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

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in DC want to allow them to vote in local elections. It's the will of the people here. The rest of you can go pound sand.

As per the thread title, clearly not everyone in DC wants this.

It's a good thing we don't require 100% of people to agree with something to take action.

[Anonymous]

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.

If you really think that giving non-citizens the right to vote in local elections will render your citizenship meaningless, you should probably stop talking about citizenship since you clearly don’t understand it. And there is not a “well-established process” that would enable many - if not most - long-term non-citizen residents to gain citizenship, even though many desperately covet it. Personally, I have no problem with local representatives being elected by the residents of their local district, regardless of where they were born or how much they’ve shelled out to immigration lawyers. Why would I? Is it really that important that one should throw thousands of dollars at lawyers and suffer through interminable administrative processes just so one can cast a vote in an uncontested ANC election just like all those citizens who inherited that right at birth?

[Anonymous]

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.

The Republicans should have no issue changing the Constitution to disallow this if, in fact, they are “right.”

But right now? The Constitution only requires citizenship to vote in federal elections and hold federal offices. Why are you opposed to something that is constitutionally allowed? Weird dissonance by Republicans.

The truth: This is just another Culture War topic for Republicans. Go cook in your own kitchen.

[Anonymous]

It'll be funny when this completely backfires in progressives, and a whole bunch of undocumented immigrants that come from extremely strong Catholic backgrounds and patriarchal societies vote exactly opposite of progressive initiatives in DC. Then they'll crying they need to do away with allowing non-citizens to vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://dcist.com/story/23/01/12/congressional-gop-want-overturn-dc-bill-allowing-non-citizens-vote/

Does DC really allow non citizens to vote? I aske this as a DC resident. I have also lived all over the world and I am attempting to recall any local that allowed non residents to vote.

Personally I think it’s great when the clown caucus wastes time on things like this as it keeps them from doing real damage. Kind of like when Trump was always golfing. That never bothered me.

[Anonymous]

I actually think the DC Council might change its mind on this when they realize how all the World Bank, IMF employee, and foreign embassy employee votes are not going their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the DC Council might change its mind on this when they realize how all the World Bank, IMF employee, and foreign embassy employee votes are not going their way.

Diplomatic treaties and accompanying visas likely preclude them from voting. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It'll be funny when this completely backfires in progressives, and a whole bunch of undocumented immigrants that come from extremely strong Catholic backgrounds and patriarchal societies vote exactly opposite of progressive initiatives in DC. Then they'll crying they need to do away with allowing non-citizens to vote.

This post says a lot about your stereotypes about people who are non-citizens who live in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the DC Council might change its mind on this when they realize how all the World Bank, IMF employee, and foreign embassy employee votes are not going their way.

Diplomatic treaties and accompanying visas likely preclude them from voting. Try again.

How would they be prevented from voting. They ha e a utility bill and a non diplomatic visa working for the IMF. They have lived here ten years. Heck they even have a DC Real ID drivers license. (I am speaking from experience here.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the DC Council might change its mind on this when they realize how all the World Bank, IMF employee, and foreign embassy employee votes are not going their way.

Diplomatic treaties and accompanying visas likely preclude them from voting. Try again.

Those are treaties of the Federal government that apply to Federal elections. There is no basis for assuming that they would apply to local elections where the municipality has expressly authorized their participation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the DC Council might change its mind on this when they realize how all the World Bank, IMF employee, and foreign embassy employee votes are not going their way.

Diplomatic treaties and accompanying visas likely preclude them from voting. Try again.

How would they be prevented from voting. They ha e a utility bill and a non diplomatic visa working for the IMF. They have lived here ten years. Heck they even have a DC Real ID drivers license. (I am speaking from experience here.)

A G4 visa is technically non-diplomatic, but it also confers certain rights and obligations related to international treaties and agreements, e.g. income taxation and eligibility for welfare benefits. In any case, treaties are obligations of the Federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It'll be funny when this completely backfires in progressives, and a whole bunch of undocumented immigrants that come from extremely strong Catholic backgrounds and patriarchal societies vote exactly opposite of progressive initiatives in DC. Then they'll crying they need to do away with allowing non-citizens to vote.

This post says a lot about your stereotypes about people who are non-citizens who live in DC.

Yeah - biggest political miscalculation in the history of the US. These are not progressive people coming across the Southern border. They do not subscribe to gender ideology, believe in the traditional family and do not believe men can give birth. I say let them vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It'll be funny when this completely backfires in progressives, and a whole bunch of undocumented immigrants that come from extremely strong Catholic backgrounds and patriarchal societies vote exactly opposite of progressive initiatives in DC. Then they'll crying they need to do away with allowing non-citizens to vote.

This post says a lot about your stereotypes about people who are non-citizens who live in DC.

Yeah - biggest political miscalculation in the history of the US. These are not progressive people coming across the Southern border. They do not subscribe to gender ideology, believe in the traditional family and do not believe men can give birth. I say let them vote.

It will diversify the city’s politics and that’s probably a good thing.

[Anonymous]

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.