The Save Act

[baltimorened]

You can't be this dense.

If you even move across the street you will have to re-register in person because your address is different than the one on your ID.

You're right, it would be dumb if you had to update your birth certificate with your married name because that makes no sense and I've never suggested that. What I'm telling you is if your name doesn't match your birth certificate, you will need to re-register in person with your birth certificate and marriage license.

It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, if you move, you have to re-register in person even if you move within the same state.

This has nothing to do with my mind dumbass, research it for yourself. I've provided plenty of evidence to back up my assertions. I'm telling you what's in the bill, which I didn't write, NOT what I believe.

dpic, I believe you're right in all your statements, but let me ask, in your example about moving across the street, don't you have to do the same thing with your driver's license? Can't you simply reregister to vote at the same time?

I won't ask about the married woman thing....don't want to be yelled at again.

 

[dpic73]

dpic, the goal here is to get a bill passed. The fact that one part of the government passed a bill, that they know will not pass in the other, is a meaningless action. It's the same with the house passing a bill that they know will not pass the Senate.

All these actions do is continue the "game" as to which segment can pass the blame on to the other.

We have one government, their job is to pas a budget. Neither party has the votes currently to get what they want in a bill to fund DHS.
It should be unacceptable to all of us that we have people, who we expect to show up for work, not getting paid for 2 pay periods. We should all be addressing our complaints to the Congress overall. It's time to put the party "win" aside and work for the benefit of the people.

I agree with whoever posted it, trump should call the Congress back into session to get this done.

No kidding Ned

Democrats don't want to see any more American citizens murdered in the streets with no accountability so they're asking for reasonable reforms to prevent that from happening in the future. They also don't want ICE agents busting down doors without a judicial warrant. They have offered up multiple bills to fund TSA, FEMA and the Coast Guard and will work on funding for CBP and ICE separately.

Republicans claim that's a non-starter and will refuse to vote Yea unless all funding is approved AND the SAVE ACT is passed.

Who's being more unreasonable?

 

[dpic73]

dpic, I believe you're right in all your statements, but let me ask, in your example about moving across the street, don't you have to do the same thing with your driver's license? Can't you simply reregister to vote at the same time?

I won't ask about the married woman thing....don't want to be yelled at again.

Yes but currently you can do it online or by mail. If the SAVE ACT passes, you will have to do it in person at your county registrar's office with your birth certificate or passport.

 

[bdgan]

DERP, the Senate already unanimously passed a bill to fund DHS 100-0. They are not the problem here.

9K views · 462 reactions | This morning, the Senate voted 100–0 (unanimous!) to fund TSA, the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the remaining unfunded operations at DHS. But tonight Speaker Johnson is refusing to allow a vote on this commonsense, bipartisan bi

This morning, the Senate voted 100–0 (unanimous!) to fund TSA, the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the remaining unfunded operations at DHS. But tonight Speaker Johnson is refusing to allow a vote on this...

www.facebook.com

They passed a bill that they knew the republican congress would not accept. The only reason any republican senators agreed was because they didn't have 60 votes o overcome filibuster.

Meanwhile the house passed (I think 6) clean funding bills that couldn't overcome the senate filibuster. If it only required 51 votes none of this would ever have happened.

There is literally no question that democrats are responsible for shutting parts of the government. They don't have control of the house or senate so they're using the filibuster to request changes that have already been passed into law. They lost the election but they still want to have their way. IMO their way includes some unreasonable requests. The biggest is that they want all warrants to be approved by judges. That includes criminals and people who were denied amnesty and have deportation orders. Republicans agreed to body cameras but I heard they only want the camera evident to be used to defend the immigrants, not the agents. I also heard that they want to deny border security the ability to chase down an illegal one they get a few miles into U.S. territory.

 

[bdgan]

Yes I do, Mike Johnson and his shady caucus were under orders not to pass it.

Just like Schumer and his shady cast of characters are under orders not to pass the republican bill.

 

[bdgan]

You can't be this dense.

If you even move across the street you will have to re-register in person because your address is different than the one on your ID.

