Democrat to Illegal: “You Don’t Need Papers for Voting”
You have probably heard about the Congressional candidate who said to a Spanish-speaking audience: “You don’t need papers for voting.” She has tried to explain this as an innocent comment. But here, courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune, is the full context:
[Democrat Congressional candidate Francine] Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don’t have papers.”
It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
(Via Power Line, which has the audio.)
If this doesn’t sink her campaign, we’re in worse trouble than I thought.
UPDATE: Thanks to actus in the comments (no kidding!) I understand her defense. She claims she meant that you don’t have to be a registered voter to help with the campaign — in other words, you don’t need “papers for voting” to help with the campaign.
If she’s pathetically inarticulate, it’s a plausible defense. But to what?
Even if all she was doing was recruiting illegals to help with her campaign, that’s still bad. Not as bad as encouraging voter fraud. But still pretty bad.
In the U.S. Illegally? We Want Your Vote!
Whoops! I bet Francine Busby didn’t want this statement recorded: You don’t need papers for voting. Unfortunately for her, it was (h/t: Drudge):If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: “You don’t need papers for
The Sandbox (72c8fd) — 6/4/2006 @ 3:14 pmI would be helpful to get the audio of the question to see if he said “tarjeta de votante” or “papeles.” In an appeal for get-out-the-vote volunteers, a “tarjeta” is more likely a voter registration card and her gaffe and follow-on seem less problematic. Still, in a campaign focused on ethics reform, this clearly hurts her.
Is it against the law, by the way to fail to acertain the immigration status of campaign volunteers?
Impolitic, yes.
steve (f8c5a5) — 6/4/2006 @ 3:31 pmMake that “ascertain.”
steve (f8c5a5) — 6/4/2006 @ 3:33 pm“She said yesterday she simply misspoke.” http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060603-9999-1mi3busby.html
I’m sure all of you will be kind enough to give her the benefit of the doubt.
As for her rival though, Bilbray looks to be in a tight spot:
With five days to go before the too-close-to-call special U.S. House election in California’s 50th District (San Diego), Republicans were rocked last week with a hard-hitting denunciation of their nominee, Brian Bilbray from a fellow Republican.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:02 pmSorry, the block quote above should have been right after “tight spot:”.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:07 pmI’m sure all of you will be kind enough to give her the benefit of the doubt.
The link you give is the one I gave, and no, I won’t be giving her the benefit of the doubt, since her explanation is facially implausible.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:08 pmJust for my clarification, are people thinking she was saying “you can be illegal and still vote” OR “you can be illegal and still help with my campaign?” Because when I read it over at Malkin I originally thought the former, but now think it was the later. Either way it’s outrageous, of course, but the latter is slightly less outrageous.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:15 pm“You don’t need papers for voting” to an illegal — make up your own mind, but to me, it sounds like “you can vote” as opposed to “you can help.”
I’m not sure why. Maybe it has something to do with her use of the word “voting.”
(I’m really pushing it, aren’t I? It’s only because I think you understand me now.)
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:20 pm“…her explanation is facially implausible.” Somehow, I didn’t really think that would fly…
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:27 pm“You don’t need papers for voting” to an illegal — make up your own mind, but to me, it sounds like “you can vote” as opposed to “you can help.””
I think its clarified by the next sentence. You don’t need the voting papers to be volunteers.
actus (6234ee) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:29 pmSure. That’s why she said “for voting.”
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:41 pmOoooh, I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little blog, too!
Just kidding. I don’t know how I keep finding myself on the wrong side here, but having listened to her, I think the comma in the transcript is correct and her implication was that the person didn’t need voting papers in order to help with the campaign. She phrased it monstrously poorly, but maybe that’s what you get when you try to talk down to people. And also what you get when you try to court a demographic that shouldn’t have a voice in the process.
It pains me to be on this side, and I still hope she loses, but I can’t vote against her as I live in the wrong left coast state.
Unrelated note, Patterico, if you have a spare moment and wouldn’t mind answering a few general blogging questions for me, you might drop me an email at anwyn at theonering dot net. I’d appreciate it.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/4/2006 @ 5:54 pm“That’s why she said “for voting.””
