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...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

[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...

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" ).

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.



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

[ShadeHonestus]

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

Congress at work.

[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

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

[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.

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.