Would you agree that mandatory voting is compelled speech?

[soylentgreen]

That's leftist propaganda. It is the far left Californians who want illegals to work in their state to further their economy. That's why they have sanctuary cites, a sanctuary state, and allow illegals to vote in local elections and are against the wall. Hell, when ICE was going to raid California employers, California tipped off those employers in advance before ICE got there so the workers could flee. It is the liberal governments which turn the blind eye.

No, it is not propaganda it is actually a sensible way of dealing with the situation. But, as you have just pointed out america has chosen a nonsensible way of doing it.

New zealand had the same problem with over stayers and illegal workers until we changed the immigration laws to accommodate seasonal employment. We now have a Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme.
RSE scheme better for business and New Zealand workers | Immigration New Zealand

The latest employers' survey found that nearly nine in 10 employers had employed more New Zealanders - in addition to RSE workers. On average each of those employers has been able to hire five additional permanent workers, and 20 seasonal workers as a result of their participation in the scheme.

The Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme addresses a long-standing labour supply problem for horticulture and viticulture businesses, by enabling workers primarily from the Pacific to enter New Zealand’s horticulture and viticulture labour market on a temporary, seasonal basis each year.

There is no reason why this could not also work in america.

 

[Perotista]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

Pretty much, yes. Here in the good old USA, in 2016 Americans viewed the two major party candidates with a 58% and 60% unfavorably. If one equates unfavorable to not wanting the candidates to become the next president, a huge majority of Americans didn't want either one, yet were expected to vote for someone they didn't like or want.

Voting wasn't mandatory, 45% stayed home. Another 6% of those who voted, cast their ballots for some third party candidates, against both major party candidates. Even among those who voted in 2016, more voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, NOT win, but least wanted to lose.

We have way too many people who vote now based on a slogan, campaign music, whether a candidate looks presidential or not, based on party, the R and or the D regardless of the qualifications of the candidates. There's a ton of mind boggling reasons other than the one's I mentioned. Mandatory voting, why force someone to vote when they don't care, perhaps deciding whom they vote for based on a flip of a coin or just marks the first name for each office just to get that obligation done and out of the way.

Coerced expression is a good term for mandatory voting. Mandatory voting is a way of letting those uninformed, not caring, who gives a **** who wins a means of deciding who actually does win.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, it is not propaganda it is actually a sensible way of dealing with the situation. But, as you have just pointed out america has chosen a nonsensible way of doing it.

New zealand had the same problem with over stayers and illegal workers until we changed the immigration laws to accommodate seasonal employment. We now have a Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme.
RSE scheme better for business and New Zealand workers | Immigration New Zealand


There is no reason why this could not also work in america.

It's not a sensible way at all. It's a leftist talking point, an erroneous one. Millions of Americans (both legal and illegal) work for cash under the table so they don't have to pay income taxes. We haven't been able to stop that. It's rampant. And yet you erroneously think that, oh yeah, all we have to do is crack down on employers and illegal immigration will stop. It won't. It won't stop anymore than working for cash under the table stops. And the left tries to claim it is those big bad Republican companies who hire the illegals. The biggest violators are the liberal state of California's employers and when ICE goes to crack down on those employers (like you suggest), California tips them off ahead of time and gives the illegal workers sanctuary. Then, California turns right around and lets illegals vote in local elections.

 

[soylentgreen]

It's not a sensible way at all. It's a leftist talking point, an erroneous one. Millions of Americans (both legal and illegal) work for cash under the table so they don't have to pay income taxes. We haven't been able to stop that. It's rampant. And yet you erroneously think that, oh yeah, all we have to do is crack down on employers and illegal immigration will stop. It won't. It won't stop anymore than working for cash under the table stops. And the left tries to claim it is those big bad Republican companies who hire the illegals. The biggest violators are the liberal state of California's employers and when ICE goes to crack down on those employers (like you suggest), California tips them off ahead of time and gives the illegal workers sanctuary. Then, California turns right around and lets illegals vote in local elections.

