Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America

[Crazed Rabbit]

This really makes me angry:


LET ALIENS VOTE: ACTIVISTS
By FRANKIE EDOZIEN
PrintEmailDigg ItStory Bottom

February 20, 2007 -- Immigrant-rights activists yesterday renewed their push to allow legal noncitizens to vote in the Big Apple.

A bill that would grant permanent residents and other legal immigrants the right to vote in municipal elections has been stalled in the City Council since last year.

"More than 50,000 adult noncitizen taxpayers in those two districts are disenfranchised by citizenship voting laws," said Cheryl Wertz, of New Immigrant Community Empowerment, referring to today's special election for council seats in Brooklyn and Staten Island.

Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn), the sponsor of the Voting Rights Restoration Act, said that years ago, when immigrants were mostly European, they had voting rights.

"Then when the complexion of immigrants changes, then all of a sudden, the laws change," he said.

Ron Hayduk, a CUNY professor, concurred, saying immigrants voted in national elections from 1776 through 1926.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202007/news/regionalnews/let_aliens_vote__activists_regionalnews_frankie_edozien.htm

Disenfranchised?!? They are not citizens, for crying out loud! If they don't care enough to become citizens, to hell with them voting in our elections!

Grrr.

Crazed Rabbit

[Louis VI the Fat]

activists yesterday renewed their push to allow legal noncitizens to vote in the Big Apple.Wait a minute...I'm a legal noncitizen of New York too...:idea2:

Unvote: Bloomberg.


Edit: unselect: Luigi. For not grasping the finer points of American English.

[Ronin]

how the hell can people that are not legal citizens (and therefore not registered anywhere) vote?

[Goofball]

I disagree (I know, "Surprise, surprise":laugh4: ).

I can understand not allowing them to vote in federal or state elections. But for all intents and purposes, these people are "citizens" of the municipality.

Right now they are in a taxation without representation situation.

AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't allow dual citizenship, no? So there are many people who live in NYC, love the city and intend to live there for an extended period of time, but don't want to give up their native citizenship. They are paying municipal taxes. What's the big problem with letting them have some say in how their $$ is spent?

EDIT: As these people are law-abiding tax-payers, I also believe the thread title is not only wildly unfair, but also offensive.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm still confused about the terminology:

Legal noncitizens = NY residents without American citizenship? Or noncitizens who are legal in being just that? What are illegal noncitizens? Do they differ from illegal citizens? I'm not being sarcastic, just confused.

To put it differently: a citizen, is that a resident of NY or an American citizen? If the former, then noncitizen makes no sense to me in this context. If the latter, i.e. a noncitizen is a legal non-American resident, then I think they should be able to vote locally.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Quick note to Goofball - the scum in the title are not the immigrants, but the people who want them to be able to vote. FYI.


Legal noncitizens = NY residents without American citizenship? Or noncitizens who are legal in being just that? What are illegal noncitizens? Do they differ from illegal citizens? I'm not being sarcastic, just confused.

Legal noncitizens are people who are legally in the USA, but are not citizens - as opposed to illegal aliens, who are not legally in the USA, and are the same as illegal noncitizens.


So there are many people who live in NYC, love the city and intend to live there for an extended period of time, but don't want to give up their native citizenship. They are paying municipal taxes.

Too bad for them - this is the country of America, where Americans vote, thank you very much.

CR

[Goofball]

I'm still confused about the terminology:

Legal noncitizens = NY residents without American citizenship? Or noncitizens who are legal in being just that? What are illegal noncitizens? Do they differ from illegal citizens? I'm not being sarcastic, just confused.

To put it differently: a citizen, is that a resident of NY or an American citizen? If the former, then noncitizen makes no sense to me in this context. If the latter, i.e. a noncitizen is a legal non-American resident, then I think they should be able to vote locally.

From the way the article reads, I assume the bolded portion to be correct.

This would include people who are legally living in America on some sort of work or residency permit, but are not U.S. citizens.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

[Goofball]

Quick note to Goofball - the scum in the title are not the immigrants, but the people who want them to be able to vote. FYI.

I still don't see how this qualifies them as "scum."


