law or an identification infringement upon someone's right rights. And
Speaker 4: that is the star of David that all Jewish people
Speaker 4: in Europe were required to whar to identify them. You know,
Speaker 4: this helped identify who was the problem and then led
Speaker 4: to at least at first deportation, but of course later imprisonment.
Speaker 4: And that's the scary thing about a policy like this,
Speaker 4: because we're already seeing talks of deportation. We've already seen
Speaker 4: migrants be removed to incredibly harsh places. The prison at
Speaker 4: El Salvador. Recently, we saw an American citizen get moved there.
Speaker 4: We saw a military aircraft, a cargo aircraft, carrying US
Speaker 4: immigrants within the US to Guantanamo Bay, which I would
Speaker 4: argue is the closest thing that the United States has
Speaker 4: at this point to a concentration camp. So you know,
Speaker 4: if you look at the road that the Jews had
Speaker 4: to follow in nineteen thirties Germany, and then you juxtapose
Speaker 4: that with what Latino immigrants are facing in the United States,
Speaker 4: everybody should be sounding the alarm in defense of these people.
Speaker 4: And you know, I don't know what the next step is.
Speaker 4: You know, what we can't do is allow this to
Speaker 4: go too far. You know, we can't just wait and say, oh, well,
Speaker 4: that won't happen to us where the United States, No,
Speaker 4: it happens. It happens to us. It happened to Japanese
Speaker 4: Americans posts nineteen forty four, excuse me, nineteen forty three attack.
Speaker 1: On Pearl Harbor, right, right, yeah, and that goes against
Speaker 1: another American tenet, right, you know, the great American melting
Speaker 1: pot where we take off, bring us.
Speaker 2: Your you're tired, you're weak, and so forth.
Speaker 1: And really what it's doing, it's just creating in us
Speaker 1: versus them situation.
Speaker 2: I mean, what what better way.
Speaker 1: To identify them other than you know, making them where
Speaker 1: or in this case have on their ideas a big
Speaker 1: label saying I'm one of them, I'm not one.
Speaker 2: Of you, you know.
Speaker 1: And it's to me, that's just fomenting just you know,
Speaker 1: disagreement and disparagement and getting us you know, butting heads
Speaker 1: with each other rather than trying to get us to
Speaker 1: work together to make life better for everyone. It really
Speaker 1: is just it's it's really to me, it's one of
Speaker 1: the vilest ways of trying to promote, you know, try
Speaker 1: to improve the lives of some people at the expense
Speaker 1: of others. I mean, it's really it's really savage and
Speaker 1: really very childish. I think, Helen, what are your thoughts
Speaker 1: on that?
Speaker 3: Well, the way like, obviously this is disgusting, but also
Speaker 3: to like I'm going to kind of bring it back
Speaker 3: that we're we're facing this sort of thing that only
Speaker 3: certain types of people get to vote, only certain only
Speaker 3: certain types of people get to participate in the due process,
Speaker 3: only certain types of people, you know, actually get to
Speaker 3: have the American you know experience, you know, And it's
Speaker 3: sad and frustrating because, as Jimmy pointed out, we can't
Speaker 3: wait until you know, we're you know, up to our
Speaker 3: neck and shit, you know, and we're just trying to
Speaker 3: pull ourselves out. Like really, what we're facing right now
Speaker 3: is the fact that this is this is going to
Speaker 3: be slow burn and before and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: people are going to sort of wake up and go, WHOA.
