• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

States Weigh Letting Noncitizens Vote

I find it funny that the author makes all this talk about Mexico and Aztlan but the part of the story he decided to highlight mentions 'Claude Rwaganje'. I'm sure this guy actually cares about Aztlan:

102310_noncitizen_397x224.jpg


Silly Gringos. DEM MEXIKUNZ GWAN TAKE YA LANDS!


OMG! One example of a non Mexican and the whole argument is shot to hell.....:shock: What a silly post.


j-mac
 
Those only count when you agree with them.

Or only for them when its something you agree with.

Last I checked I didn't see anyone early on this thread saying they should be constitutionally BANNED from being allowed to let illegals vote in local elections, people just expressed they felt it was a bad idea.

When the **** did "State rights" become "You must agree and support any state pushed issue"?

I know some of the libertarians who are itching for snarky comments, or liberals who have a hard time actually grasping things like "limited government" or "states rights" because misrepresenting them makes their arguments more useful, may not fully understand this...but one can support a states right to do something while thinking that it is a bad idea to do. Saying "I don't think this is a good law" or "They shouldn't do this, its going to cause problems in the end on a national level" is NOT being against states rights. Saying "The federal government should disallow the local states from letting this happen" would be.
 
I don't either. I don't think a noncitizen should be allowed to vote in an election where a foreign policy issue could be decided, period.

Logically thatd be the only case where one could imagine a non-citizen voting. You know, on things that affect them.

*this is not an endorsement of non citizen voting
 
aztlan.jpg

Are you willing to give up our Nations Sovereignty and History as a Melting pot, in favor of some Radical Liberal idea that is 100% Anti-American? It also means the end of the United States of America that millions fought and died for.
Or are you willing to fight Peacefully of course to preserve our Nation?

This is the most dangerous attack on our nation since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Allowing aliens legal or not to vote could lead to a situation not unlike the one that took place back in 1981 when a Cult tried to take over and control the Community of Antelope Oregon.

They used legal citizens who were brain washed by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh to register to vote so they could take over and allow them to make all the rules so their CULT could do as they wished.

Is this a fear? HELL YES IT IS.

There are places in this nation such as parts of Los Angeles where if this were to catch on Radicals like from the Racist group La Raza, and other radical groups like MEChA, and Aztlan will turn areas into Mexico which is their goal which will lead to us being run out.

There are areas in many Cities populated by Muslims, Chinese, Korean, etc. and if allowed to do so they will return to separate but unequal, and this will I seriously fear lead to a Civil War and a BLOOD BATH.

I do not think non-citizens should be allowed to vote in any election period regardless if they are here legally or illegally. I can see some scumbag in office using this as a stepping stone to allow illegals to vote or non-citizens to vote in other elections after people get used to non-citizens being allowed to vote in local elections. Because the argument that they pay local taxes can apply to illegals.
 
OMG! One example of a non Mexican and the whole argument is shot to hell.....:shock: What a silly post.

Actually there isn't one mention of a Mexican anywhere in your article. And all of the specific places that they mention are nowhere near your racist fearmongering map, other than a brief mention of San Francisco which is only 14% Hispanic.
 
Last edited:
So if citizens decide to give their non-citizen legal resident tax-paying neighbors the right to vote in local elections, that's something to be afraid of?

Really?

There are other countries that permit that sort of thing in certain localities, and the sky hasn't fallen there.

I have to agree with you. If this was done for elections any higher than local, I would be absolutely against it. However, if it is constrained only to local elections, I see nothing wrong with the citizens of cities to decide for themselves.

I think a good compromise would be to allow a body of non-voting representatives for legal non-citizens at a local level, or even higher, where their concerns can be addressed. That way, at least they'll have a voice.
 
Citizens of a nation vote.


Non-citizens don't.


To allow anything else is an assault on our sovereignty as a nation. If you aren't a US citizen, you have no business voting. If you want to vote, go home or become a US Citizen.

I'm sorry, this is just a no-brainer to me, like asking if water is wet.
 
Citizens of a nation vote.


Non-citizens don't.


To allow anything else is an assault on our sovereignty as a nation. If you aren't a US citizen, you have no business voting. If you want to vote, go home or become a US Citizen.

I'm sorry, this is just a no-brainer to me, like asking if water is wet.

...except they aren't voting in any federal elections. Or for that matter, any state elections. They're voting to elect the city dogcatcher and county coroner and whatnot of their own communities. I don't see what's so horrible about that. They live there just as much as citizens do, so why not?
 
Last edited:
Citizens of a nation vote.


Non-citizens don't.


To allow anything else is an assault on our sovereignty as a nation. If you aren't a US citizen, you have no business voting. If you want to vote, go home or become a US Citizen.