Legal noncitizens are people who are legally in the USA, but are not citizens - as opposed to illegal aliens, who are not legally in the USA, and are the same as illegal noncitizens.
AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't allow dual citizenship, no? So there are many people who live in NYC, love the city and intend to live there for an extended period of time, but don't want to give up their native citizenship. They are paying municipal taxes. What's the big problem with letting them have some say in how their $$ is spent?Too bad for them - this is the country of America, where Americans vote, thank you very much.

CR

But they are not asking to vote for your country's leader.

They are asking to vote for their city's leaders.

And as they contribute to the municipal economy and tax base, this seems to be a fairly reasonable request.

But maybe you know something I don't. How exactly would letting them have a say in how their tax dollars are spent negatively impact American citizens?

It seems to me your only argument against it is the old Homer Simpson classic "This is America. If you don't like it, go to Russia!"

While it certainly is fun to say, it has very little validity.

[Tribesman]

AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't allow dual citizenship,
There is no law against dual-citizenship , the only provision is that citizenship can be stripped if someone voluntarily applies to get a different citizenship with the intention of getting rid of their American citizenship .


EDIT: As these people are law-abiding tax-payers, I also believe the thread title is not only wildly unfair, but also offensive.
Today 23:14

Agreed , but are you surprised ?

Anyhow there isabsolutey nothing wrong with people who legally live somewhere having a democratic input in their region of residence .
It makes more sense than people who do not live there and have no intention of returning , retaining their right to vote by post .

BTW strange world isn't it , Rabbit and Frag both start a politics and citizenship topic on the same day about their respective countries which they are angry with....must be that time of the month .

[Louis VI the Fat]

Legal noncitizens are people who are legally in the USA, but are not citizens

this is the country of America, where Americans vote, thank you very much.I think people who pay taxes should have a say in their spending, at least locally. No taxation without representation.

Legal residents bring in a lot of taxes, and it's distinctly un-American to have others decide what your hard-earned dollars are spend on.

[Pannonian]

I think people who pay taxes should have a say in their spending, at least locally. No taxation without representation.

That phrase sounds familiar somehow.

[econ21]

I still don't see how this qualifies them as "scum."

I agree - I find it hard to understand the venom with which some people discuss immigration. I opened this thread expecting to read the latest reported outrage by child molesters or other vile criminals, but who are the "scum of America"? Pro-immigration lobby groups.

It reminds me of the venom with which people used to discuss homosexuality in the 1970s and 1980s, before it became socially unacceptable in public discourse. As with this analogy, you do wonder at the pyschology that underlies such strong emotions. Why do people feel so threatened? At best, it looks petty and mean.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Petty and mean?

These people wish to undermine American democracy by allowing people who have not taken interest enough to become citizens to vote!

So waht if they pay taxes? Nothing's stopping them from becoming citizens.

By that logic, we would ahve to allow them to vote for state and federal elections too.

CR

[ShadeHonestus]

Throughout our history many states have allowed legal immigrants to vote. Some states have set the bar as low as making the immigrant say "I'll become a citizen when I'm allowed" in order to cast a ballot. This is merely a political tool utilized time and time again. The power party will limit or extend a states voting dependant on what they see as the majority immigrant political inclination. In the midwest legal immigrant voting was widespread until the "slavic scare" of the early 1900's whereafter it came and went according to the above. It's no surprise to see places like New York or San Fransisco take very open views when it comes to noncitizen voting at this time.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled to uphold the states' right to set voting registration and qualifications while at the same time stating that immigrant/noncitizen voting does not violate the Constitution. The only apprehension the Supreme Court has had in these matters is voter fraud as seen in their upholding of the Voter ID laws to challenge this last year. With 3000 dead people voting in New York last year, I'd say we have a problem with voter fraud.

The problem is as always, the current state of immigration and our poor border control. Despite the rhetoric, this problem will not go away within our lifetimes. Why? As stated above immigrants, their votes, and their activism is a political card to be played when its convenient, nothing more. Actually fixing the problem now and working ahead for something better would cost too many people their jobs on the hill.

[Goofball]

Petty and mean?

These people wish to undermine American democracy by allowing people who have not taken interest enough to become citizens to vote!

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.


So waht if they pay taxes? Nothing's stopping them from becoming citizens.

By that logic, we would ahve to allow them to vote for state and federal elections too.

CR

Yes, just as if we allow two men to marry each other we would have to allow fathers to marry their 8 year old daughters.