Moving across the street does not require a new voter registration because you haven't left your voting district.

 

[bdgan]

It is for the 10s of millions of people who don't have access to their birth certificate or don't have a passport. They have to purchase a passport or purchase access to their birth certificate to register to vote.

That is a poll tax

You don't have to leave your house to get a replacement birth certificate. Vital records charges $12. I guess that's you lame excuse for a poll tax. Of course this would only apply to new voter registrations. Are you saying you would support the SAVE Act if they waived the $12 fee?

What if they lose their SS card? Can they work without proving citizenship? Can they collect benefits without a SS card/number?

 

[dpic73]

Moving across the street does not require a new voter registration because you haven't left your voting district.

That's not clear at all because the language is ambiguous. That's one of the main reasons voters could be turned away because the bill is so murky.

"The short answer: The SAVE Act (now called the SAVE America Act) does not explicitly require everyone to re-register. However, any address update to your registration — including a move — would trigger the citizenship documentation requirement.

Here's what we know more specifically:

• There's no requirement in the bill for all registered voters to re-register. However, if a voter did need to re-register for other reasons, such as moving or changing their name, they would have to show documentation proving their citizenship. FactCheck.org
• Even small changes such as moving into an apartment building, moving down the block, or changing party affiliation are considered voter registration updates. Under the SAVE Act, Americans would have to go in person to their election office and present original or certified documentation to make any voter registration change. Center for American Progress
• The same-precinct question specifically: Depending on how a state interpreted the bill's language, moving to a new county within a state or to a new voting precinct could count as a new voter registration and trigger the citizenship proof requirement. States' decisions on how to classify residential moves will affect whether the documents are needed. PBSPolitiFact The bill's language is ambiguous on this point.

What documents would be needed? For the vast majority of Americans, this would be a passport or birth certificate. Government-issued driver's licenses — including REAL IDs — as well as military or tribal IDs do not satisfy the bill's requirements. Center for American Progress

Current status: The SAVE Act has passed the House of Representatives multiple times since 2024, including most recently in February 2026, and is being debated in the Senate. Vote.org It has not yet become law.

So the bottom line is: a move within the same precinct might trigger re-registration requirements under the SAVE Act, but it would ultimately depend on how individual states interpret and implement the law.

https://claude.ai/chat/e2ba71bd-42c5-4df4-b603-f51f6ebf2971

 

[dpic73]

You don't have to leave your house to get a replacement birth certificate. Vital records charges $12. I guess that's you lame excuse for a poll tax. Of course this would only apply to new voter registrations. Are you saying you would support the SAVE Act if they waived the $12 fee?

What if they lose their SS card? Can they work without proving citizenship? Can they collect benefits without a SS card/number?

Nobody said you have to leave your house to get a birth certificate - we have repeatedly explained that you will have to bring it to your county registrar's office IN PERSON if you have to RE-REGISTER. Why is this so hard to understand?

And yes, if you are currently allowed to vote without showing your birth certificate, being required to spend money to get one is a poll tax.

 

[bdgan]

Nobody said you have to leave your house to get a birth certificate - we have repeatedly explained that you will have to bring it to your county registrar's office IN PERSON if you have to RE-REGISTER. Why is this so hard to understand?

And yes, if you are currently allowed to vote without showing your birth certificate, being required to spend money to get one is a poll tax.

So you would sign on to this bill if the $12 fee was waived?

 

[dpic73]

So you would sign on to this bill if the $12 fee was waived?

No, I would not.

We have an insignificant amount of voter fraud now and this bill will disenfranchise many more voters than those who may attempt to vote fraudulently.

This bill will also require states to turn over their voter rolls to the most corrupt administration in history so they can determine who gets culled from the rolls. No sane person would trust them to do this fairly.

It will penalize election workers with up to five years in jail if they mistakenly accept a non-approved document/ID.

Then to throw in completely unrelated trans legislation for a political stunt is contemptible.

 

[bdgan]

No, I would not.

