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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is a throw away line spoken by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

There is a difference between the US and a commonwealth country. And they love parroting Canada, but Canada suspended the practice. In fact, most countries that at one time passed a similar law, suspended the law before it went into action or immediately after. But keep thinking you can move to Hong Kong and vote in Chinese elections.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is a throw away line spoken by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

There is a difference between the US and a commonwealth country. And they love parroting Canada, but Canada suspended the practice. In fact, most countries that at one time passed a similar law, suspended the law before it went into action or immediately after. But keep thinking you can move to Hong Kong and vote in Chinese elections.

And yet you know nothing of this country’s history. “Aliens” were allowed to vote under many state constitutions and locality laws so long as they met gender, race, religion, property ownership, and/or tax paying requirements.

To think that only “citizens” could vote in early America is to show your ignorance

[Anonymous]

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.

This is a throw away line spoken by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

There is a difference between the US and a commonwealth country. And they love parroting Canada, but Canada suspended the practice. In fact, most countries that at one time passed a similar law, suspended the law before it went into action or immediately after. But keep thinking you can move to Hong Kong and vote in Chinese elections.

I have no desire to move to Hong Kong or to live in a country that emulates Chinese “democracy”. Why are you suggesting that DC should follow their standard?

[Anonymous]

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.

As someone else said, it seems that you don’t have a good grasp of American history. In the aftermath of the revolution, the Articles of Confederation allowed states to determine their own naturalization laws, but common among all these were the conferring of voting rights based on the establishment of physical residence.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/07/01/noncitizens-are-slowly-gaining-voting-rights

[Anonymous]

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.

Somebody understands.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

If the law is so great, why aren't we allowed to vote on it?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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/

[Anonymous]

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.