• 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!

Should non-citizens in the USA be allowed to vote in federal elections?

Should non-citizens in the USA be allowed to vote ?in federal elections?

  • Total voters
    95
Waddy said:
And, yeah, having fewer but better voters would be a good thing.
Click to expand...
I see, and who gets to decide what makes someone a "better" voter. From where I'm sitting you seem like a really really bad voter. Nobody that selfish should be in a position to make laws that impact the lives of so many.

Waddy said:
The people who pay the freight should have the most say.
Click to expand...
Why is a contribution of money the only thing that matters? Could it be because you have a lot?

If a soldier gives his life is he not paying more than a millionaire?

If a woman stays at home raising children is she not doing as much work as any full-time employee? Her labor is still labor whether she is paid for it or not?
 
mike2810 said:
We are not the EU. Even in the EU only 15 of the 28 countries allow noncitizens to vote IF they meet a certain residency requirement.
Click to expand...
That isn't a reason why it would be a bad idea. If 13 out of 28 EU countries were jumping off a cliff would you it too? Why don't you stick to the merits of the actual point?

mike2810 said:
Citizens have a stake in the country they are a citizen of. Migrants have no long term stake.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do. I specifically stated that they were in fact long term migrants.

mike2810 said:
They may or may not have loyalty to the country they migrated to. Especially if they are escaping a war.
Click to expand...
Loyalty? They're here. The laws impact them. A natural born citizen may or may not have "loyalty" to the country they live in.

mike2810 said:
It would be interesting to see how many migrants really knew US laws before coming here.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see how many Trump supporters really knew US laws even after living here most their life.

Why would knowledge of the current laws make you incapable of deciding who should represent you going forward?
 
MrWonka said:
That isn't a reason why it would be a bad idea. If 13 out of 28 EU countries were jumping off a cliff would you it too? Why don't you stick to the merits of the actual point?


Yes, they do. I specifically stated that they were in fact long term migrants.


Loyalty? They're here. The laws impact them. A natural born citizen may or may not have "loyalty" to the country they live in.


It would be interesting to see how many Trump supporters really knew US laws even after living here most their life.

Why would knowledge of the current laws make you incapable of deciding who should represent you going forward?
Click to expand...

Your the one who brought up laws.
I am not a Trump supporter

Sorry, but your idea of letting non citizens vote is one I cannot agree with.
 
MrWonka said:
Why not? If you're living in Mexico long term would your life be more impacted by the choices of the leaders of Mexico or America?


So? Their lives are impacted by where they live. If you're living in working in Mexico would you want Mexico's economy to go to ****? Would you want them to pass a law that could radically curtail your freedom? Would you want them to start a pointless war that could get your family killed in retaliation?

If you were a U.S. Citizen living in Mexico for the next ten years would you care more about that tax rates in America or Mexico? Where are you the biggest stakeholder? Maybe if you still owned land back in America it would make sense for you to want to have a say in both countries. Maybe if you'd hoped to return someday I could see you wanting to vote in both places. But so long as you're a long term resident of Mexico it is the leadership of Mexico that will have the greatest impact on your life. Why shouldn't you have a say in the laws that will govern you?
Click to expand...

Because I dont have an allegiance to the country. Im a guest. Residents have not taken the ultimate step of pledging allegiance to the country, and giving up all other loyalties. Look at the oath we require:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Click to expand...

SO what I want doesnt matter in some foreign country. If I dont like their policies, I can leave. The people who are 100% loyal, cant.
 
I say no, here in the Netherlands only people with the Dutch nationality can vote in national elections, only for local elections are all people legally living in the Netherlands allowed to vote because it directly has to do with how they live in that city. They should not have a say in national politics.

The same should go for the US, legal immigrants should only have to get a say in local elections that directly have influence on their lives. It makes no sense to allow them to vote in federal elections. US citizens should be the only one having a say there.
 
JMR said:
The census is used for many purposes other than calculating Reps in Congress...such as where to build roads, where to build hospitals, schools, where senior services might be needed, etc. The census is useless if not answered by everyone. Your logic leading to allowing non citizens voting rights is very flawed, but often used by those who would like to imagine their unpopularity at the polls is due to "illegal" voters.

If you are truly concerned about proper representation in the House, you may want to advocate for the end of gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder.
Regards,
CP
 
not voting in the poll. however, i oppose the citizenship question on the census. its only purpose is to discourage immigrant participation, even legal immigrants. no thanks.
 
jonny5 said:
Because I dont have an allegiance to the country. Im a guest. Residents have not taken the ultimate step of pledging allegiance to the country, and giving up all other loyalties. Look at the oath we require:



SO what I want doesnt matter in some foreign country. If I dont like their policies, I can leave. The people who are 100% loyal, cant.
Click to expand...