:juggle2:

Everybody's story is different. You can't say "nothing is stopping them from becoming citizens" without knowing each of their stories.

Why is it so important to you that they be American citizens before they are allowed to determine what is done with their municipal tax dollars?

I ask again: How does letting them vote in municipal elections hurt Americans, or as you put it, "undermine American democracy?"

[Papewaio]

You tax them don't you? Why not allow a local vote?
They would have to go on the local electoral role.

I assume that means they are legal residents with no criminal record. And being non-citizens they must be earning an income or independently wealthy. Either way then are living the American dream. They are hard working and/or wealthy.

How is their voting on a local election in which they live, work and pay taxes makes them less eligible to vote then locals whose only virtue is having citizenship of the wider US? Do those who live but don't work and don't pay taxes and just suck on welfare deserver a vote more then those who are working hard and paying taxes? Isn't it the United States...so can't you be only interested in your local State, County, Town and vote only for a small portion of it?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Just for something to compare it to, does any other country allow legal immigrants voting rights? How are they registered to avoid election fraud?

[Papewaio]

Australia does... but it is a special case for British Citizens (commonwealth?) who immigrated before a certain date.

[Tribesman]

How does letting them vote in municipal elections hurt Americans, or as you put it, "undermine American democracy?"
Actually it is the opposite , not letting them vote undermines American democracy .
It is to do with citizenship and what earns you citizenship .
So Rabbit see if you can work it out , what citizenships do you have and how are each of those gained .
You nasty little dual citizen you:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[ShadeHonestus]

I believe the Congressman in the back is contemplating this very issue....

Congress at work. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifu74T0eoNs)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just for something to compare it to, does any other country allow legal immigrants voting rights? France doesn't. It would undermine our democracy and Republican values. ~;)


There was a referendum in Saint-Denis to allow legal immigrants local voting rights. It was won in favour of granting it, but the courts wouldn't allow it. National initiatives failed as well.

[Pannonian]

Just for something to compare it to, does any other country allow legal immigrants voting rights? How are they registered to avoid election fraud?
Most countries don't have a foundation myth based on the call of "No taxation without representation!".

[GoreBag]

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

U-S-A! U-S-A!

[Hosakawa Tito]

NYS Government (http://www.brennancenter.org/press_detail.asp?key=100&subkey=6939)

Knowing New York State politics, I doubt you will ever see this particular proposal enacted. It would screw up the incumbency protection plan known as gerrymandering.

How bout your country Tribesman?

[Tribesman]

How bout your country Tribesman?
Simple really .
Irish can vote for anything .
British can vote for national , European and local elections
Other EU citizens can vote for European and local elections .
Anyone else can vote just for local elections .

That makes me really angry , people who live here can vote for the local council just because they happen to live with the local council , its the end of democracy , the end of our freedom , if the fellas back in 1916 could have seen how our democracy was going to be so undermined by all these bloody foriegners coming over here and voting in local elections then the only reason they would have gathered at the GPO would be if they had wanted to buy some stamps:furious3:

[Marshal Murat]

I think that there is some fraudulent voting ability here.
If there are 40,000 illegal immigrants in BIG CITY. Once a group figures out that since there is no actual census of these people, they create another 10,000 voters, located in spots across town. Can the illegal immigrants say 'Yes, we voted! No, we have no citizenship.'?

Since you can't quantify it so easily, then your opening the gates to a terrible flood of people who will have their votes cast fraudulently.
While I would support it locally, it doesn't set a good precedent, and I don't think it's a great idea.
While the voting/balloting procedures, I have little knowledge about, how hard would it be to have several people 'appear' at the voting station?

You can't compare or match, or whatever, since they aren't technically 'there'.

[ShadeHonestus]

I think that there is some fraudulent voting ability here.
If there are 40,000 illegal immigrants in BIG CITY. Once a group figures out that since there is no actual census of these people, they create another 10,000 voters, located in spots across town. Can the illegal immigrants say 'Yes, we voted! No, we have no citizenship.'?

Since you can't quantify it so easily, then your opening the gates to a terrible flood of people who will have their votes cast fraudulently.
While I would support it locally, it doesn't set a good precedent, and I don't think it's a great idea.
While the voting/balloting procedures, I have little knowledge about, how hard would it be to have several people 'appear' at the voting station?