I was not suggesting that the workers would stop coming. i was suggesting that by making it legal it would stop the corruption.

I also did say that americans were of course doing it the wrong way.

The point is that america needs those workers. What they do not need is the workers working illegally.

What i suggested was not cracking down on employers. What i suggested was that they would be able to employ legally.

Unless of course you are suggesting that american employers would prefer to be criminals and employ illegally.

 

[madasheck]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

Using Wikipedia as a source for anything is troubling, but to answer your question no. Not even sure why you'd bring up this as an issue.

 

[Bilgewater]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

First off, there is no such thing as compelled free speech. so by separating compelled speech from free speech, the answer is quite clear. Compelled speech isn't "speech". It's just a reaction due to negative stimuli. It's basically being a sock puppet for the state.

 

[Moderate Right]

I was not suggesting that the workers would stop coming. i was suggesting that by making it legal it would stop the corruption.

I also did say that americans were of course doing it the wrong way.

The point is that america needs those workers. What they do not need is the workers working illegally.

What i suggested was not cracking down on employers. What i suggested was that they would be able to employ legally.

Unless of course you are suggesting that american employers would prefer to be criminals and employ illegally.

Your post makes no sense. We were talking about illegals coming here illegally and you quoted the leftist talking point that if we cracked down on employers, illegals would quit coming here.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your post makes no sense. We were talking about illegals coming here illegally and you quoted the leftist talking point that if we cracked down on employers, illegals would quit coming here.

No, i did not, said nothing of the sort.

What i said was that it is possible to make a change in the law that would allow illegals to come to america legally. Making them no longer illegals.

What i said was that the fact that these people come to america is not the problem, that they do so by illegal means is.

 

[SoCal]

Your post makes no sense. We were talking about illegals coming here illegally and you quoted the leftist talking point that if we cracked down on employers, illegals would quit coming here.

Why do conservatives who get so worked up about illegal immigration ignore half the problem? If a pimp exploits young teenagers by offering them up to degenerate men willing to pay cash for sex, would they only prosecute the girls?!? Would nationalists claim that a proposal to crack down on the pimp, a liberal "talking point"?

Is it just a strange coincidence that nationalists only want to crack down on the supply side and not the demand side? Why take the children from only poor employees looking for work, while ignoring the children of well off employers? Is it just a strange coincidence only one side is white?

Of course, it won't stop all illegal immigration, but if undocumented workers can't find employers willing to pay them cash under the table, it would significantly reduce it. Look up how supply and demand works...

 

[Moderate Right]

No, i did not, said nothing of the sort.

What i said was that it is possible to make a change in the law that would allow illegals to come to america legally. Making them no longer illegals.

What i said was that the fact that these people come to america is not the problem, that they do so by illegal means is.

We have a legal immigration system and it should be used. If we need to tweak it to allow the people in that we need then fine. But, the left want us to just do away with the millions of people who are here illegally and just make them legal while still allowing even more illegals in. It sounds to me like you're saying that we should just allow anyone who wants to come here to come here and we'll call them legals. If we were to increase the number of legal immigrants there would still be hundreds of thousands coming here illegally. You're from New Zealand, why don't you just take in millions and millions of people? You're country can only hold so many people and your country can only afford to house and feed so many illegals. The US isn't any different. It's easy for you to say what other countries should do but your very own country couldn't handle all of the illegals that cross our border. We have a national debt of over 22 trillion dollars! What's your national debt?

 

[Moderate Right]

Why do conservatives who get so worked up about illegal immigration ignore half the problem? If a pimp exploits young teenagers by offering them up to degenerate men willing to pay cash for sex, would they only prosecute the girls?!? Would nationalists claim that a proposal to crack down on the pimp, a liberal "talking point"?

Is it just a strange coincidence that nationalists only want to crack down on the supply side and not the demand side? Why take the children from only poor employees looking for work, while ignoring the children of well off employers? Is it just a strange coincidence only one side is white?

Of course, it won't stop all illegal immigration, but if undocumented workers can't find employers willing to pay them cash under the table, it would significantly reduce it. Look up how supply and demand works...

