Congressional Republicans Take Aim At D.C. Bill Allowing Non-Citizens To Vote In Local Elections

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can Maryland and Virginia residents also vote in DC elections?

No.

If non-citizens can them why not non-residents?

For example, if you’re a suburban commuter it’s basically the same as being an “undocumented non-resident”. Since they also pay a lot of taxes in DC it seems only fair.

Commuters pay a lot of taxes in DC? Really? I'll need to see a cite for that.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3796406-dc-mayor-urges-biden-to-end-telework-policies-for-federal-workers/

That article doesn't mention taxes.

This is just face palm-level dumb.
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/remote-work-dc-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-7-8580

Ah, so your position is that paying sales tax entitles one to vote in a jurisdiction different in the one in which they live? Excellent.

I just purchased two roomfulls of furniture in Arlington. Please tell me where I can pick up m,y voter registration forms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Plenty of countries allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. It’s a sensible idea and very much in keeping with America’s founding values.

The idea that a “founding value” is that immediately after the revolution we would have turned around and allowed British citizens to vote in our elections makes zero sense.

History disagrees with you: https://www.theregreview.org/2022/03/03/sheppard-precedent-noncitizen-voting/

You should read the material that you post, including footnotes and citations. First of all, it is false that immediately following the formation of the US that non-citizens were allowed to vote. Second, when those provisions were adopted, there were not without the significant caveat that those persons were in the process of becoming US citizens. Look forward to the DC legislation adopting a similar provision.

As of 1874: “In Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.”
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5978&context=etd#page=10

In seizing upon the 1874 example, you curiously skipped over the part about how voting rights were steadily stripped from non-citizens due to the rise of white nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment, beginning with the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.

You’re now contradicting yourself and I’m not sure what your point is anymore except to waste your time.

The point is that you’re confused and are endorsing a position established by white nationalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Sometimes you can vote in local matters IF you're legal.

What's insane is to try to get ILEGAL immigrants to vote.

Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in DC for decades, paid taxes, but can’t naturalize because of administrative irregularities. Does it make sense to not allow them to vote in local elections affecting the neighborhood in which they live but to allow a college student who moved to DC 30 days ago to do so? Again, this law affects local and municipal elections only and no one who lacks the documentation to prove they live in DC is going to be allowed to vote. But of course, as with most things these days, some groups find it politically advantageous to cast the law as something that it isn’t.

Show me ONE European country where illegal immigrants can vote, even in local elections.

Many do. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage

non-citizen is not the same as illegal (undocumented) migrant and does not address the PPs question, which I think is a fair question considering so many have posted to claim that this is not an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure that this practice of allowing illegal (undocumented) migrants to vote is exceedingly rare.

Exactly. Legal immigrants can sometimes vote in local elections -- I have friends who do. Illegal immigrants can't, and don't -- it is beyond absurd, and no EU country (to my knowledge) allows it because, again, it is absurd.

Is a parolee an illegal immigrant to you? How about someone who entered illegally but is protected from deportation by TPS? What about DACA recipients?

No idea about parolees. The other two are clearly illegal immigrants and shouldn't vote until/ if they become legal residents with all rights and responsibilities. (Which is a federal, not local, function -- read the Constitution)

[Anonymous]

Once a country has a critical mass of people so stupid that they are actually arguing in favor of citizens of other countries voting in their own elections, you know that country is halfway down the toilet already. Thanks a lot liberals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once a country has a critical mass of people so stupid that they are actually arguing in favor of citizens of other countries voting in their own elections, you know that country is halfway down the toilet already. Thanks a lot liberals

Fair point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can Maryland and Virginia residents also vote in DC elections?

No.

If non-citizens can them why not non-residents?

For example, if you’re a suburban commuter it’s basically the same as being an “undocumented non-resident”. Since they also pay a lot of taxes in DC it seems only fair.

Commuters pay a lot of taxes in DC? Really? I'll need to see a cite for that.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3796406-dc-mayor-urges-biden-to-end-telework-policies-for-federal-workers/

That article doesn't mention taxes.

This is just face palm-level dumb.
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/remote-work-dc-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-7-8580

Ah, so your position is that paying sales tax entitles one to vote in a jurisdiction different in the one in which they live? Excellent.

I just purchased two roomfulls of furniture in Arlington. Please tell me where I can pick up m,y voter registration forms.