You can't compare or match, or whatever, since they aren't technically 'there'.


The problem with this is mobilizing the illegals for such an action to get an outcome that would outweigh the penalty if they were to be caught. The bigger political impact would be found in the 20% of the population in NYC that is of legal immigrant noncitizen standing. NYC being an example. I could be wrong on that figure, but thats what I remember hearing not too long ago, if somebody has more accurate numbers...that'd be dope. The impact they would have is via legal voting and not fraudulent based on the same cost reward analysis.

[Papewaio]

Of course the obvious answer is that:

Voting is for legal registered residents... not illegal ones.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, just as if we allow two men to marry each other we would have to allow fathers to marry their 8 year old daughters.

Gee, let's see. First we have to let them vote in municipal elections because they pay taxes there - then why not state, since they pay state taxes, and why not national elections, since they pay federal taxes? Seems to run the same logic in there. Or these idiot activists would whine how the immigrants were being disenfranchised from national elections after they got the OK for voting in the city.


Everybody's story is different. You can't say "nothing is stopping them from becoming citizens" without knowing each of their stories.

Why is it so important to you that they be American citizens before they are allowed to determine what is done with their municipal tax dollars?

I ask again: How does letting them vote in municipal elections hurt Americans, or as you put it, "undermine American democracy?"

What could be a good excuse for not becoming a citizen-
they don't want to? Then they shouldn't get to vote.
they don't have time? How would they have time to learn about the candidates and vote?

The municipality of New York, in case you didn't know, is still an American city.

How can they be "legal residents with no criminal record. And being non-citizens they must be earning an income or independently wealthy. Either way then are living the American dream. They are hard working and/or wealthy." and note be able to become a citizen?

The only reason these people want immigrants able to vote is because they think the immigrants will vote for their causes.

Oh, and of course there'd be no great heaps of fraud, and illegals signing up. :rolleyes:

CR

[Pannonian]

Of course the obvious answer is that:

Voting is for legal registered residents... not illegal ones.
One would have thought, if the state is capable of keeping track of your ability to pay taxes, it is capable of keeping track of your right or privilege to vote. In the UK, the franchise has historically been a privilege that has been steadily extended to an ever greater proportion of the population, so denying it to certain sections doesn't break any principles (for there were none to start with). But the US has famously based its foundation on the principle that taxation should be directly linked to representation, so denying it to certain sections seems that much more outrageous.

I find it amusing that Rabbit believes in the principle that the citizenry should be allowed arms to defend their freedom against the government, yet he ignores the even more fundamental principle that led the founders to proclaim their freedom in the first place. Surely he should be pressing for all taxpayers to be given the franchise, and for measures to be passed to allow them to do so.

[Marshal Murat]

If by tax, you mean sales tax? They would pay tax on the rent of their homes, and then some minor taxes that are taken up in a mass, not as individuals.

They are being taxed, but the tax isn't an actual tax per capita. It's more like a cumulative taxing, that while they are providing taxes, it's not as a person, but as a whole.

Again, this opens the gate to suspicious voting practices, when you can't tally the people voting.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's up to the voters of New York.

Personally, I'd have little quarrel with a permanent resident voting in a municipal election, or any election in that state.

I do think the federal ballot should be restricted to citizens.

Of course, I also want the 17th ammendment repealed, so you know I'm not in step with a lot of other folks.

[ShadeHonestus]

One would have thought, if the state is capable of keeping track of your ability to pay taxes, it is capable of keeping track of your right or privilege to vote.

I once paid taxes for a job I never had in Oklahoma which bumped my tax bracket up to point that in the end a letter from the IRS showed up stating I owed taxes equal to 90% of the income from the job I did have. Not only this, but my Marine Corps benefits were used while I was attending the U of Arizona while holding the job in Iowa and the one Oklahoma. I never did get my USMC benefits and paid for college out of pocket. The IRS did eventually sort out the tax problem saying that an illegal immigrant most likely used my identity which he purchased from organized crime elements. They never could find the actual immigrant responsible. Needless to say their ability to track anything is less than admirable.