It's just hogwash for simple minded people. First, California employers and politicians want illegals to work for employers. California won't crack down on it. In fact, when ICE was going to raid California employers, California tipped the employers off ahead of time. The left seem to always imply that it is rich Republican employers who hire all of these illegals, which is just a load of partisan BS. It is California that is a sanctuary state and every sanctuary city that I know of is Democratic. And, some cities in California allow illegals to vote in local elections. All of these things are just begging illegals to come here. And, working under the table is a huge problem in every single part of the country everywhere and it is virtually impossible to crack down on that. Cracking down on employers hiring illegals would be just as fruitless. How about this compromise, we crack down on employers, exactly how you want, and in return, the left agrees to get rid of all sanctuary cities and sanctuary states, agrees to cooperate with ICE, and refuses to allow illegals to vote in local elections?

 

[haymarket]

Why do conservatives who get so worked up about illegal immigration ignore half the problem? If a pimp exploits young teenagers by offering them up to degenerate men willing to pay cash for sex, would they only prosecute the girls?!? Would nationalists claim that a proposal to crack down on the pimp, a liberal "talking point"?

Is it just a strange coincidence that nationalists only want to crack down on the supply side and not the demand side? Why take the children from only poor employees looking for work, while ignoring the children of well off employers? Is it just a strange coincidence only one side is white?

Of course, it won't stop all illegal immigration, but if undocumented workers can't find employers willing to pay them cash under the table, it would significantly reduce it. Look up how supply and demand works...

Fine the employers of illegals ten grand per worker per day. The problem goes away.

 

[soylentgreen]

We have a legal immigration system and it should be used. If we need to tweak it to allow the people in that we need then fine. But, the left want us to just do away with the millions of people who are here illegally and just make them legal while still allowing even more illegals in. It sounds to me like you're saying that we should just allow anyone who wants to come here to come here and we'll call them legals. If we were to increase the number of legal immigrants there would still be hundreds of thousands coming here illegally. You're from New Zealand, why don't you just take in millions and millions of people? You're country can only hold so many people and your country can only afford to house and feed so many illegals. The US isn't any different. It's easy for you to say what other countries should do but your very own country couldn't handle all of the illegals that cross our border. We have a national debt of over 22 trillion dollars! What's your national debt?

No again, You really are not listening. i gave you a link that explained how temporary work visas work. It does not allow people to live in the country permanently it allows them to work for a period legally.

We do not get that many illegals because they have access through legal means. We also crack down on those who hire illegals where as your country does not. You attack the immigrants and ignore the americans who exploit them.

I am not telling you how to run your country, i am pointing out the ****ty way you do run it.

 

[Moderate Right]

No again, You really are not listening. i gave you a link that explained how temporary work visas work. It does not allow people to live in the country permanently it allows them to work for a period legally.

We do not get that many illegals because they have access through legal means. We also crack down on those who hire illegals where as your country does not. You attack the immigrants and ignore the americans who exploit them.

I am not telling you how to run your country, i am pointing out the ****ty way you do run it.

The US has over 300 million people. NZ has 5 million. You can't compare the two and think the same things will work the same in both countries. Half of our "illegals" are those who overstayed their VISAS.

 

[SoCal]

It's just hogwash for simple minded people. First, California employers and politicians want illegals to work for employers. California won't crack down on it. In fact, when ICE was going to raid California employers, California tipped the employers off ahead of time. The left seem to always imply that it is rich Republican employers who hire all of these illegals, which is just a load of partisan BS. It is California that is a sanctuary state and every sanctuary city that I know of is Democratic. And, some cities in California allow illegals to vote in local elections. How about this compromise, we crack down on employers, exactly how you want, and in return, the left agrees to get rid of all sanctuary cities and sanctuary states, agrees to cooperate with ICE, and refuses to allow illegals to vote in local elections?

Is chanting, "build the wall' an act of a complex mind? In any case, my simple one will try to address your points in order.

