I am one of the many people who have found out that you are dumber than a sack of nails by what you said in this thread.
Before everyone goes completely overboard, this post sums up the issue. If one person has multiply forms of ID, with differing names, then it is possible for one person to vote more than once. Last time I checked, that was illegal. What is being proposed is simply adopting ONE identity, and sticking with it, it has nothing to do with a funny spelling or pronunciation. Whitey out.
No I meant 'cause,' although such problems can also ultimately cost employers as well. IDs don't much what? In a sense, you've answered your own question. Voting (and driving) is indeed a privilege and the government has never been prohibited from regulating either. The litmus test, of course, is whether regulations are illegally discriminatory in nature. That being said, I am not that concerned with having consistent ID documentation at voting booths (perhaps I should have made this clearer). From what I've read, the kind of voter fraud that would stem from insufficient identification is very, very, very rare, so let's drop that line of argument. My reason for supporting any legislation requiring name consistency lies with the issues that arise in the workplace - which brings me to your next point. Actually it does effect the government quite a bit. The main issue where it would arise is with employer taxes. Keep in mind that your employer pays the SS Administration a tax based on an employee's wages. If the company is reporting SS-taxable wages under one employee name yet the employee is registered under a different name with the SS Administration, that can open up a major case of confusion later on. The SS Administration will at some point have to expend resources to determine whether the two names associated with the SS# are the same - and they will do this to ensure that fraud has not been committed. Currently, the employer cannot shoulder the burden of ensuring accuracy because the law clearly forbids them from requesting additional documentation for the I-9 if the documentation already provided is sufficient to prove identity and right to work. So if the employee gives them a passport for I-9 purposes, the employer cannot request their SS card as well - period. I don't think this law could be ruled discriminatory, as it will apply not only to immigrants, but to women who change their name after marriage, people who assume stage names/pseudonymns, and anyone else who opts to change their name.
subatomic: thanks for bringing sanity to the thread. your original post should've killed it pages ago. I don't what fmullegan is trying to prove anymore
Voting is not a privilege. It is a recognized constitutional right. Driving is a privilege. You hit this one on the head. Voting fraud is very rare, and that's why I was adamant on my position that for voting purpose ID matching requirement does not make whole lot sense. Be honest with you, I didn't buy the racist's crap about Aisan names for a different reason. When I first read the article, I thought what they did was more about setting up obstacles to make it hard for minority to vote. It is politically motivated. I didn't like your proposal because on the face it is race natural law, but the effect of it is to impose burdens on minorities and hence limit their voting rights, in the name of preventing voting fraud, which is done very rare. It's hard to get Asians to vote to begin with, and we are worried about them voting multiple times? But of course that is not what you meant. Well, I see you concerns. Looks like your proposal is very different from consistent documentation across the board, because making sure one SS# is associated with one name is very different from consistent documentation. I probably misunderstood you, kinda lost in the context of the thread. If what you propose is not going to be enforced by restrict voting, I don't have a problem with it. I am not familiar with SS tax frauds committed by having different names, so I am not prepared to contribute to this part of discussion. However, I do want to point out that a lot of times the name inconsistencies on one's ID are created by immigration, DMV, SS officials, etc, so the burden shouldn't solely fall upon the affected individual, and government shall not enforce absurdity such as having Asian change their names.
I have always known u miss something between the ears .... It's more than about changing names ... If you start down this road ... next, they can require any American traveling oversea to use an appropriate name for the country he travels to ... less they throw him in jail because of mis-identification ...
Very good point. This is not about voting identification, because I bet you there are not many incidents, if any, where Asian voters try to vote multiple times.
mostly that RJ and wnes were totally wrong about pinyin. They called me out, not the other way around.
That is a related point but not exactly what Rep Brown is talking about. [rquoter]Easier for voting? Brown suggested that Asian-Americans should find a way to make their names more accessible. “Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said. Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”[/rquoter] She is clearly saying that Asian names, in her opinion, are hard for Americans to deal with and so they should change their names to something that Americans have an easier time with, I presume that means spelling and pronouncing.
Whatever makes you feel better and I will leave it at this. A substitution doesn't make something official or a part or a system. Substituting "@" for "a" doesn't mean that the Roman Alphabet suddenly has 27 letters instead of 26. 'v' is used as a substitute but it isn't a part of Pinyin. Your initial post said 'V' is a vowell in Pinyin. It is isn't a vowel in Pinyin anymore than "@' is a vowell in the ROman Alphabet. Also again none of that supports the original contention that got us off on this tangent that foreigners are required to have new names in the PRC.