I find it amusing that Rabbit believes in the principle that the citizenry should be allowed arms to defend their freedom against the government, yet he ignores the even more fundamental principle that led the founders to proclaim their freedom in the first place. Surely he should be pressing for all taxpayers to be given the franchise, and for measures to be passed to allow them to do so.

While I do agree somewhat with the problem inherent in the contradiction, we aren't denying rights to those who previously held them and legal immigrants go through a process where their expectations of liberty, rights and protection are explained. Therefore the problem can't be in their expectation of representation at levels where there isn't an expectation. The problem is politicians looking to cash in on their status outside of their expectation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

couldnt US citizens stop being citizens and stop paying federal taxes, all while living in a state and voting in their local elections paying only municipal taxes?

might be an interesting way to skimp and save. and disolve any sort of national union.

also, if these people are paying municipal taxes and the city is under authority of the federal government, arn't those non-citizens entitled to vote in the same elections as the rest of us who fall under the same hierarchy? i don't see how this doesn't translate down the road into US voting rights without citizenship.

[Fisherking]

couldnt US citizens stop being citizens and stop paying federal taxes, all while living in a state and voting in their local elections paying only municipal taxes?

might be an interesting way to skimp and save. and disolve any sort of national union.

also, if these people are paying municipal taxes and the city is under authority of the federal government, arn't those non-citizens entitled to vote in the same elections as the rest of us who fall under the same hierarchy? i don't see how this doesn't translate down the road into US voting rights without citizenship.

That's been tried you know. While technically legal the IRS has its own court system! It won't work unless you want to be a ward of the federal government (prisoner).

Everyone in the USA and those just visiting who work there pay Income Tax to the Feds and Tax on anything else the governments can get away with charging.

The dead vote in every election. Illegal immigrants vote in nearly every election (it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when registering voters...motor voter given to us by the last Demo. Congress in 1992/93). The whole thing is set up to promote fraud.

The last election in Washington State for the governor is a clear example…there were precincts with more votes cast than there were voters…one address had more than 350 registered voters living there. Each time the votes were counted they found more until the Democrat won. It was a circus….

NYC only wants to legally extend the voting pool to people they believe will support their political view point. Just think of all the manpower it will save casting votes for the dead!

[InsaneApache]

Just for something to compare it to, does any other country allow legal immigrants voting rights? How are they registered to avoid election fraud?

Prior to the UK joining the EU, Irish citizens (read another country) were able to vote in local and national elections. They also had the right to settle in the UK and could enter the UK without a passport. This was due to the fact that before partition the Irish State was a part of the UK. IIRC apart from UK subjects being able to enter Eire without a passport, UK subjects could not vote there.

All past now though since we (the UK and Ireland) are both in the EU. I could go to France and vote if I got the right papers and a friendly notary. :sweatdrop:

[Pannonian]

While I do agree somewhat with the problem inherent in the contradiction, we aren't denying rights to those who previously held them and legal immigrants go through a process where their expectations of liberty, rights and protection are explained. Therefore the problem can't be in their expectation of representation at levels where there isn't an expectation. The problem is politicians looking to cash in on their status outside of their expectation.
The thing is, Rabbit acts as the great guardian of fundamental rights guaranteed by the founders when it comes to the issue of guns, yet he is opposed to the even more fundamental principle that caused the founders to found the nation in the first place. If he's a conservative constitutionalist as he claims to be, he should be arguing for the principle of giving the vote to all those who pay taxes, while disgusted at the details that don't allow this. Instead, he's arguing as a point of principle that even those who pay taxes should not be able to vote, as long as they're not full citizens of the US.

[AntiochusIII]

Hahahaha, my ability to vote will be the end of America! I'll destroy anything remotely Republican, conservative, and sensible in this country by voting in the scums of the Earth! Twice!

...

Jeez, people. What the hell is with this scaremongering? I can understand rational arguments being made for or against it, and I could see the other side's points: but this **** about undermining America is just plain offensive. You're saying we permanent residents who, almost by default, has shown an interest in becoming US citizens -- AND barred from it by time limits set by your freaking government: of course I'd like to sign up for citizenship and vote, but hell if I'll be able to in time for the next election, and, most likely, not one after that -- are now considered on the same levels as illegal immigrants who moved in without proper documentation and the agreement associated with it. Of course we paid the same bloody taxes as everyone else, income and all. Yes, there's the implicit agreement that we're recognized as in a sort of a trial period where we have the full responsibilities without the full rights, and that period last years; but no, if some compromising stances and local initiatives happen to allow permanent residents to be able to vote in some local elections the event won't destroy America any more than homosexuals being able to marry.