Sales tax is the most commonly the only tax that poor people pay and it’s a highly regressive tax. If you think that sales tax is meaningless then you haven’t thought things through very well. Which makes sense because you think people in the country illegally should be allowed to vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Sometimes you can vote in local matters IF you're legal.

What's insane is to try to get ILEGAL immigrants to vote.

Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in DC for decades, paid taxes, but can’t naturalize because of administrative irregularities. Does it make sense to not allow them to vote in local elections affecting the neighborhood in which they live but to allow a college student who moved to DC 30 days ago to do so? Again, this law affects local and municipal elections only and no one who lacks the documentation to prove they live in DC is going to be allowed to vote. But of course, as with most things these days, some groups find it politically advantageous to cast the law as something that it isn’t.

Show me ONE European country where illegal immigrants can vote, even in local elections.

Many do. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage

non-citizen is not the same as illegal (undocumented) migrant and does not address the PPs question, which I think is a fair question considering so many have posted to claim that this is not an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure that this practice of allowing illegal (undocumented) migrants to vote is exceedingly rare.

Exactly. Legal immigrants can sometimes vote in local elections -- I have friends who do. Illegal immigrants can't, and don't -- it is beyond absurd, and no EU country (to my knowledge) allows it because, again, it is absurd.

Is a parolee an illegal immigrant to you? How about someone who entered illegally but is protected from deportation by TPS? What about DACA recipients?

No idea about parolees. The other two are clearly illegal immigrants and shouldn't vote until/ if they become legal residents with all rights and responsibilities. (Which is a federal, not local, function -- read the Constitution)

Ha ha. Nice try. I have. The Constitution says nothing about limiting the right of suffrage to citizens. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is why they decided in 1875 that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage." From the founding of the United States until 1926, some 40 states had at one point allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state and federal elections. Suffice to say, that would not have occurred had the Constitution precluded it. Currently, only seven state constitutions - those of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio - make citizenship a requirement for voting. Anything else you want to discuss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once a country has a critical mass of people so stupid that they are actually arguing in favor of citizens of other countries voting in their own elections, you know that country is halfway down the toilet already. Thanks a lot liberals

You realize that your statement also applies to the United States at its founding, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once a country has a critical mass of people so stupid that they are actually arguing in favor of citizens of other countries voting in their own elections, you know that country is halfway down the toilet already. Thanks a lot liberals

You realize that your statement also applies to the United States at its founding, right?

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once a country has a critical mass of people so stupid that they are actually arguing in favor of citizens of other countries voting in their own elections, you know that country is halfway down the toilet already. Thanks a lot liberals

You realize that your statement also applies to the United States at its founding, right?

What are you talking about?

Your ignorance of history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Sometimes you can vote in local matters IF you're legal.

What's insane is to try to get ILEGAL immigrants to vote.

Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in DC for decades, paid taxes, but can’t naturalize because of administrative irregularities. Does it make sense to not allow them to vote in local elections affecting the neighborhood in which they live but to allow a college student who moved to DC 30 days ago to do so? Again, this law affects local and municipal elections only and no one who lacks the documentation to prove they live in DC is going to be allowed to vote. But of course, as with most things these days, some groups find it politically advantageous to cast the law as something that it isn’t.

Show me ONE European country where illegal immigrants can vote, even in local elections.

Many do. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage

non-citizen is not the same as illegal (undocumented) migrant and does not address the PPs question, which I think is a fair question considering so many have posted to claim that this is not an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure that this practice of allowing illegal (undocumented) migrants to vote is exceedingly rare.

Exactly. Legal immigrants can sometimes vote in local elections -- I have friends who do. Illegal immigrants can't, and don't -- it is beyond absurd, and no EU country (to my knowledge) allows it because, again, it is absurd.

Is a parolee an illegal immigrant to you? How about someone who entered illegally but is protected from deportation by TPS? What about DACA recipients?

No idea about parolees. The other two are clearly illegal immigrants and shouldn't vote until/ if they become legal residents with all rights and responsibilities. (Which is a federal, not local, function -- read the Constitution)

Ha ha. Nice try. I have. The Constitution says nothing about limiting the right of suffrage to citizens. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is why they decided in 1875 that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage." From the founding of the United States until 1926, some 40 states had at one point allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state and federal elections. Suffice to say, that would not have occurred had the Constitution precluded it. Currently, only seven state constitutions - those of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio - make citizenship a requirement for voting. Anything else you want to discuss?