You seem to have an issue with California in particular when other states have close to, or in Texas's case, the same number of employers;



Why won't Texas crack down on their undocumented workers either? (Hint, they can't find Americans who're willing to work backbreaking jobs for peanuts)

Regarding the BS about who hires undocumented workers, you're right, it's not only rich Republicans who hire them. Many others are hired by small construction companies or other kinds work. But the lion's share are hired by farmers;



Most small farmers were forced out of the market years ago. Now the vast majority of farms are huge in size and owned by large corporations. The fact that most large corporations are controlled by rich Repubs isn't partisan BS.

Undocumented workers don't come here to vote or because they're paid under the table. They come here because employers offer them jobs, cracking down them would not be fruitless.

Regarding your compromise, I would agree to stop undocumented workers from voting in local, state or national elections. But when undocumented workers are victims of violence, like being assaulted at gunpoint, sanctuary cities allows them to report it without fear of deportation. Allowing ICE to be informed about the citizenship of everyone reporting a crime will stop them from cooperating with the local police. It's also turning a blind eye to violent crime. So I wouldn't compromise with someone who believes that deporting an undocumented worker is more important than stopping violent crime.

And good luck trying to get rich Republicans to agree to give up their children as a punishment for hiring undocumented workers...

 

[Moderate Right]

Is chanting, "build the wall' an act of a complex mind? In any case, my simple one will try to address your points in order.

You seem to have an issue with California in particular when other states have close to, or in Texas's case, the same number of employers;

View attachment 67252703

Why won't Texas crack down on their undocumented workers either? (Hint, they can't find Americans who're willing to work backbreaking jobs for peanuts)

Regarding the BS about who hires undocumented workers, you're right, it's not only rich Republicans who hire them. Many others are hired by small construction companies or other kinds work. But the lion's share are hired by farmers;

View attachment 67252702

Most small farmers were forced out of the market years ago. Now the vast majority of farms are huge in size and owned by large corporations. The fact that most large corporations are controlled by rich Repubs isn't partisan BS.

Undocumented workers don't come here to vote or because they're paid under the table. They come here because employers offer them jobs, cracking down them would not be fruitless.

Regarding your compromise, I would agree to stop undocumented workers from voting in local, state or national elections. But when undocumented workers are victims of violence, like being assaulted at gunpoint, sanctuary cities allows them to report it without fear of deportation. Allowing ICE to be informed about the citizenship of everyone reporting a crime will stop them from cooperating with the local police. It's also turning a blind eye to violent crime. So I wouldn't compromise with someone who believes that deporting an undocumented worker is more important than stopping violent crime.

And good luck trying to get rich Republicans to agree to give up their children as a punishment for hiring undocumented workers...

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. California is the big blue liberal state. You know, the state that says outright that they need illegals for their economy and entices them with sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, allowing illegals to vote in local elections and the upmost hypocrisy is when Californians try claiming that we should clamp down on employers who hire the illegals and yet California tips the employers off when ICE is coming. Then they sue everything Trump does regarding illegal immigration and then try claiming they aren't for open borders. That's Hypocrisy with a capital H.

 

[SoCal]

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. California is the big blue liberal state. You know, the state that says outright that they need illegals for their economy and entices them with sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, allowing illegals to vote in local elections and the upmost hypocrisy is when Californians try claiming that we should clamp down on employers who hire the illegals and yet California tips the employers off when ICE is coming. Then they sue everything Trump does regarding illegal immigration and then try claiming they aren't for open borders. That's Hypocrisy with a capital H.

It's also ignoring my points with a capital I...

 

[soylentgreen]

The US has over 300 million people. NZ has 5 million. You can't compare the two and think the same things will work the same in both countries. Half of our "illegals" are those who overstayed their VISAS.

I am not comparing the two. I am saying that there are sensible laws that work to reduce illegals and stop greedy businesses from exploiting workers. America just does not have them.

Again, same problem in nz before they changed the laws. Islanders would come here look for work illegally, overstay their visa and then be unable to leave because they would not be allowed back. Your rules just create a trap for them.