Oh, and there's the little thing where, quite frankly, election frauds are the faults of the frauds, not the ones who vote properly, citizens or not. The possibility of extra opportunities for fraud is not, alone, enough of a reason to entirely bar the possibility out.

My position is this is actually to let existing Democracy work it out. If the citizens find the initiative unacceptable, well, that's just their decision. And they are the ones voting right now. If they find allowing limited voting rights for legal immigrants good ideas, well, that's their decision also. And good for me I suppose.

If anything, with the current rate of voting in municipal elections, I could just take an ugly high horse and troll myself to death by saying you guys plain suck at trying to go out to vote, and we who have to earn those citizenships ourselves, coming from entirely different countries, are more likely to be, you know, interested in the affairs of our adopted country than the ones who received it by birthright. Things earned by effort are more appreciated than things taken for granted.

Ooh, burn. But of course, I'm not making that argument. Just trollin'.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Simple really .
Irish can vote for anything .
British can vote for national , European and local elections
Other EU citizens can vote for European and local elections .
Anyone else can vote just for local elections .

That makes me really angry , people who live here can vote for the local council just because they happen to live with the local council , its the end of democracy , the end of our freedom , if the fellas back in 1916 could have seen how our democracy was going to be so undermined by all these bloody foriegners coming over here and voting in local elections then the only reason they would have gathered at the GPO would be if they had wanted to buy some stamps:furious3:That was funny.

Those Commonwealth or British / Irish arrangments are unique to their particular situation. Disregarding those, I rather admire Ireland's policy.

My policy of choice would be this (for France):

Citizens can vote for anything
Non-resident citizens can not vote locally
EU residents can vote for anything
Non-EU residents can vote locally

I think this right to vote should be granted after a residenceship of three years.

Also, noncitizen residents should have both active and passive suffrage. That is, a German president of France must be possible. Or Blair as the next PM of France by 2010. :2thumbsup:

[ShadeHonestus]

The thing is, Rabbit acts as the great guardian of fundamental rights guaranteed by the founders when it comes to the issue of guns, yet he is opposed to the even more fundamental principle that caused the founders to found the nation in the first place. If he's a conservative constitutionalist as he claims to be, he should be arguing for the principle of giving the vote to all those who pay taxes, while disgusted at the details that don't allow this. Instead, he's arguing as a point of principle that even those who pay taxes should not be able to vote, as long as they're not full citizens of the US.


I understand what you're saying but the problem is like so many of our "founding principles" it is not in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the governmental mechanism of suffrage as it does the right to bear arms. The areas of gray have been sorted out via the courts and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court declaring the constitutionality of particular laws, decrees, ordinances, practices. Whenever society changes enough of a degree to try again or society finds a new way to implement the purpose, it begins again testing its constitutionality through the courts.

Many things are not included in the Constitution which were founding principles. In fact you can read the Declaration of Independence and find many things that are founding principles which are not spelled out in the Constitution.

The Constitution is in fact just a blueprint for government including its limitations and the Bill of Rights with the Supreme Court balancing the rights of the individual and the needs of society.

[Tribesman]

That was funny.

Yeah well its so easy to ridicule people when they make ridiculous topics .
Especially ridiculous topics with inflammatory titles like this one originally had .
Damn scum eh ?
Anyhow since Pannonian came up with
Most countries don't have a foundation myth based on the call of "No taxation without representation!". imagine the cheek of it , they tax resident aliens on their income from their own country as well as the income they get in America .
Start getting really outraged double taxation with no representation:yes:

[ShadeHonestus]

The initial use of the phrase was in response to a principle Englishmen were accustomed to and the desire of Parliament to abandon that principle when it came to Englishmen in the colonies. They then did something in protest...and eventually formed a government where that expectation wasn't even spelled out for its own citizenry, let alone noncitizens. Perhaps they saw firsthand through their own trials the problems with that as an inherent principle of government beyond it being an expectation of citizenship.

