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: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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Somehow I doubt you’re interested in the nuances of this issue but just for shits and giggles, here goes . . .

There is nothing to indicate that those jurisdictions that allow non-citizens to vote exclude those who arrived “illegally” (assuming that they can prove residency), but it’s likely that some do and others don’t. We can assume that the requirements for proving residency are complex there as they are in DC - as much as congressional Republicans may want to have you believe, no one can just show up and be given a ballot paper.

And then there is the question of what an “illegal” is anyway. The bulk of the people crossing the southern border now - those who Tucker et al. refer to as “illegals” - petition for asylum at a border crossing or when they come into contact with CBP. Unless the asylum claim has been denied and removal proceedings initiated, the migrant is not here “illegally”. These migrants also can not be referred to as “undocumented”. Even many who have overstayed their visa or never claimed asylum have a claim to legal presence through temporary protected status (which currently covers nationals of 16 countries), DACA, or other provisions.

Low and behold, things are a little more complicated that populist shitbags would have you believe . . .

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

Another winner from Nadeau!

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

+1. Thank you.

[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.

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.

Somehow I doubt you’re interested in the nuances of this issue but just for shits and giggles, here goes . . .

There is nothing to indicate that those jurisdictions that allow non-citizens to vote exclude those who arrived “illegally” (assuming that they can prove residency), but it’s likely that some do and others don’t. We can assume that the requirements for proving residency are complex there as they are in DC - as much as congressional Republicans may want to have you believe, no one can just show up and be given a ballot paper.

And then there is the question of what an “illegal” is anyway. The bulk of the people crossing the southern border now - those who Tucker et al. refer to as “illegals” - petition for asylum at a border crossing or when they come into contact with CBP. Unless the asylum claim has been denied and removal proceedings initiated, the migrant is not here “illegally”. These migrants also can not be referred to as “undocumented”. Even many who have overstayed their visa or never claimed asylum have a claim to legal presence through temporary protected status (which currently covers nationals of 16 countries), DACA, or other provisions.

Low and behold, things are a little more complicated that populist shitbags would have you believe . . .

What does legal presence have to do with it? Tourists and students taking a year abroad are here legally too. Citizenship represents a particular kind of (generational) investment in and knowledge of / commitment to a country

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Somehow I doubt you’re interested in the nuances of this issue but just for shits and giggles, here goes . . .

There is nothing to indicate that those jurisdictions that allow non-citizens to vote exclude those who arrived “illegally” (assuming that they can prove residency), but it’s likely that some do and others don’t. We can assume that the requirements for proving residency are complex there as they are in DC - as much as congressional Republicans may want to have you believe, no one can just show up and be given a ballot paper.

And then there is the question of what an “illegal” is anyway. The bulk of the people crossing the southern border now - those who Tucker et al. refer to as “illegals” - petition for asylum at a border crossing or when they come into contact with CBP. Unless the asylum claim has been denied and removal proceedings initiated, the migrant is not here “illegally”. These migrants also can not be referred to as “undocumented”. Even many who have overstayed their visa or never claimed asylum have a claim to legal presence through temporary protected status (which currently covers nationals of 16 countries), DACA, or other provisions.

Low and behold, things are a little more complicated that populist shitbags would have you believe . . .

What does legal presence have to do with it? Tourists and students taking a year abroad are here legally too. Citizenship represents a particular kind of (generational) investment in and knowledge of / commitment to a country

Uh, because the PP that attracted this response was complaining about the right to vote being extended to “illegals”. The point is that many of those that the PP likes to think of as being here illegally are not. And no one is claiming that citizenship shouldn’t be a criteria for voting in national elections. For the umpteenth time, this measure is only about voting in local and municipal elections, for which established residency is a perfectly reasonable requirement.

[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.

Somehow I doubt you’re interested in the nuances of this issue but just for shits and giggles, here goes . . .

There is nothing to indicate that those jurisdictions that allow non-citizens to vote exclude those who arrived “illegally” (assuming that they can prove residency), but it’s likely that some do and others don’t. We can assume that the requirements for proving residency are complex there as they are in DC - as much as congressional Republicans may want to have you believe, no one can just show up and be given a ballot paper.

And then there is the question of what an “illegal” is anyway. The bulk of the people crossing the southern border now - those who Tucker et al. refer to as “illegals” - petition for asylum at a border crossing or when they come into contact with CBP. Unless the asylum claim has been denied and removal proceedings initiated, the migrant is not here “illegally”. These migrants also can not be referred to as “undocumented”. Even many who have overstayed their visa or never claimed asylum have a claim to legal presence through temporary protected status (which currently covers nationals of 16 countries), DACA, or other provisions.

Low and behold, things are a little more complicated that populist shitbags would have you believe . . .

What does legal presence have to do with it? Tourists and students taking a year abroad are here legally too. Citizenship represents a particular kind of (generational) investment in and knowledge of / commitment to a country

DP. It would be OK to let permanent residents to vote in local elections. Heck, perhaps even state/ federal ones? But to let illegal ones to do so would be crazy.

[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.

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?

[Anonymous]

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.