So we're looking at pre-1940 voting restrictions as the ideal? I guess you're in favor of an undocumented worker voting in local elections so long as the are a white male?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Sometimes you can vote in local matters IF you're legal.

What's insane is to try to get ILEGAL immigrants to vote.

Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in DC for decades, paid taxes, but can’t naturalize because of administrative irregularities. Does it make sense to not allow them to vote in local elections affecting the neighborhood in which they live but to allow a college student who moved to DC 30 days ago to do so? Again, this law affects local and municipal elections only and no one who lacks the documentation to prove they live in DC is going to be allowed to vote. But of course, as with most things these days, some groups find it politically advantageous to cast the law as something that it isn’t.

Show me ONE European country where illegal immigrants can vote, even in local elections.

Many do. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage

non-citizen is not the same as illegal (undocumented) migrant and does not address the PPs question, which I think is a fair question considering so many have posted to claim that this is not an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure that this practice of allowing illegal (undocumented) migrants to vote is exceedingly rare.

Exactly. Legal immigrants can sometimes vote in local elections -- I have friends who do. Illegal immigrants can't, and don't -- it is beyond absurd, and no EU country (to my knowledge) allows it because, again, it is absurd.

Is a parolee an illegal immigrant to you? How about someone who entered illegally but is protected from deportation by TPS? What about DACA recipients?

No idea about parolees. The other two are clearly illegal immigrants and shouldn't vote until/ if they become legal residents with all rights and responsibilities. (Which is a federal, not local, function -- read the Constitution)

Ha ha. Nice try. I have. The Constitution says nothing about limiting the right of suffrage to citizens. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is why they decided in 1875 that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage." From the founding of the United States until 1926, some 40 states had at one point allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state and federal elections. Suffice to say, that would not have occurred had the Constitution precluded it. Currently, only seven state constitutions - those of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio - make citizenship a requirement for voting. Anything else you want to discuss?

Wait -- you think "We the People" means citizens of Britain, France or Congo? What about Martians -- could they vote too if found?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Sometimes you can vote in local matters IF you're legal.

What's insane is to try to get ILEGAL immigrants to vote.

Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in DC for decades, paid taxes, but can’t naturalize because of administrative irregularities. Does it make sense to not allow them to vote in local elections affecting the neighborhood in which they live but to allow a college student who moved to DC 30 days ago to do so? Again, this law affects local and municipal elections only and no one who lacks the documentation to prove they live in DC is going to be allowed to vote. But of course, as with most things these days, some groups find it politically advantageous to cast the law as something that it isn’t.

Show me ONE European country where illegal immigrants can vote, even in local elections.

Many do. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage

non-citizen is not the same as illegal (undocumented) migrant and does not address the PPs question, which I think is a fair question considering so many have posted to claim that this is not an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure that this practice of allowing illegal (undocumented) migrants to vote is exceedingly rare.

Exactly. Legal immigrants can sometimes vote in local elections -- I have friends who do. Illegal immigrants can't, and don't -- it is beyond absurd, and no EU country (to my knowledge) allows it because, again, it is absurd.

Is a parolee an illegal immigrant to you? How about someone who entered illegally but is protected from deportation by TPS? What about DACA recipients?

No idea about parolees. The other two are clearly illegal immigrants and shouldn't vote until/ if they become legal residents with all rights and responsibilities. (Which is a federal, not local, function -- read the Constitution)

Ha ha. Nice try. I have. The Constitution says nothing about limiting the right of suffrage to citizens. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is why they decided in 1875 that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage." From the founding of the United States until 1926, some 40 states had at one point allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state and federal elections. Suffice to say, that would not have occurred had the Constitution precluded it. Currently, only seven state constitutions - those of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio - make citizenship a requirement for voting. Anything else you want to discuss?

Wait -- you think "We the People" means citizens of Britain, France or Congo? What about Martians -- could they vote too if found?

Who are "the governed", in your view?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Sometimes you can vote in local matters IF you're legal.

What's insane is to try to get ILEGAL immigrants to vote.

Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in DC for decades, paid taxes, but can’t naturalize because of administrative irregularities. Does it make sense to not allow them to vote in local elections affecting the neighborhood in which they live but to allow a college student who moved to DC 30 days ago to do so? Again, this law affects local and municipal elections only and no one who lacks the documentation to prove they live in DC is going to be allowed to vote. But of course, as with most things these days, some groups find it politically advantageous to cast the law as something that it isn’t.