Ya. Papers for voting. What kind of papers? the papers for voting. The voting papers. You don’t need those to help.
actus (6234ee) — 6/4/2006 @ 6:13 pmOkay. I get you. That’s the first time I’ve understood the explanation.
Okay. Maybe.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/4/2006 @ 6:48 pmWhatever she meant by it, it came out crappy. It will probably sink her ship.
Bill Schumm (33ab73) — 6/4/2006 @ 7:05 pmPerhaps a commenter who lives in the area can let us know if the GOP floods the final two days incessantly with the audio.
She meant “papers-for-voting” (voting papers). I agree that it is bad to be recruiting illegals as campaign volunteers.
TCO (da83d2) — 6/4/2006 @ 7:18 pmQuestion: whence arises the assumption that she was talking to illegal immigrants? I do not find it implausible that the audience consisted largely of spanish-speaking people who are (a) here legally and (b) not registered to vote.
Would it be equally offensive to be recruiting campaign volunteers who are legally present and not registered to vote as it is to be recruiting illegal immigrants?
If it *isn’t* equally offensive, on what basis do you determine that she was talking to people who were here illegally?
aphrael (e7c761) — 6/4/2006 @ 7:22 pmAfter listening to the audio, I think it’s clear she meant you don’t need “papers for voting” in order to help with her campaign. If the audio isn’t clear enough to you, consider the context: she was answering a question from someone who wasn’t registered to vote but wanted to help with her campaign. She wasn’t fielding questions from people wanting to know if they could vote illegally.
Move along, people. Nothing to see here.
Xrlq (51d90f) — 6/4/2006 @ 7:45 pmI have already updated the post to agree with the first paragraph of Xrlq’s previous comment.
I disagree with the second. I think her recruiting illegals to help with the campaign is a newsworthy story.
Unless “I don’t have papers” also meant “papers for voting.” But that wasn’t how I interpreted it. It sounded to me like a guy saying “I’m illegal — can I help?”
Do you think that interpretation is wrong?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/4/2006 @ 7:52 pmShe was in front of Spanish-speakers and “papers for voting” is their language construction, not “voting papers.” The answer was in the form a translator would be expected to phrase it.
Are non-English speakers at campaign events customarily deemed to be here illegally?
steve (f8c5a5) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:05 pmDunno. All we’ve seen is the translation. Perhaps if someone produced the original, then we’d know if he said something closer to “I’m not a registered voter, can I help?” or “I’m an illegal alien, can I help?”
Even if it’s the latter, it’s a molehill to Powerline and Michelle Malkin’s mountain.
Xrlq (51d90f) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:05 pmSame, I presume, with her.
actus (6234ee) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:22 pmIt looks to me that she was saying that you don’t need papers to vote AND you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.
I am a man, I write comments. = I am a man who also writes comments.
Ray (be81f9) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:30 pmRay, if she had said that in a vacuum I’d agree with your analysis. But she didn’t. She was specifically asked if/how a { nonregistered voter / illegal alien } could help with her campaign. She wasn’t asked if a { nonregistered voter / illegal alien } could vote for her.
Xrlq (51d90f) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:42 pmAre non-English speakers at campaign events customarily deemed to be here illegally?
People who say they don’t have papers are customarily assumed to be here illegally, as that is a common term for “undocumented” (i.e. illegal) folks.
Do I really have to explain this? Or is it just fun to imply that conservatives are racists, and the hell with common sense and commonly accepted usage?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:48 pm[…] Patterico has more. […]
damnum absque injuria » Extra! Extra! Read All About It! Congressional Candidate Allows Non-Registered Voters to Assist With Campaign! (38c04c) — 6/4/2006 @ 8:51 pm“People who say they don’t have papers are customarily assumed to be here illegally, as that is a common term for “undocumented” (i.e. illegal) folks.” – Patterico
True.
But I gather it’s no longer “facially implausible” to believe she was simply answering an inquiry about campaign volunteers not needing “papers to vote” to help.