Speaker 3: I didn't realize I was living in Germany in the
Speaker 3: nineteen thirties and forties, and it's like, but now you
Speaker 3: are because it's a slow burn. Because that and that's
Speaker 3: the whole thing about like, well it's not happening to me,
Speaker 3: so it's not really happening.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, And if I may, I want to just
Speaker 4: kind of combine some of the points that each of
Speaker 4: you just made, so in quoting the Statue of Liberty, Scott,
Speaker 4: you know, we ask for the huddled masses, right, the
Speaker 4: huddled masses, We open our borders to them and then
Speaker 4: helen to your point, only certain types of people get
Speaker 4: to experience the American dream. Well, we are at a
Speaker 4: point where we are fighting against the definition of what
Speaker 4: it is to be an American, and there are people
Speaker 4: that think that they have a better idea of what
Speaker 4: it means to be an American. But really that causes
Speaker 4: us to decide that the principles that we are founded
Speaker 4: on are no longer good. And that's what this fight
Speaker 4: is about. You know, who's really an American versus who's not?
Speaker 4: And institutionalizing it is what's happening with these these proposals
Speaker 4: in Texas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it literally is doing that.
Speaker 1: It's literally separate, you know, separating people on the ground
Speaker 1: right there. I just wanted to throw out some stats
Speaker 1: that I found online here. According to a twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: study published on Census dot gov, so this is on
Speaker 1: a government website, the median income of households in the
Speaker 1: US is strongly correlated to racial and ethnic identification, with
Speaker 1: Asian Americans at about seventy seven thousand per year for
Speaker 1: per household, that's the medium median income, White Americans at
Speaker 1: about sixty three thousand, Hispanic Americans at forty five thousand,
Speaker 1: and black Americans have a median income of thirty seven
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year per household. And so I have
Speaker 1: this question. We'll start with Helen. How does that translate
Speaker 1: it into disparity in access to citizenship? You mentioned you
Speaker 1: got your ID in the in the mail you got
Speaker 1: you know you can vote via mail. So how does
Speaker 1: that How does an income disparity contribute to that systematic
Speaker 1: disenfranchise of certain groups.
Speaker 3: So because I would have to because I live in
Speaker 3: I love Florida, and I happen to live in a
Speaker 3: mostly white, rich county and very red, so that gives
Speaker 3: me an advantage because I'm in an upper income bracket.
Speaker 3: I have access this, I have a car, I have
Speaker 3: access to have that mobility within my community. Now for
Speaker 3: people that live in other parts of the community where
Speaker 3: you're forced to show your ID before you can vote,
Speaker 3: I can just set it a piece of paper and
Speaker 3: as long as I you know, they have my driver's
Speaker 3: license on file, they can just match it and go okay.
Speaker 3: So I can we can mail or mail and voting
Speaker 3: thing people that one may not have access to the internet,
Speaker 3: one to may if you are required to show your
Speaker 3: ID in person, the show that you're able to vote,
Speaker 3: and they're like, no, you're not the correct person. They
Speaker 3: can just kick you out. And that's another problem with
Speaker 3: it two because you may not have the ability to
Speaker 3: mail in. You may not and also you may and
Speaker 3: also at the same time, this will be a double
Speaker 3: ast sword can't drive and go to a voting booth
Speaker 3: and you know, show that you're able to vote, and
Speaker 3: on the other end, you may not have access to
Speaker 3: the internet so you can request a mail in voting. See.
Speaker 3: So that's these are real problems that people fase and
Speaker 3: that's why you see people that are on the lower income,
Speaker 3: lower income and as people of color have a harder
Speaker 3: time voting.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, And I would I would add on to that.
Speaker 1: I would say that you know, if you're in a
Speaker 1: lower income family, chances are you can't as easily take
Speaker 1: a day off to go and vote, or take a
Speaker 1: day off to go sit at the you know, at
Speaker 1: the government office for half the day trying to get
Speaker 1: your document, you know, waiting in line, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And so I mean it's being having a having a
Speaker 1: higher income, certainly being above the poverty line does give
Speaker 1: you a lot of flexibility that you know that a
Speaker 1: lot of lower income families just don't have their living
Speaker 1: paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford to take a day off,
Speaker 1: They can't even afford to take a sick day in
Speaker 1: many cases. And so I don't know, it just seems
Speaker 1: really really lopsided to me. And so Jimmy, I wanted
Speaker 1: to kind of take that same thought process there, that
Speaker 1: same concept, but put it in a little bit more
Speaker 1: of a historical context here. And so this is quoted
Speaker 1: from This is a Wikipedia article I'm quoting on poll
Speaker 1: tax and so I want to encourage listeners to don't
Speaker 1: just take my word on it, don't just take Wikipedia's
Speaker 1: word on it. Wikipedia has tons of links in there,
Speaker 1: so please check this out on your own to back
Speaker 1: up what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: But this is a quote on the idea of a
Speaker 2: poll tax.