I'm sorry, this is just a no-brainer to me, like asking if water is wet.

I'm like.. Why has this thread had so many posts about people arguing for this like it's obvious to them that people who are not citizens have a right to vote, or should be allowed too? Huh??


Tim-
 
...except they aren't voting in any federal elections. Or for that matter, any state elections. They're voting to elect the city dogcatcher and county coroner and whatnot of their own communities. I don't see what's so horrible about that.

Because the "right" to vote in not by degree. It is not a grey area in principle, it is a right, and you either meet the prerequisit, or you do not.


Tim-
 
Because the "right" to vote in not by degree. It is not a grey area in principle, it is a right, and you either meet the prerequisit, or you do not.


Tim-

I don't think that anyone is suggesting they have an inherent RIGHT to vote. However, communities can allow them to do so, irrespective of that. Since they live there as much as anyone else, I don't see what's wrong with that.
 
I don't think that anyone is suggesting they have an inherent RIGHT to vote. However, communities can allow them to do so, irrespective of that. Since they live there as much as anyone else, I don't see what's wrong with that.


Because accepting that in principle, and as precedent, allows the same arguments to be used to ask why they can't vote in state elections, or even federal elections. They live here as much as anyone, so why not?
 
Because accepting that in principle, and as precedent, allows the same arguments to be used to ask why they can't vote in state elections, or even federal elections. They live here as much as anyone, so why not?

Sure, it allows the same argument to be made. But it doesn't mean that they actually have to be allowed to vote on a state/federal level, just because the argument can be made.
 
Last edited:
Because accepting that in principle, and as precedent, allows the same arguments to be used to ask why they can't vote in state elections, or even federal elections. They live here as much as anyone, so why not?

Why not just come out and use the phrase "slippery slope?"
 
Because accepting that in principle, and as precedent, allows the same arguments to be used to ask why they can't vote in state elections, or even federal elections. They live here as much as anyone, so why not?

Well, that is true. However, such a precedent would be resolved by amendments to a state's constitution for state elections.

As for federal elections, those are determined by state laws as well. The Constitution allows the individual states to determine how the Senators and Representatives from their states are elected.

With regards to the Presidential election, remember that we don't use the popular vote anyways - rather, we use the electoral college.

Again, I have no problem with non-citizens having a say in local government if the people of the local government vote for it. However, I don't think it should be imposed on other local governments, or should be applied to a higher level than local governments.
 
So, because you don't see the right to vote as important to you, nobody else should?

I'm just curious as to why you want to give voting rights away --- is it because of some world view or is it because these voters tend to vote (D) in elections and therefore it's for some pansy partisan motive?

I'm sure you'd be in favor of pets such as guinea pigs, birds, dogs and cats to vote too - by proxy of their owners of course, and always for (D) right?
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious as to why you want to give voting rights away --- is it because of some world view or is it because these voters tend to vote (D) in elections and therefore it's for some pansy partisan motive?

I'm sure you'd be in favor of pets such as guinea pigs, birds, dogs and cats to vote too - by proxy of their owners of course, and always for (D) right?

Who cares what their political affiliation is, if they're just voting in LOCAL elections? Do you really give a damn whether your county treasurer is a Democrat or a Republican? Is there really any difference in how they'd handle the job, based on their partisan affiliation? :roll:
 
Who cares what their political affiliation is, if they're just voting in LOCAL elections?
Are you claiming minorities in the United States do not vote primarily for Democrats? And what a silly statement - viewing this from a purely political view, of COURSE politicans and local/state government care what political affiliations they have.

Do you really give a damn whether your county treasurer is a Democrat or a Republican? Is there really any difference in how they'd handle the job, based on their partisan affiliation? :roll:
Yes I do actually. You see the town council including the treasurer in my neck of the woods has the ability to do a lot of things that directly affect me, my home, my family. For example, I live in a rural area where "open farmland" has been in preservation status for 12 years now. Democrats who are running for town council and treasurer I might add, want to remove the township plan and bring in industry and allow developers to build up the area. Most of the citizens where I live do not want this and have voted Republican to preserve the open space as our little township is an island of green surrounded by full on development and we're willing to pay higher taxes to keep it open space. Yes absolutely there's a difference on how they handle the job and if you don't know that, you obviously aren't involved in your local government nor are you involved in local issues --- THOSE local issues affect people just as much as any big government healthcare travesty passed nationally by Congress.
 
Voting is a privilege reserved only for citizens. Non-citizens should never be allowed to vote in any election in the United States. Why should my vote be equal and canceled out by a non-citizen and possible illegal immigrant?
 
Are you claiming minorities in the United States do not vote primarily for Democrats? And what a silly statement - viewing this from a purely political view, of COURSE politicans and local/state government care what political affiliations they have.