[edit]
Besides, I don't think we've had any large scale CIA raids tasking for new immigrants to hold against their will and force them to earn those tax dollars for the rest of us. Of course they still get all the benefits of taxes...schools and those other annoying things.

[Pannonian]

I understand what you're saying but the problem is like so many of our "founding principles" it is not in the Constitution. The Constitution lays out the governmental mechanism of suffrage as it does the right to bear arms. The areas of gray have been sorted out via the courts and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court declaring the constitutionality of particular laws, decrees, ordinances, practices. Whenever society changes enough of a degree to try again or society finds a new way to implement the purpose, it begins again testing its constitutionality through the courts.

Many things are not included in the Constitution which were founding principles. In fact you can read the Declaration of Independence and find many things that are founding principles which are not spelled out in the Constitution.

The Constitution is in fact just a blueprint for government including its limitations and the Bill of Rights with the Supreme Court balancing the rights of the individual and the needs of society.
I'm not claiming constitutionality, moral right, legality or whatever for Americans in general. I was just pointing to the hypocrisy of Rabbit invoking the spirit of the founding fathers regarding guns, yet ignoring the spirit of the founding fathers regarding representation. As the starter of the thread, he deserves more scrutiny than most.

[Xiahou]

Of course, I also want the 17th ammendment repealed, so you know I'm not in step with a lot of other folks.
What don't you like about it? The direct election of Senators?

[ajaxfetish]

It's good to hear Antiochus' perspective on this. I was wondering whether these were people who didn't want citizenship (as Rabbit claimed) or people in the process of acquiring it (as I suspected). I think that makes a considerable difference. I tend to think one of the most important parts of fighting illegal immigration should be improving the legal immigration process. I've known people who have been working on citizenship status for years, with the process to continue indefinitely as far as they know. If they're in America, trying to become American citizens, working and paying taxes, I see no reason to deny them some level of representation. I think the more important thing is making citizenship more attainable, though, since this wouldn't even be an issue in that case.

Ajax

[Randarkmaan]

Here legal non-citizens (meaning legal immigrants without Norwegian citizenship) are allowed to vote in municipal elections (that is locally) but are not allowed to participate in voting for the "Storting" (Parliament). Which I think makes perfect sense, because even though they are not citizens of the country they do pay taxes and should be allowed to atleast have a say in what happens locally. I don't think it has wrought any negative consequenses, except that many feel they are not represented by any parties (Even though the Red Electoral Alliance, communists, wave alot of immigrant friendly babble in front of them) and therefore are likely to vote for candidates who are immigrants themselves, because that seems to be easier to identify with. But I think it has been this way for quite some time because if it had been recently the xenophobes of the Progress party would have been in uproar.

[Blodrast]

Just what exactly IS the time period that has to pass between the moment one becomes a (legal) immigrant, until one can apply for citizenship, in the US ?

[AntiochusIII]

Just what exactly IS the time period that has to pass between the moment one becomes a (legal) immigrant, until one can apply for citizenship, in the US ?The "boom time" when the USA wasn't particularly pressured or scared by illegal immigration -- or 9/11 for that matter -- it can be as short as two years. Usually it's about 5 years. Nowadays, with all the flak on immigration and the fear of terrorism, it can be even more.

There's no "exact" time limit as far as I know, but trends. They evaluate things by individual cases, I believe. It's not like it bothered me much -- obviously the consideration is that since immigrants are moving into their country, they are being "tested" on their capabilities to survive and adapt and their "loyalty," and are subject to certain "reasonable" limitation of rights; what let me to use a rather harsh tone in this thread is the implication that somehow people in my status are intentionally avoiding becoming citizens just because, you know, they're not Americans, hate Americans, will destroy Democracy if they can vote when they're not yet Americans, will generally engage in fraud activity to compete against the citizens' voting block, and all that.

[ShadeHonestus]

I'm not claiming constitutionality, moral right, legality or whatever for Americans in general. I was just pointing to the hypocrisy of Rabbit invoking the spirit of the founding fathers regarding guns, yet ignoring the spirit of the founding fathers regarding representation. As the starter of the thread, he deserves more scrutiny than most.