Of course you wouldn't. Just like you don't want illegals to be deported even after being given deportation orders. You'd certainly oppose requiring states to clean up their voter roles to get rid of dead people or people who have left the state.

 

[dpic73]

Of course you wouldn't. Just like you don't want illegals to be deported even after being given deportation orders. You'd certainly oppose requiring states to clean up their voter roles to get rid of dead people or people who have left the state.

Of course you ignored the majority of my post to create an argument about something I don't oppose.

And states already regularly clean up their voter rolls so there's no reason for this corrupt administration to get their smarmy hands on them, which will lead to removing eligible Democrats and you know it too. You're just an angry slave who fears the voters wrath.

 

[tigres88]

So you would sign on to this bill if the $12 fee was waived?

This isn't applicable, and there has been no indication it would happen. REGARDLESS the Save Act is a poll tax in the spirit and letter of its current iteration, and further, adding things to make it HARDER to vote goes completely against the Constitution.

We know at this point you're a disingenuous poster as it is, but around we go again.

 

[baltimorened]

No kidding Ned

Democrats don't want to see any more American citizens murdered in the streets with no accountability so they're asking for reasonable reforms to prevent that from happening in the future. They also don't want ICE agents busting down doors without a judicial warrant. They have offered up multiple bills to fund TSA, FEMA and the Coast Guard and will work on funding for CBP and ICE separately.

Republicans claim that's a non-starter and will refuse to vote Yea unless all funding is approved AND the SAVE ACT is passed.

Who's being more unreasonable?

you missed my point...I'd think that there are republicans who think the democrats are just as unreasonable in the Dems demands just as there are Dems who think the opposite.

So maybe both sides need to sit down together, get a beer, start with the objective - get the government funded - and work toward a compromise that both can live with. Our government did that for decades, now all of a sudden we can't work together? If Clinton/Gingrich could work together back in 1994, surely we can do the same thing here.

Right now the American people are the losers. Is that why we elect people to represent us?

Americans being murdered in the streets? Come on....yes there have been two people killed by ICE, and no one supports that. Is that a reason to do away with the entire agency? Who then enforces immigration law, or do we just forget it? Ignore immigration law and how many more Americans will be killed by undocumented migrants? There is a way to come to a balance here.

 

[baltimorened]

They passed a bill that they knew the republican congress would not accept. The only reason any republican senators agreed was because they didn't have 60 votes o overcome filibuster.

Meanwhile the house passed (I think 6) clean funding bills that couldn't overcome the senate filibuster. If it only required 51 votes none of this would ever have happened.

There is literally no question that democrats are responsible for shutting parts of the government. They don't have control of the house or senate so they're using the filibuster to request changes that have already been passed into law. They lost the election but they still want to have their way. IMO their way includes some unreasonable requests. The biggest is that they want all warrants to be approved by judges. That includes criminals and people who were denied amnesty and have deportation orders. Republicans agreed to body cameras but I heard they only want the camera evident to be used to defend the immigrants, not the agents. I also heard that they want to deny border security the ability to chase down an illegal one they get a few miles into U.S. territory.

Ironically the funds for purchase of the body cameras is in the ICE funding being held up, according to Tom Homan in a TV interview yesterday

 

[dpic73]

you missed my point...I'd think that there are republicans who think the democrats are just as unreasonable in the Dems demands just as there are Dems who think the opposite.

So maybe both sides need to sit down together, get a beer, start with the objective - get the government funded - and work toward a compromise that both can live with. Our government did that for decades, now all of a sudden we can't work together? If Clinton/Gingrich could work together back in 1994, surely we can do the same thing here.

Right now the American people are the losers. Is that why we elect people to represent us?

Americans being murdered in the streets? Come on....yes there have been two people killed by ICE, and no one supports that. Is that a reason to do away with the entire agency? Who then enforces immigration law, or do we just forget it? Ignore immigration law and how many more Americans will be killed by undocumented migrants? There is a way to come to a balance here.

Who said anything about abolishing the entire agency? Dems are asking for reasonable reforms, not ending ICE altogether.

