mcfarm,
What is the source of that statistic?
Interestingly enough, SNOPES called it "unproven". <G>
And we all know that any unbiased "fact checker" would use phrases like.. "When asked to provide documentation or some sort of citation for this information, supporters fell back on common right-wing canards:"
"Right wing canard" is such an unbiased term..
But we know that California allows illegal aliens to get a drivers license, and supposedly, these "special" licenses are not supposed to allow them to vote.... And the jury summons process uses drivers registrations.. So... Nothing to see here. Move along LOL. You can rest assured that the officials in California make every reasonable effort to ensure that only eligible voters VOTE. They take it very very serious.
I have to agree with you Tim on the verbiage used being biased.
The fact checker is obviously offended by this and goes beyond just telling us facts.
common right-wing canards:
Their job as an unbiased fact checker is to provide information that proves or disproves this particular fact.............not to provide an editorial that applies outside of this particular ruling, that includes common(meaning it happens all the time) right-wing canards ( a clearly uncomplimentary/derogatory adjective connected to right wing activity on the internet).
"In a testament to the pervasiveness of anti-immigrant rhetoric online" WOW!
This is superimposing a belief on their part that applies to MANY(pervasive) other facts which deal with this issue and suggesting its mostly hogwash(rhetoric) and this is proof(testament).
No!
This is not even absolute proof that this particular fact is completely wrong. It's strong evidence to suggest that it's exaggerated for sure(I have no doubt that it is and thats why I asked mcfarm for his source), which is all they should be stating..............absent the editorializing/generalizing about ALL online facts that deal with illegal immigration that come from right wing sources which are commonly inflammatory vs being accurate.
Their ruling here, includes a political attack on the right side that was the source of this.
Perfect example of what I was noticing with Snopes, starting several years ago.
Left wing people who read this same thing will think there is nothing wrong with these editorial comments because they feel those are all accurate descriptions of what they observe online.
Exactly! They are describing observations and impressions of right wing originating things on the internet from the vantage point of somebody from the left..............don't believe it because it's from the right.
That might be true but Snopes should be obligated to rule on each one individually, on a case by case basis and not tell us its mostly all crapola.
Note too, that they do not mention that left wing sources also provide fake immigration news online. Is that only because this is an example of right wing fake news?
If they were to make a fair/two sided editorial concerning fake immigration news or just fake news in general on the internet, you can't only attack one side.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/false-claim-of-california-registering-noncitizens-to-vote/
"... California is not registering noncitizens to vote, save for one city allowing certain illegal immigrants to vote only in school board elections.
"Earlier this year, we debunked a similar false assertion about California’s New Motor Voter Program. That program is an effort to increase voter turnout by automatically registering people to vote when they renew or obtain a new license, unless they opt out … But California officials maintain that only eligible voters would be automatically registered. A spokeswoman for the state’s DMV told us in March that “undocumented Californians are not eligible to register to vote and [the] DMV has programming measures to prevent that from occurring.”
“One example is the technician is unable to enter information that would allow the undocumented customer to register. It is automatically greyed out and cannot be bypassed,” Jessica Gonzalez told us in an email."
Mike, I totally agree that there is no place for opinion in a fact-checking article.
Mike, I found a possible source for mcfarm's original post.
https://santaclaritafree.com/gazette/news/casting-controversy-over-voter-roll-credibility
" … It is these kinds of mysteries that make Mark Meuser incensed. Meuser, running for Secretary of State, said he has found numerous examples of problems with voter rolls ... An area he said should be examined is jury-service summons. He said he found some 449,000 people returning jury summonses saying they’re not American citizens and, therefore, aren’t eligible to serve on juries."
I hope mcfarm will give us his source.
Great work Carl!
You blew Snopes away with that one.........seriously!
The guy's statements that you linked to was a republican running for Secretary of State in CA last November and lost by a landslide to the democrat who is still in that office. Duh, it's California.
In August 2012, his opponent was included in a list of 20 Latino political rising stars compiled by the San Francisco Chronicle. He might be the best Secretary of State ever, I know nothing about him but this particular issue must have been a hot one and clearly Meuser was stating "facts" to support his case. One big question is.......where did Meuser get his facts. I doubt he did his own investigation, without revealing specific sources. If it was authentic, he would be shouting out the sources for everybody to see as proof.
https://ballotpedia.org/Mark_P._Meuser
https://ballotpedia.org/Alex_Padilla
I will add too, that the source that Carl provided for us that gave this number was using it to attack the democratic Secretary of State that he ran against last Fall(we all know how accurate political people are in describing facts related to their opponents performance, especially ahead of elections-NOT!). In the newspaper interview, where he mentioned it, the paper indicated that they did not have access to the information that would have allowed them to verify that fact.
I doubt that its accurate.