True, however in deciding what is constitutional or not when dealing with ambiguity in the Constitution, the Supreme Court hears the arguments that go to "founding spirit" and contemporary views to establish an integrity of the law code. Legal abortion can be seen as hypocrisy to the founding spirits, however its due process law that makes it legal. I give CR the slack in hypocrisy because it ironically goes to integrity. To separate the two issues you mentioned in gun control vs taxation and representation. The argument for the right to bear arms has its foundation in the Constitution, while taxation vs representation does not, therefore spirit or not there is no legal standing for the argument. I do understand though how one could see the hypocrisy as a flawed argument when one hasn't read many supreme court cases to see how rhetorical hypocrisy works over here. :2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm not claiming constitutionality, moral right, legality or whatever for Americans in general. I was just pointing to the hypocrisy of Rabbit invoking the spirit of the founding fathers regarding guns, yet ignoring the spirit of the founding fathers regarding representation. As the starter of the thread, he deserves more scrutiny than most.

I see no amendment on the bill of rights discussing legal aliens being able to vote in the country, nor have I heard that the founders wanted non-citizens to vote with the same unanimous fervor they wanted the people to be able to secure their liberty. No one, to my knowledge, is denying these people the opportunity to become citizens.

Crazed Rabbit

[ShadeHonestus]

No one, to my knowledge, is denying these people the opportunity to become citizens.


In fact agencies like INS go to great lengths to enable immigration. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/185717.shtml)

[Pannonian]

I see no amendment on the bill of rights discussing legal aliens being able to vote in the country, nor have I heard that the founders wanted non-citizens to vote with the same unanimous fervor they wanted the people to be able to secure their liberty. No one, to my knowledge, is denying these people the opportunity to become citizens.

Crazed Rabbit
Can you tell me what the bill of rights said when your founders revolted? Was the distinction between citizenry and non-citizenry the reason your founders revolted from British rule?

It's quite simple - stop claiming you're an American conservative, or someone who thinks the spirit of the revolution should endure, or anything of that sort. Just say you're a good old-fashioned Tory who enjoys privilege and wants the status quo to continue, and there will be no hint of hypocrisy. BTW, that's why the British left are often chummy with the old Tories, but absolutely loathe neocons - at least the former are honest about what they are, while the latter make a show about rights and ideals, but are all about maintaining privilege.

[Fisherking]

At the time of the founding of the U.S.A. voting rights were held only by property owners. It was the same in England at the time.

Voting rights are largely set by the various States. The constitution outlines who may run for office and not who may vote. The amendments handle who is considered a US citizen and extend voting rights to freed slaves in US elections. Citizens of states are not the same as US citizens under all circumstances.

This is not going to get less confusing…..

[Banquo's Ghost]

Can you tell me what the bill of rights said when your founders revolted? Was the distinction between citizenry and non-citizenry the reason your founders revolted from British rule?

It's quite simple - stop claiming you're an American conservative, or someone who thinks the spirit of the revolution should endure, or anything of that sort. Just say you're a good old-fashioned Tory who enjoys privilege and wants the status quo to continue, and there will be no hint of hypocrisy. BTW, that's why the British left are often chummy with the old Tories, but absolutely loathe neocons - at least the former are honest about what they are, while the latter make a show about rights and ideals, but are all about maintaining privilege.


I think you are being unduly harsh towards CR, and that it arises from your own neo-imperialist beliefs.

A people may rise up against their overlords for a range of perceived injustices - taxation without representation being the pertinent one here. You'll find that the people who threw the British out did so for a very wide range of reasons, not just taxation issues.

But the assorted drivers of that revolution do not have to be codified or even reflected in the internal arrangements of the new nation. They may, on reflection, be entirely unconnected with the plans for the future governance. Should Rabbit support the total exclusion of all modern Brits from the soil of the USA because some revolutionaries may have hated the British? As was said in the other thread discussing imperialism, sometimes a nation swaps wicked imperial injustice for wicked homegrown injustice - but at least it's their injustice to be responsible for.

In this case, I find CR's position entirely consistent with what I know of his views. He supports the constitutional amendment fiercely, but has no truck with a proposed provision that the founders thought unimportant enough to leave out of their final arrangements.

I think we're all entitled to a range of grey in our views without being charged with hypocrisy, but I actually think CR is being remarkably clear on what he believes in this matter.

[ShadeHonestus]

what BQ said, but with a witism or sarcastic remark