This post describes a logical solution to a complicated problem.

 

SAVE Act idea: Vertical I.D. for illegals

Vertically oriented driver's licenses would go a long way toward's stopping vote fraud, and other kinds of fraud, too.  

M. Walter | February 5, 2026

Remember when Hillary Clinton got caught flat-footed in a debate in 2007 about whether or not she would support driver’s licenses for illegals?  

Back then she equivocated.  By the time she was running for president in 2015, she was for them.  And why shouldn’t she be?  It’s now the official position of the Democrat party. 

x.com

The cut off text reads:

hearing: that EXACT same driver’s license can be used to “clear a challenge” at the polling station and allow someone to vote.  He systematically dismantled the barrier between illegal entry and the voting booth.  He created the loophole on purpose.  It is a calculated exploitation of the law to dilute the vote of actual citizens.  Caught on tape and undeniable.

Minnesota isn’t the only state to issue driver’s licenses to illegals.  Eighteen others do too:  CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, UT, VT, VA, and Washington D.C.

And these states have the support of the judiciary.  Shocker.

x.com

Got it?  You can check a box saying “trust me” to register to vote, then bring your state issued I.D. to the polls to vote.  Nineteen states allow it.  Now, to be perfectly fair, some of these I.D.s have notations on them like “Federal Limits Apply” or “Not Valid for Identification” but those notations are meant to indicate it’s not a REAL I.D. so could not be used to board a plane.  But vote?  I totally trust the little old ladies (or the ACORN operatives -ed.) at the polling station to read the fine print, don’t you?  And understand what it means, right?

Let’s be real: Once you have a driver’s license, you have the keys to the kingdom.  You’re good to go.  So I have a suggestion that should be added to the SAVE ACT so it can override the states currently issuing these licenses: Make those driver’s licenses issued to illegals vertical.

A vertically oriented license is used by lots of states to indicate that the driver is under 21.  When someone is handed a vertical license, they pause, they stop for a moment, knowing there’s meaning attached to the orientation.

The little old ladies at the polls would be greatly helped by having illegals’ licenses vertical.  No fine print to read.  Yes, the 18-21 year olds might be slightly delayed getting to the voting booth while they put on their spectacles to check dates for the young 'un standing before them, but that’s a minor inconvenience for a population which, let’s be honest, isn’t a very reliable voting bloc anyway.

It’s got to be done, because non-citizens voting is the official position of the Democrat party.

The cut off text reads: The SAVE ACT.

These people are intractable.  

They cannot be reasoned with.  

The SAVE ACT is the remedy.  And vertical licenses for illegals must be added to the Act.

 

Alarming statistics in this post! Our tax dollars at work for the benefit of illegal alien invaders!

 

61% of illegal immigrant households use welfare; children are main conduit for aid

 Women, who are in the U.S. illegally, and their children listen as Nora Sandigo explains their legal rights, as well as options to prepare their families in case a parent were to be detained or deported, in Homestead, Fla., Jan. … more >

 By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Roughly half of all immigrant-headed households in the U.S. use welfare — and among illegal immigrant homes in particular, it’s even higher, at 61%, according to a new study Wednesday that argues that’s another reason to enforce immigration laws.

By comparison, just 37% of U.S.-born households use welfare, the Center for Immigration Studies calculated, based on 2024 Census Bureau data.

The numbers challenge the notion that illegal immigrants can’t get assistance.

While they themselves are generally ineligible under federal law, their U.S.-born children can qualify for a host of assistance, such as food stamps, school lunches and medical care. Some states also go beyond federal law to give welfare benefits to illegal immigrants, and even under federal law they can be eligible for some medical and tax credit welfare programs.

Steven A. Camarota, the CIS chief researcher, said the intensive use of welfare shows the laws Congress wrote to limit immigrants’ access have been “relatively ineffective.”

“If we want immigrants to use less welfare in the future, then reducing illegal immigration and changing the selection criteria for legal immigrants to emphasize skills should be considered,” he argued in the report.

Immigrants were more intensive users of welfare across all categories, from cash to food programs, and housing assistance to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.

Some 44% of households headed by illegal immigrants collected food benefits, double the rate of the U.S.-born households. Legal immigrants were in between, at 32%.

For Medicaid, illegal immigrant households again led the way at 44% use compared with 38% for legal immigrant homes and 27% for the U.S.-born.

Housing assistance was a bit of an outlier, with legal immigrants leading the way at 6% compared with 4% of native-born and 2% of illegal immigrant homes.

And 21% of legal and illegal immigrant homes collected cash assistance compared with 15% of U.S. homes, according to CIS’s calculations.

Mr. Camarota said the presence of U.S.-born children is the main factor.

Take them out of the equation — as some other analysts do — and welfare use among illegal immigrants is low. But Mr. Camarota said removing the children obfuscates the impact of U.S. immigration policy.

“You have a lot of immigrants who can’t support their U.S.-born children. The vast majority of children in immigrant households are U.S.-born. So you have this situation where they are accessing programs at very high rates,” he said.

U.S. immigration law generally pushes the idea that newcomers should be self-sufficient and not become a burden on taxpayers.

That idea was strengthened in the 1990s when Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed laws raising the bar for when even legal immigrants could access welfare services.

Yet in 2024, a staggering 75% of immigrant homes with children collected welfare.

“Why is immigrant welfare use high? Not because they’re lazy, not because they all came to get welfare, not because they don’t work,” Mr. Camarota said. “It’s because in the modern American economy, people with the education and skill profile of the average immigrant will struggle.”

On the other side of the debate, the Cato Institute released a report this week arguing that immigrants, far from being a drain on the federal treasury, boosted Uncle Sam’s bottom line by $14.5 trillion from 1994 to 2023.

“Immigrants are subsidizing the U.S. government,” the Cato scholars argued.

They acknowledged immigrants collect more welfare than U.S.-born people, but said the government pays less for old-age entitlements and prisons, and far less for education.

They did not include the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants in their data, Mr. Camarota said.

• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.

 

Important US Code and Constitutional Amendments quoted have special meaning in this post.

 

Hiding behind the Fourth Amendment

Leftists can’t ‘plead the Fourth’ to hide illegal aliens in your home.

Matthew G. Andersson | February 3, 2026 www.americanthinker.com

A group of legal professionals write, “We Were Top Homeland Security Lawyers.  You Can’t Wish Away the Fourth Amendment” and argue in the New York Times that illegal foreign border invaders, and the homeowners sheltering them, are somehow protected by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment concerning unreasonable search and seizure.

In English common law, every man’s home may indeed be his castle, but it is not his criminal safe house, gang hideout, or alien sanctuary.  Under the same English law, the notable exception to what became the Fourth Amendment was when law enforcement or citizens were pursuing a known felon.

The Fourth Amendment was created for two purposes. One was to assert a citizen private property exclusion from government or other military occupation, turning your home, against your will and without appeal, into an army barracks for transient soldiers.  The amendment also asserts a citizen privilege over private papers and records, among other property.

Like the entire U.S. Constitution, it is a contract for the People, where “people” are citizens.  It was never intended to be a way to block authority from removing mass illegal border invaders or foreign criminals.  Neither is the Fourth Amendment a blanket right extended under vague human rights ideology.

By deceptively arguing for alien Fourth Amendment protection, the partisan lawyers are opening up a fascinating issue: What criminal laws apply to U.S. citizens who illegally harbor illegal aliens?

More than harboring illegals, this is merely part of a long line of prior criminal acts.  It is the last line of explicit criminal planning that began with illegally opening the southern border under the Biden administration; inducing alien-smuggling and human-trafficking; standing down border and police enforcement; illegally transporting migrants by private chartered jet into dozens of U.S. cities; providing unauthorized federal disbursements including credit cards, cell phones, driver’s licenses, and commandeered hotel housing; illegally facilitating university asylum and free legal defense and even voting privileges; using illegals as political bait against ICE to provoke riots and protests, and conspiring with MSM to incite dangerous public protest ideology, social division and violence; and finally invoking a fraudulent Fourth Amendment right by inserting them in residential homes.

There is an interesting US Code that may apply: 1907.Title 8, USC 1324(a) Offenses, which  “prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts.  Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry.”

By this reading, it appears that ICE and other federal law enforcement should not only directly extract illegal migrants who are being concealed inside private homes, but should also arrest and remove the homeowners who are aiding and abetting the entire DNC illegal migrant program.  It amounts to not only criminal conspiracy, but the settled law on vicarious liability.

The NYT lawyers apparently overlook what happens when a person recklessly harbors an illegal alien and criminal: they create a relationship with that alien that makes them an agent, and therefore invokes what is known in law as respondeat superior (“let the master answer”).  This puts the homeowner under strict liability. 

But it does more: It draws citizens into the entire criminal web of DNC border crime.  How many homeowners have been advised of their rights before they assign their property to a political party criminal program?

Perhaps the “top” lawyers who write in the NYT, absurdly arguing Fourth Amendment privilege for harbored illegal aliens, should instead advise U.S. citizens of the relevant U.S. Code against such criminal agency.  In that case, it is the Sixth Amendment that can’t be wished away.