Maybe they did work out things in the past but they didn't have the problems presented by this wrathful, deranged POTUS.

Trump says he won't sign any bills until SAVE America Act passes https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-not-sign-bills-america-act-passes-rcna262336

 

[baltimorened]

Who said anything about abolishing the entire agency? Dems are asking for reasonable reforms, not ending ICE altogether.

Maybe they did work out things in the past but they didn't have the problems presented by this wrathful, deranged POTUS.

Trump says he won't sign any bills until SAVE America Act passes https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-not-sign-bills-america-act-passes-rcna262336

first of all, the POTUS says a lot of things...we don't put much stock in other things he says, why do we accept this as 100% accurate.

Second, not talking just about this bill, but democrats have proposed doing away with ICE. I don't think it was longa ago that he Minority leader in the house said that ICE needed to be abolished..

I know you don't like Trump and he may be more despised than any other president in history, and right now I certainly wouldn't disagree with you. But, if you go back in time and I'll go all the way back to JFK, Presidents have been despised by members of opposing parties forever. I don't know if you go back to Reagan, another outsider, but just about everything he did was negative in the minds of the democrats - Tip O'neil was speaker of the house, which had been under Democrat control for nearly 40 years straight. If you don't think Reagan was vilified over "trickle down" economics, either you weren't there or you don't remember....Johnson, the protests today make no kings rallies look calm and insignificant.....And Carter after the takeover of the American embassy and the oil crisis....Clinton, who at the time was radical Democrat...... Bush 2, still despised by many today, Obama - say no more.

 

[dpic73]

first of all, the POTUS says a lot of things...we don't put much stock in other things he says, why do we accept this as 100% accurate.

Second, not talking just about this bill, but democrats have proposed doing away with ICE. I don't think it was longa ago that he Minority leader in the house said that ICE needed to be abolished..

I know you don't like Trump and he may be more despised than any other president in history, and right now I certainly wouldn't disagree with you. But, if you go back in time and I'll go all the way back to JFK, Presidents have been despised by members of opposing parties forever. I don't know if you go back to Reagan, another outsider, but just about everything he did was negative in the minds of the democrats - Tip O'neil was speaker of the house, which had been under Democrat control for nearly 40 years straight. If you don't think Reagan was vilified over "trickle down" economics, either you weren't there or you don't remember....Johnson, the protests today make no kings rallies look calm and insignificant.....And Carter after the takeover of the American embassy and the oil crisis....Clinton, who at the time was radical Democrat...... Bush 2, still despised by many today, Obama - say no more.

Man, you're giving me too much to respond to and I don't have time for detail so keeping it short.

It doesn't matter if you heard a Democrat say "abolish ICE", that wasn't a condition of the bills they proposed.

I wasn't talking about how much he was liked/not liked, I gave the specific example of how he's demanding passing an unrelated bill before he will agree to pass any legislation.

 

[baltimorened]

Man, you're giving me too much to respond to and I don't have time for detail so keeping it short.

It doesn't matter if you heard a Democrat say "abolish ICE", that wasn't a condition of the bills they proposed.

I wasn't talking about how much he was liked/not liked, I gave the specific example of how he's demanding passing an unrelated bill before he will agree to pass any legislation.

gee, I thought you posted "who said anything about abolishing the entire agency"..I responded to that.

Let's see where to start on your last sentence...politicians from both parties make statements they think will give them some advantage or negotiating point. If you hang your hat on a belief that everything that is said is their real position, you'll be more disappointed than happy. Just one example, remember Biden's statement that democrats would never agree to DHS funding without restrictions on ICE wearing Masks, the need for judicial warrants etc?? remember that? Well the bill passed by the Senate last week did not include those items...

 

[Moogy]

you missed my point...I'd think that there are republicans who think the democrats are just as unreasonable in the Dems demands just as there are Dems who think the opposite.

So maybe both sides need to sit down together, get a beer, start with the objective - get the government funded - and work toward a compromise that both can live with. Our government did that for decades, now all of a sudden we can't work together? If Clinton/Gingrich could work together back in 1994, surely we can do the same thing here.