I really don't care who they primarily vote for. From a practical standpoint, legal residents are just as much a part of their communities as US citizens, so it makes sense to let them vote in local elections. I don't give a damn whether that means the community is more likely to elect a Democrat or Republican to be the assistant county dogcatcher.

Ockham said:
Yes I do actually. You see the town council including the treasurer in my neck of the woods has the ability to do a lot of things that directly affect me, my home, my family. For example, I live in a rural area where "open farmland" has been in preservation status for 12 years now. Democrats who are running for town council and treasurer I might add, want to remove the township plan and bring in industry and allow developers to build up the area. Most of the citizens where I live do not want this and have voted Republican to preserve the open space as our little township is an island of green surrounded by full on development and we're willing to pay higher taxes to keep it open space. Yes absolutely there's a difference on how they handle the job and if you don't know that, you obviously aren't involved in your local government nor are you involved in local issues --- THOSE local issues affect people just as much as any big government healthcare travesty passed nationally by Congress.

Well I don't know anything about your community, but that's pretty unusual if you have lots of controversial local issues that fall so neatly into a partisan divide. Most local elections boil down to competence. If there's an incumbent and they've done a decent job, people usually vote to reelect them regardless of partisan affiliation. If there's no incumbent, they'll vote for whoever they think is more competent. In my experience it's unusual for candidates for local offices to have significantly different goals...and to the extent that they do, it rarely has anything to do with their partisan ideology.
 
Last edited:
I really don't care who they primarily vote for.
While you may not the RNC and DNC do.

From a practical standpoint, legal residents are just as much a part of their communities as US citizens, so it makes sense to let them vote in local elections.
No it does not make sense at all. While these are state by state issues, if legal residents want to vote, they need to become citizens.


I don't give a damn whether that means the community is more likely to elect a Democrat or Republican to be the assistant county dogcatcher.
Ok. And what you do or do not give a damn about isn't the same as what political leaderships in local communities give a damn about. Therefore what you give a damn about is irrelevant to the political machines in those localities.

Well I don't know anything about your community, but that's pretty unusual if you have lots of controversial local issues that fall so neatly into a partisan divide. Most local elections boil down to competence.
I really can't comment about other local elections. I know the surrounding towns have just as many issues though different. For example one has a big problem because they 6% of a votership voted in a special election which approved 56 million dollars and a tax hike for school improvements, and now that town is pissed off. The other neighboring town has approved tons of new construction and home development and now are increasing taxes due to the increases in schools, transportation, police and fire needs, as well as public water and sewer. They didn't realize apparently all those things were needed or their decisions would have such ramifications. So just using my anecdotal knowledge, it does seem like there are more issues than just competence in my general area of the country. Whether that's exceptional compared the the rest of the country I really cannot comment.


If there's an incumbent and they've done a decent job, people usually vote to reelect them regardless of partisan affiliation.
That may be a rule of thumb but again, it's not my experience.


If there's no incumbent, they'll vote for whoever they think is more competent. In my experience it's unusual for candidates for local offices to have significantly different goals...and to the extent that they do, it rarely has anything to do with their partisan ideology.
That's again a general rule of thumb. It doesn't always fit. And at a state level, you bet these political groups care if they're Democrats or Republicans. Local races run on zero money so unless you live in those areas and are involved in the politics of your locality - you really don't know what's going on.
 
School Board? Yes, legal residents pay taxes and utilize public schools. I see no reason why they cannot have the right to vote for school board members.

Beyond that (i.e. city council, mayor) I'm a bit less likely to agree that legal residents should have the right to vote but I wouldn't get all up in arms about it.

Once it gets up to the county level and beyond, I am adamently against allowing non-citizens the right to vote.
 
I don't think that anyone is suggesting they have an inherent RIGHT to vote. However, communities can allow them to do so, irrespective of that. Since they live there as much as anyone else, I don't see what's wrong with that.

That same argument can be made for illegals or for even city, state and federal elections. They live there just as much as anyone else and as many of you pro-illegals pointed out illegals pay taxes too.
 
School Board? Yes, legal residents pay taxes and utilize public schools. I see no reason why they cannot have the right to vote for school board members.

The same argument be made for voting for other offices or even to allow illegals the right to vote.


Beyond that (i.e. city council, mayor) I'm a bit less likely to agree that legal residents should have the right to vote but I wouldn't get all up in arms about it.

This is how incrementation works. Start off with one thing and work your way up to ease people into accepting something that they world normally oppose.

Once it gets up to the county level and beyond, I am adamently against allowing non-citizens the right to vote.

Some how I doubt that. You are willing to set a precedent by allowing school board elections and even all the way to city elections but somehow you expect us to believe that it would stop at anything a county or above elections?
 
Back
Top Bottom