Speaker 1: After the right to vote was extended to all races
Speaker 1: by the fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, many Southern states
Speaker 1: enacted poll taxes as a mean to as a means
Speaker 1: of excluding African American voters, most of whom were poor
Speaker 1: and unable to pay a tax, so as not to
Speaker 1: disenfranchise many white voters. Such laws sometimes included a clause exit,
Speaker 1: emptying any people who had voted prior to enactment of
Speaker 1: such laws. Kind of like what you were saying. A
Speaker 1: little bit there, Helen, You're already in the system, right,
Speaker 1: That makes it a little bit easier.
Speaker 2: Let's see where did I leave off here?
Speaker 1: Oh, the poll tax, along with literacy tests and extra
Speaker 1: legal intimidation such as by the kuklus Klan, achieve the
Speaker 1: desired effect of disenfranchising African Americans. The Wikipedia article goes
Speaker 1: on to note that the twenty fourth Amendment, ratified in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty four, prohibits both Congress and states from conditioning
Speaker 1: the right to vote in federal elections on payment of
Speaker 1: a poll tax. Poll tax is illegal in the United States. So, Jimmy,
Speaker 1: what I want to ask you. Does this requirement of
Speaker 1: specific documentation constitute a poll tax, either literally or indirectly?
Speaker 1: And if so, wouldn't this proposal violate the twenty fourth Amendment?
Speaker 4: Well, I would, I would say so, But I don't
Speaker 4: know the specifics of the law. So let's say that
Speaker 4: for this proposal that tex wants to make sure that
Speaker 4: all citizens non citizens have an identification, have identification that
Speaker 4: that shows they are non citizens. Well, if Texas is
Speaker 4: issuing that license, I would say that it's not it's
Speaker 4: not going to violate that amendment. But if it's forcing
Speaker 4: them to get that identification, I would I would equate
Speaker 4: that to a poll tax because that identification.
Speaker 2: Would be required for voting.
Speaker 4: So if they want to require identification for voting, but
Speaker 4: they want to provide provide that identification, that I think
Speaker 4: that that that is the only way that this is fair.
Speaker 4: But making people purchase something where it's going to disproportionately
Speaker 4: affect those that are in poverty and in poor communities,
Speaker 4: and for all of the reasons that we've already discussed
Speaker 4: in which you two have so eloquently mentioned. Yeah, that
Speaker 4: would that would do that, that would serve the same purpose. Now,
Speaker 4: this is also more dangerous than just a poll tax,
Speaker 4: because this is a physical identification, right, This is this
Speaker 4: is a way of discriminating and othering visibly physically.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: This is not left up to the imagination. Well, could
Speaker 4: somebody be illegal? Could not somebody? No, you can inquire
Speaker 4: about it and there work and they could theoretically, you know,
Speaker 4: I hear, And again I'm not a legal expert, but
Speaker 4: you don't necessarily have to show identification if a police
Speaker 4: officer asks you. I hear in other places that you do.
Speaker 4: In any case, most people are going to do it right.
Speaker 4: And if you're asked for your identification and you're giving
Speaker 4: them over proof that you're a non citizen, you're basically
Speaker 4: in their minds and probably in reality. If we think
Speaker 4: about the way things are going now in this country,
Speaker 4: asking to get deported, right, and that's what that's the
Speaker 4: way that we need.