Right now the American people are the losers. Is that why we elect people to represent us?

Americans being murdered in the streets? Come on....yes there have been two people killed by ICE, and no one supports that. Is that a reason to do away with the entire agency? Who then enforces immigration law, or do we just forget it? Ignore immigration law and how many more Americans will be killed by undocumented migrants? There is a way to come to a balance here.

The balance is that Republicans remove Trump from office, apologize for all their MAGAt trolling, pinky promise they'll never lose their minds again ... and the moderate adults in the room take over, with the promise to not to embrace the far left. Then we start working on getting things done in a reasonable manner. You can't deal reasonably with a mad man, and those beholden to his wishes.

 

[TigerGrowls]

At the end of the day, the Save Act is introducing a Poll Tax in disguise and is unconstitutional. No other conversation necessary.

FAKE NEWS!!!

 

[dpic73]

gee, I thought you posted "who said anything about abolishing the entire agency"..I responded to that.

Let's see where to start on your last sentence...politicians from both parties make statements they think will give them some advantage or negotiating point. If you hang your hat on a belief that everything that is said is their real position, you'll be more disappointed than happy. Just one example, remember Biden's statement that democrats would never agree to DHS funding without restrictions on ICE wearing Masks, the need for judicial warrants etc?? remember that? Well the bill passed by the Senate last week did not include those items...

Biden's statement? He hasn't been president for 14 months so are you sure about this?

 

[TigerGrowls]

But but but.......

 

[baltimorened]

m

Biden's statement? He hasn't been president for 14 months so are you sure about this?

mis type..sorry ...Schumer..my mistake

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[dpic73]

 

[TigerGrowls]

The cheaters screaming as they see the rig scheme being dismantled.

 

[Jfcarter3]

The cheaters screaming as they see the rig scheme being dismantled.

You are not going to be able to handle what’s coming. For real, it is going to break your psyche.

Thank God for the lawyers/judges, btw.

 

[TigerGrowls]

You are not going to be able to handle what’s coming. For real, it is going to break your psyche.

Thank God for the lawyers/judges, btw.

I guarantee you are wrong.

 

[tigres88]

I guarantee you are wrong.

And that's why it'll break your psyche, you sad sad fool.

 

[Jfcarter3]

And that's why it'll break your psyche, you sad sad fool.

It is going to be spectacular. There are couple on here that will break, but the spam posting master is going to take it very poorly.

 

[dpic73]

The cheaters screaming as they see the rig scheme being dismantled.

Nope, as usual I'm right and you're wrong.

When do you think you'll break your addiction to terrible human beings? You need to soon because they're taking you down the wrong path and that path is only going to get lonelier for you.

 

[TigerGrowls]

And that's why it'll break your psyche, you sad sad fool.

Quit being a fag_. If the entire MAGA movement fails I will still be living my life and standing up for what I believe in.

 

[Jfcarter3]

Quit being a fag_. If the entire MAGA movement fails I will still be living my life and standing up for what I believe in.

Which is…? Spam posting other tin foil randos?

 

[dpic73]

Quit being a fag_. If the entire MAGA movement fails I will still be living my life and standing up for what I believe in.

Cotdamn TG, why do you have to use a homophobic slur? We think you're nuts but at least you didn't engage in that kind of language like the lower life forms on the board. It's disappointing if you also feel comfortable talking that way.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Cotdamn TG, why do you have to use a homophobic slur? We think you're nuts but at least you didn't engage in that kind of language like the lower life forms on the board. It's disappointing if you also feel comfortable talking that way.

I can toss a few here and there. Need to stay in practice in case yall come at me too hard.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerRagRob]

 

[bdgan]

I dislike politicians on both sides but democrat hypocrisy has no limits. These people opposed gay marriage and offered civil unions as an alternative. They supported more border fencing before opposing a wall. Since then they've learned that they can buy votes with the special interests by flipping positions.

Here's Harry Reid back in the 90s