Posted on 08/05/2017 5:39:07 PM PDT by SMGFan
Excellent, and relevant, link, ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas. This goes to the question of “entrapment.”
On or about 11/04/16, the President of the United States, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, the head of DHS, etc etc, went on national TV and CLEARLY made the following talking points:
“when you vote, you are a citizen.”
It’s “not true” that voting may lead to deportation.
OK, the video that you linked postdates Ms. Fitzpatrick’s voting, so she can’t say that PARTICULAR video entrapped her. It is, however, believable to me that, long before the President actually stated those talking points on national TV, the talking points were tested by lower level personnel in the President’s “home” state of Illinois.
In Illinois, “personnel” doesn’t necessarily refer to people who are only political personnel, nor to those who are only government personnel. Rather, it more likely refers to people who, like most government personnel in Illinois, are agents for both the government AND a political party AT THE SAME TIME.
If Ms. Fitzpatrick:
was told those talking points from a government / political agent, even before the talking points had filtered up to the Presidential level ...
then voted, which she would not have done absent having been told that it was OK
Then that would meet the major criteria for “entrapment.”
So, knowing that the government, up to and including the President, was engaged in telling ineligible people that it was OK for them to vote ... what is there to do now? Ms. Fitzpatrick’s case may be the first of many such cases.
Perhaps what is being done with Ms. Fitzpatrick is the correct thing for now. Deport people who have illegally voted, so that future noncitizens will know of the consequences for illegal voting, even if a president were to again go on the air and tell ineligible people that they could vote. However, in cases like Ms. Fitzpatrick’s, perhaps an expedited evaluation for readmittance into the country after a short deportation would be in order.
Obama's apologists would say that the question O was responding to was ambiguous, because in one part she claimed that anybody who is physically present and "contributes" is a "citizen," and in the second part she said "I" which is very different. I would guess that O knew he should qualify his answer but chose not to. He could encourage noncitizens to vote but could say that he was responding to the second half of the question.
That’s what happens when you let ineligible people act like they are President.
you vote in person in Miami and absentee in New York City
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.