It is really this simple; the entire world is often affected by what the US does, and we are often affected by them. That doesn't parlay into foreigners having a vote or weight in our elections, whether located in another country or here in our borders by subterfuge. The United States is ruled by the election results of legitimate American voters. That is what has made us great/ I have no legitimate right or interest in voting in another country and I don't want illegitimate votes cast here spoiling the elections in this country.
Regards,
CP
 
Last edited:
concernedpuma said:
Clever rejoinder maybe, but how so?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Not meant to be clever, simple factual statement. There have been many complaints of gerrymandering brought to the courts, and a big one will be heard by the Supreme Court very soon.
 
joko104 said:
Some cities now allow non-citizens to vote in their elections. President Bill Clinton removed the citizenship question from the 2000 census to have non-citizens counted for calculating allocation of Representatives in Congress, with Barrack Obama repeating this is 2010. So in fact non-citizens have identical representation as American citizens in the federal House of Representatives. Additionally, most blue states have blocked any voter verification that offered any way to prevent non-citizens from voting.

The only thing remaining is allowing non-citizens exactly the same voting rights as citizens in federal elections.
Click to expand...

Lookie above as to who voted "yes" in your poll. Go figure.

To keep you honest though... which cities allow non-citizens to vote in their elections?
The only city I am aware of that permits this is who allows non-citizens, and AKA illegal aliens to vote on school board matters is San Francisco. I know, crazy.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...nted-immigrants-vote-school-elections-n893221
 
JMR said:
Not meant to be clever, simple factual statement. There have been many complaints of gerrymandering brought to the courts, and a big one will be heard by the Supreme Court very soon.
Click to expand...

Oh. The reply was so clipped, I didn't get it. My error, I suppose. What district is being challenged, and on what grounds?
Regards,
CP
 
One vote for; and it's mine. Now, that's the way I like it, uh-huh.
 
concernedpuma said:
Oh. The reply was so clipped, I didn't get it. My error, I suppose. What district is being challenged, and on what grounds?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

The case the Supreme Court will here shortly involves partisan gerrymandering in two different states, North Carolina and Maryland, which lower courts found so extreme that the rights of citizens were violated:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...58c33d6c8c7_story.html?utm_term=.6463aa55ef98

The following is a summary of significant cases heard by the Supreme Court on redistricting/gerrymandering: http://www.ncsl.org/research/redist...supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases.aspx

These are only cases that get heard by the Supreme Court. Many, many cases are settled in lower courts.
 
JMR said:
The case the Supreme Court will here shortly involves partisan gerrymandering in two different states, North Carolina and Maryland, which lower courts found so extreme that the rights of citizens were violated:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...58c33d6c8c7_story.html?utm_term=.6463aa55ef98

The following is a summary of significant cases heard by the Supreme Court on redistricting/gerrymandering: http://www.ncsl.org/research/redist...supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases.aspx

These are only cases that get heard by the Supreme Court. Many, many cases are settled in lower courts.
Click to expand...

Thank you for those sources. I seldom read the Post, so it was an interesting read. It will be interesting to see how they rule. Until then, I presume the state's are on solid ground.
Regards,
CP
 
MrWonka said:
I see, and who gets to decide what makes someone a "better" voter. From where I'm sitting you seem like a really really bad voter. Nobody that selfish should be in a position to make laws that impact the lives of so many.


Why is a contribution of money the only thing that matters? Could it be because you have a lot?

If a soldier gives his life is he not paying more than a millionaire?

If a woman stays at home raising children is she not doing as much work as any full-time employee? Her labor is still labor whether she is paid for it or not?
Click to expand...

Actual taxpayers have skin in the game. US soldiers certainly make enough to pay federal taxes. That home maker taking care of a child has a spouse or someone providing income. If she's a welfare queen she has no skin in the game and therefore wants all she can get; why not, she's not the one paying.

I think EVERYONE should pay some federal income tax; that way everyone has skin in the fiscal game.
 
Myview said:
The last time the citizenship question was asked of all citizens was 1950. The only time it has been asked since then is on what is referred to as the long form which goes to one in six households. I don't know how often the long form has been used but its not used in every census. A long form may have been used during the Obama and Clinton years. By law non citizens are not eligible to vote in federal elections. In San Francisco they were allowed to register to vote in a school board election. 35 registered. Non citizens voting in Federal, state, and any election is a common fear and suspicion among Conservatives.
Click to expand...

And those 35 stole votes that real Americans cast.
 
Waddy said:
Actual taxpayers have skin in the game. US soldiers certainly make enough to pay federal taxes. That home maker taking care of a child has a spouse or someone providing income. If she's a welfare queen she has no skin in the game and therefore wants all she can get; why not, she's not the one paying.

I think EVERYONE should pay some federal income tax; that way everyone has skin in the fiscal game.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point, that point being every American citizen has skin in the game, though it may not always be paid for by taxation (for example the stay at home parent, or disabled veteran). Of course to say otherwise is to deny a voice to worthy and valued Americans. I'm sure you considered that and thought it to be understood. I know you didn't mean to include them in your EVERY American call. I'm just trying to short off the cheap shots.
Regards,
CP
.
 
smallvoice said:
And those 35 stole votes that real Americans cast.
Click to expand...

Huh? Wut? Come again. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. 35 registered, no idea how many actually voted. San Francisco has a population of about 1,000,000.
 
Myview said:
Huh? Wut? Come again. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. 35 registered, no idea how many actually voted. San Francisco has a population of about 1,000,000.
Click to expand...

As a conservative this is one time I must join in with a liberal in asking of a fellow conservative...huh? There must be more to this.
Regards,
CP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom