Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
This really makes me angry:
Quote:
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...ie_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
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
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'.
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
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
Quote:
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:
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
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.
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
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
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
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.
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
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 ?
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 ?
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.
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
Quote:
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
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
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…..
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.
Re: Proposed changes to immigrant voting laws in America
what BQ said, but with a witism or sarcastic remark