We’d have to hear what the volunteer said (asked) to conclude he meant to indicate he was here illegally.
Does your “common sense” tell you illegals would customarily surprise a Congresswoman they’re trying to help elect with that?
steve (f8c5a5) — 6/4/2006 @ 9:47 pmIf what she said wasn’t “in a vacuum,” then why the double meaning? Why issue a clarification? Why not just say, “you don’t need to be a registered voter to help.”
I believe that she really meant “you don’t need papers to vote” and added the rest after she realized what she said. Remember that she was trained in public speaking (supposedly), so she should know how to articulate her statements so that no misunderstanding will occur.
Ray (be81f9) — 6/4/2006 @ 10:01 pmBut I gather it’s no longer “facially implausible” to believe she was simply answering an inquiry about campaign volunteers not needing “papers to vote” to help.
No. Once I understood her argument, as explained by actus (who ever thought he would add value to the discussion?!), I updated the post. I no longer consider the argument facially implausible. It’s just that actus’s explanation made better sense than the candidate’s explanation made, as she expressed it in the article.
We’d have to hear what the volunteer said (asked) to conclude he meant to indicate he was here illegally.
Does your “common sense” tell you illegals would customarily surprise a Congresswoman they’re trying to help elect with that?
Who knows? Does my common sense tell me that illegals would talk to newspaper reporters and talk about how they are illegal? And have their pictures taken? No . . . I thought illegals were living in the shadows. But it happens.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/4/2006 @ 10:39 pmRay:
Because human language is filled with ambiguities. Listeners are generally oblivious to the ambiguity when they think they already know what the speaker meant. When my parents read “Green Eggs and Ham” to you as a kid, I stayed up at night wondering what color the ham was, but that’s just me. Most kids either “know” the ham is normal (hearing “[green eggs] and ham”) or they “know” it it’s green (hearing “green [eggs and ham]”). Similarly, if your wife asked you “Are the kids ready to eat?” it might not occur to you that her question was ambiguous – unless you had previously suspected her of cannibalism.
Here, she said something that syntactically could have meant either “you can vote without papers” or “you can help with my campaign, whether you have voting papers or not.” Had she made the utterance in a vacuum, there’d be no way to know what she meant. Since she was answering a question about who can volunteer, and not who can vote, there is.
Because she was answering questions off the cuff. Do you really think you never say things a little more awkwardly under circumstances like that? For all you know, my response to you contains 75 corrections/clarifications that you never even saw. Hell, if she really meant what you think she meant, she didn’t say that very well, either. It would have been a lot clearer to say “you don’t need papers to vote” than to say “you don’t need papers for voting.”
Xrlq (51d90f) — 6/5/2006 @ 3:31 amSo the consensus seems to be she’s not saying ‘you don’t need papers to vote’ but that she IS saying ‘you don’t need papers to help’ with her campaign?
The defense of her statement then is that she’s recruiting illegals to volunteer for her campaign.
Peachy. Why are our politicians so ethically stupid?
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 6/5/2006 @ 5:07 amClose. It’s “you don’t need voting papers to help” with her campaign.
Again, as Bill said to Monica (or, if you prefer, to the intern who replaced her), that was close but no cigar. It is probably true that she doesn’t police the citizenship or lawful residency of every would-be volunteer. How many campaigns do?
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 6/5/2006 @ 6:28 amAnd she did issue this clarification, that was the in the next few sentences.
actus (ebc508) — 6/5/2006 @ 7:01 amIt wasn’t a very clear clarification.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/5/2006 @ 7:04 amDwilkers — I don’t think the evidence supports the notion that she’s recruiting illegals, per se. She’s out there at a campaign event, and someone asks about helping; of course she’s going to encourage them to help without investigating them too closely.
Even if she ends up rejecting this particular volunteer when he calls or shows up at the office to help, she’s not going to do so in front of everyone else, because doing so would discourage them from volunteering.
That strikes me as being perfectly normal politicking.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:38 pmThat strikes me as being perfectly normal politicking.
Well OK, if you guys say so.