 

[Moderate Right]

I am not comparing the two. I am saying that there are sensible laws that work to reduce illegals and stop greedy businesses from exploiting workers. America just does not have them.

Again, same problem in nz before they changed the laws. Islanders would come here look for work illegally, overstay their visa and then be unable to leave because they would not be allowed back. Your rules just create a trap for them.

If California won't do it then why would anyone else? Let's start by eliminating sanctuary cites and sanctuary states and allowing illegals to vote in local elections and call on the left to quit calling for the elimination of ICE. The left claim walls don't work but the fact is there has been a tremendous increase in the number of illegals going around the wall to spots where there is no wall. Why on Earth would illegals do that if walls don't work?

 

[soylentgreen]

If California won't do it then why would anyone else? Let's start by eliminating sanctuary cites and sanctuary states and allowing illegals to vote in local elections and call on the left to quit calling for the elimination of ICE. The left claim walls don't work but the fact is there has been a tremendous increase in the number of illegals going around the wall to spots where there is no wall. Why on Earth would illegals do that if walls don't work?

That bis so ridiculous , how laughable.
No one is claiming that a wall will not work in the sense that you will have to walk around it in order to get passed it. Which is what people will do.

 

[Vidi]

Hello

I haven’t read the whole thread. I am going to give my opinion on the thread title.

No, I do not agree as long as we are taking about here in the United States. Compelled speech requires a person to make a statement that they disagree with.

Once a citizen is in the voting booth, how they vote is their choice. They can vote for Mickey Mouse should they choose.

So while I can see how mandatory voting may seem like compelled speech, I am of the opinion that it is not.

 

[Vidi]

If California won't do it then why would anyone else? Let's start by eliminating sanctuary cites and sanctuary states and allowing illegals to vote in local elections and call on the left to quit calling for the elimination of ICE. The left claim walls don't work but the fact is there has been a tremendous increase in the number of illegals going around the wall to spots where there is no wall. Why on Earth would illegals do that if walls don't work?

Maybe it’s different on this forum but I don’t know a single Right Winger who wants to end all immigration to the US and I do not know a single Left Winger who is in favor of complete open borders.

I think for the most part MOST of us agree on immigration. What we disagree about is the necessity of a wall.

 

[Moderate Right]

That bis so ridiculous , how laughable.
No one is claiming that a wall will not work in the sense that you will have to walk around it in order to get passed it. Which is what people will do.

That's why we need the wall across the entire southern border.

 

[Moderate Right]

Maybe it’s different on this forum but I don’t know a single Right Winger who wants to end all immigration to the US and I do not know a single Left Winger who is in favor of complete open borders.

I think for the most part MOST of us agree on immigration. What we disagree about is the necessity of a wall.

That's totally wrong. Totally. Right wingers are for the elimination of all ILLEGAL immigration. Legal immigration is fine. The left claim they are not for open borders while at the same time calling for the elimination of ICE, forming sanctuary cities and sanctuary states which refuse to cooperate with ICE, allowing illegals to vote in local elections, and alerting employers when ICE raids are coming. The left doesn't want a wall because they don't want to stop illegal immigration. When we have hundreds of thousands of illegals flooding across the border every year, the left says there is no problem. The left have absolutely zero plans to stop illegals from coming here. The left only have plans for apprehending illegals after they cross the border, which is exactly what the illegals want.

 

[jonny5]

Compelled speech - Wikipedia

Do you think forcing citizens to vote between a limited number of parties/candidates in elections would qualify as coerced speech? (or, by association, coerced expression?)

Here in Australia, voting is mandatory and the deviation between the major parties is marginal. If there are no candidates or parties who closely represent you or who you strongly relate with, you still need to vote for one.

Ignoring the fact that this means many parties win free votes by simple top-of-mind strategies among clueless or uninterested voters, would you agree that this is a form of coerced expression?

It certainly is, and worse, its forced behavior. But I assume Australia doesnt have such strong protections of liberty as we do in the US?