Show me ONE European country where illegal immigrants can vote, even in local elections.

Many do. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage

non-citizen is not the same as illegal (undocumented) migrant and does not address the PPs question, which I think is a fair question considering so many have posted to claim that this is not an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure that this practice of allowing illegal (undocumented) migrants to vote is exceedingly rare.

Exactly. Legal immigrants can sometimes vote in local elections -- I have friends who do. Illegal immigrants can't, and don't -- it is beyond absurd, and no EU country (to my knowledge) allows it because, again, it is absurd.

Is a parolee an illegal immigrant to you? How about someone who entered illegally but is protected from deportation by TPS? What about DACA recipients?

No idea about parolees. The other two are clearly illegal immigrants and shouldn't vote until/ if they become legal residents with all rights and responsibilities. (Which is a federal, not local, function -- read the Constitution)

Ha ha. Nice try. I have. The Constitution says nothing about limiting the right of suffrage to citizens. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is why they decided in 1875 that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage." From the founding of the United States until 1926, some 40 states had at one point allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state and federal elections. Suffice to say, that would not have occurred had the Constitution precluded it. Currently, only seven state constitutions - those of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio - make citizenship a requirement for voting. Anything else you want to discuss?

So we're looking at pre-1940 voting restrictions as the ideal? I guess you're in favor of an undocumented worker voting in local elections so long as the are a white male?

I'm sorry that you have such demonstrable problems with reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans are right on this one. Citizenship should mean something. You want to vote and participate in government, become a citizen. There is a well-established process for that. The votes of citizens should never be outweighed by those of non-citizens. This shouldn't even be controversial.

+1

This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independents.This nonsense, right here is why Republicans still have the votes of moderates and some independence.

I realize this doesn’t matter in Washington DC but nationally it does.

Agree 100%. Allowing non-citizens to vote is simply stupid. I have lived overseas on several occasions in democratic countries, and would never have even thought that I somehow was entitled in their elections.

Sometimes you can vote in local matters IF you're legal.

What's insane is to try to get ILEGAL immigrants to vote.

Some “illegal immigrants” have lived in DC for decades, paid taxes, but can’t naturalize because of administrative irregularities. Does it make sense to not allow them to vote in local elections affecting the neighborhood in which they live but to allow a college student who moved to DC 30 days ago to do so? Again, this law affects local and municipal elections only and no one who lacks the documentation to prove they live in DC is going to be allowed to vote. But of course, as with most things these days, some groups find it politically advantageous to cast the law as something that it isn’t.

Show me ONE European country where illegal immigrants can vote, even in local elections.

Many do. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage

non-citizen is not the same as illegal (undocumented) migrant and does not address the PPs question, which I think is a fair question considering so many have posted to claim that this is not an uncommon practice. I am pretty sure that this practice of allowing illegal (undocumented) migrants to vote is exceedingly rare.

Exactly. Legal immigrants can sometimes vote in local elections -- I have friends who do. Illegal immigrants can't, and don't -- it is beyond absurd, and no EU country (to my knowledge) allows it because, again, it is absurd.

Is a parolee an illegal immigrant to you? How about someone who entered illegally but is protected from deportation by TPS? What about DACA recipients?

No idea about parolees. The other two are clearly illegal immigrants and shouldn't vote until/ if they become legal residents with all rights and responsibilities. (Which is a federal, not local, function -- read the Constitution)

Ha ha. Nice try. I have. The Constitution says nothing about limiting the right of suffrage to citizens. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which is why they decided in 1875 that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage." From the founding of the United States until 1926, some 40 states had at one point allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state and federal elections. Suffice to say, that would not have occurred had the Constitution precluded it. Currently, only seven state constitutions - those of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio - make citizenship a requirement for voting. Anything else you want to discuss?

So we're looking at pre-1940 voting restrictions as the ideal? I guess you're in favor of an undocumented worker voting in local elections so long as the are a white male?

I'm sorry that you have such demonstrable problems with reading comprehension.

If you want to base current restrictions on historical precedent, then you might want to care a little about the history of citizenship. Unsurprisingly, when the country was largely empty with an agrarian economy, immigration was encouraged and the path to citizenship was relatively quick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Law_of_1802. None of that is true now. If you want to base your argument on the Supreme Court allowing non-citizen voting, then you should be perfectly ok with congress overriding the law, which is also constitutional.