It strikes me as an inappropriate thing for a would-be lawmaker to be uttering for any reason.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 6/5/2006 @ 12:54 pmWhat are voting papers?
I say she knows the guy is telling her he’s undocumented, and she turns it into ‘being a registered voter’ so she can encourage him to help. Of course she isn’t going to turn down his help. However, I doubt she would turn down his illegal vote either.
MayBee (c5700f) — 6/6/2006 @ 12:02 amOh give me a break. Yes, it’s obvious that she meant voter’s registration. So she tripped over her tongue …I am guessing that it was pretty obvious that papers meant voters registration.
So, what’s worse: a quick bit of klunky verbiage, or going out of your way to LIE about it? All those websites with the question purposely cut out, even to the point of showing everything before and after the question?
Folks, you are seeing the republican lying echo machine at work. What happened to the days when republican fought with honor? I never thought I’d see the day when I’d miss Nixon. Sheesh.
A leftie keeping you honest (1dac93) — 6/6/2006 @ 11:51 amYes, Comment #38, you’re 100% right. I speak English well enough to be a citizen and able to vote but I call being registered to vote “papers” all the time. Why, I not only have “papers” to drive a car I even have “papers” for a motorcycle.
And I actually do miss Nixon. When it came to guts and brains he was miles ahead of Carter and when it came to lying Clinton set the bar so low that a snake could not crawl under.
Sheesh to you too, buddy.
nk (bfc26a) — 6/6/2006 @ 12:47 pmA leftie keeping you honest,
I’ll remember what you said the next time the press rips apart the President for mispronouncing a word or phrase. I’ll remember that the next time I hear someone call the President a dufus. I’ll remember that the next time someone says “The President lied us into war.” It’s just the democratic lying echo machine, right?
Back on topic:
Ok, let’s say that she misspoke and corrected herself. That is a good explanation. The question now is, will what she said hurt her in her campaigning? Probably so. I’m sure there will be a lot of spinning both for and against her in the upcoming campaign because of this. I guess the moral of all this is: When speaking in public, be careful of what you say. Think before you speak.
Ray (be81f9) — 6/6/2006 @ 1:46 pmNK:
“Papers” are one thing, and “papers for voting” are another.
Xrlq (ec68d8) — 6/6/2006 @ 3:27 pmModerately Defending Busby
According to Francine Busby, she wants illegal immigrants gone and out of the democratic process. According to her, she wants them to help her at the polls so she can help them. Confused yet?
SEIXON (7e456a) — 6/6/2006 @ 8:03 pmEveryone, I think I may be able to help out here a little. It is common for illegals to say (in spanish) “I don’t have papers.” They are not referring to voting papers but to citizenship/working papers. Having been to Home Depots in the area and trying to hire a day worker, I have been mobed by illegals and I ask them for papers and they all leave. So when the question was asked it was asked in the context…do I need to be legal to help? The literal translation is do I need papers to help? That being said she answered with the common term understood by non-english speakers no you don’t need papers. BTW you don’t need papers to register to vote there…they don’t check…just fill out the form and show up and you too can vote.
Joe (92fc3c) — 6/7/2006 @ 10:30 am[…] 4) Speaking of dumb, Kerry just can’t help shooting off his shark-like mouth at the worst possible time for his peeps. I mostly, reluctantly, agree with Mr. Lileks that there is some sense in the “I meant Bush” interpretation, mainly because I find it hard to believe anybody savvy enough to get elected as senator could be that stupid and also because it’s always been obvious how much John Kerry hates GeoBush on a personal level, but then, look who else they elect as senators in Massachusetts. Karol collected a pretty convincing counter-argument to Lileks, but here’s the thing: if Kerry weren’t such a malevolent jackass all the way around, maybe it would actually matter which one he meant. It doesn’t. He hurt his own party more than anybody else, and there’s much too much “I meant this–I was misunderstood” going around lately. If you don’t want to be so grievously misunderstood, you should shut your big yap until you have some understanding of the most effective way to make your point. […]
Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » Bits and Ballots (e8be5d) — 11/7/2006 @ 5:43 pm