Speaker 2: To look at this.
Speaker 4: Okay, not this isn't just some formality to make things
Speaker 4: more efficient. This is a way of getting around legal
Speaker 4: safeguards to protect people. And that's how we need to
Speaker 4: treat this exactly. That that's an excellent point. It's more
Speaker 4: than just voting here. It's almost an invitation for violence. Really,
Speaker 4: it's almost an invitation for you for these people to
Speaker 4: be harassed and discriminated against.
Speaker 1: And it's I don't know, it's just really frustrated to me. Again,
Speaker 1: I'm going to be using this word a lot, I
Speaker 1: think these days, but it's just so an American. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's so it's so ridiculous. I do I have one
Speaker 1: last point, Helen, that I wanted to bring up, And
Speaker 1: so I wanted to bring this up because I think
Speaker 1: it's kind of funny. I found an article from Texas
Speaker 1: Public Radio from twenty twenty four and they said, data
Speaker 1: compiled by the conservative Heritage Foundation, who's most known recently
Speaker 1: for being the architect of Project twenty twenty five right,
Speaker 1: their data shows that non citizen voting in Texas is
Speaker 1: not a widespread problem, and instead shows other instances of
Speaker 1: voter fraud committed by US citizens are far more prevalent.
Speaker 1: In its database, the Heritage Foundation has included three non
Speaker 1: citizens casting ballots in Texas since twenty twelve, three times
Speaker 1: since twenty twelve. The Foundation's data also suggests that a
Speaker 1: more pressing issue is Felon's casting ballots or being elected,
Speaker 1: but you know that's a side issue. It's analysis sites
Speaker 1: at least four times in as many instances of that
Speaker 1: type of fraud than when compared to noned citizen voting.
Speaker 2: So my question for you, Helen, how.
Speaker 1: Does this data support the charge that Texas is proposing
Speaker 1: discriminatory legislation. We're we're all claiming that this is discriminatory.
Speaker 1: Does this data back us up?
Speaker 3: Well, the proof is in the putting. That's that's all
Speaker 3: I gotta say.
Speaker 4: Like, that's all I gotta say.
Speaker 2: That it does itself, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Jimmy, Do you have any thoughts on that
Speaker 1: as well?
Speaker 4: Well? I not necessarily. I mean, I want to close
Speaker 4: out this segment by just kind of giving my opinion
Speaker 4: about why this is so important, and so if you
Speaker 4: don't mind, I just have to please do please short sentences.
Speaker 4: And and you know, what we have seen so far
Speaker 4: is the blaming of immigrants for our problems. Then we're
Speaker 4: starting to see the rounding up and deportation and imprisonment
Speaker 4: of immigrants for our problems. So if we compare to
Speaker 4: nineteen thirties Germany, for example, the only thing that we
Speaker 4: haven't seen yet is the systematic imprisonment and killing of
Speaker 4: people for being immigrants. And I hope it stays that way.
Speaker 4: But if anybody out there is seeing this episode right
Speaker 4: now and you're hearing us talk about this, I would
Speaker 4: say that it is time to start considering if you
Speaker 4: have not already the reality of our country moving in
Speaker 4: the direction of nineteen thirties Germany, and you need to
Speaker 4: decide right now, will you conform or will you not
Speaker 4: conform if we go that way, because I will never conform,
Speaker 4: and I'm going to stand up for everybody's right to
Speaker 4: be treated fairly and to be treated like an American
Speaker 4: under the Constitution, under the laws that we are all
Speaker 4: guaranteed citizen or not. So that's kind of what I
Speaker 4: wanted to say there. Thank you for letting me get
Speaker 4: that off my chest.
Speaker 1: That is an excellent place for us to wrap this up.
Speaker 1: And so if any of you out there get off
Speaker 1: your butts and do something, don't wait until it's too late.