mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Dec 23, 2014 16:45:05 GMT -5
"A legal resident of USA..." By that I meant anybody that is in the process of becoming a citizen someday. So if you are already a permanent resident-holder of a Green Card the only thing between you and your right to vote is a ceremony administered/hosted by a government employee on behalf of US Government, whom is in most likelihood a naturalized citizen and also most likelely knows about US history or Constitution less than you do but who cares? He's a citizen already! He doesn't need that! and then again: since I'm trying to become a US citizen it is most likely that I'd keep up with political events and issues, inform myself about most if not all that are running for office in my state or federal level. The only risk that I see here is that I make an informed decision when voting unlike most "already" citizens that typically vote on a party line. So many bad things that a "will be citizen" soon can do that it REALY makes you stick with "no voting for you" line
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 23, 2014 17:05:08 GMT -5
Overturning the Constitution? Doubt it. Voting is one of the delineated rights bestowed upon citizens. I challenge this statement. I just reviewed the US Constitution including the Amendments and find nothing to support it. There are 5 separate amendments in the constitution, discussing CITIZENS right to vote. It does not say legal residents, but citizens. You are either a citizen or not.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 23, 2014 17:10:58 GMT -5
I do agree with you captain about citizens voting however it's not just a desire to be a citizen. It took a decade for husband to go through the hoops, And we skipped three years because he went from Permanant resident to citizen in two versus 5 because we were married. You have to be a resident, holding a green card for 5 years. It took TD another 7 months after he applied for citizenship for it to be granted, and he applied as soon as he was eligible. It took his coworker about the same amount of time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 23:43:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 17:45:28 GMT -5
Mich, if you have a green card for 3 years and are married to a US resident, you don't need to wait the 5 years. You do need to interview for this, and I'll say that my husband told me his interviewer stated they don't always expedite, but in his case he had lots of documentation, and so they did approve it after he had only had his green card '3' years.
Now, I put 3 in air quotes, because he actually only had it two years. He was granted political asylum when he got here (1996/7?). Supposedly when you are granted asylum you wait a year and apply for legal residency.
The thing is though, they only TRANSITION so many people with asylum to permanent residency status every year. Not that they aren't here, just that they don't change their status. We didn't realiZe this at the beginning, and no one tells you at the beginning it will take 7+ years to actually get his green card. Every time I would call they would say like 18 months more... Not worth withdrawling the petition and resubmitting the whole thing based on marriage. But it always went longer and longer.
So, after he finally did get his green card, there was some issue where they back dated it one year, or somehow gave him credit as having it for one year already once he received it, so we only actually waited only 2 years from green card to citizenship (yes I'm sure there were months for processing and final interview, etc, but not the regular 5 years). In his case getting to Permanent resident was what took so long.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 23:43:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 18:22:34 GMT -5
Some people had the opinion that we should give illegals amnesty... Opinions sometimes end up meaning more than "squat". Depends on how many have the opinion, and who they can get to listen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 23:43:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 18:49:55 GMT -5
Fine. The opinion expressed in the OP seems unlikely to get past the opinion stage, thus I'll save my worry for other things.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 23, 2014 19:06:04 GMT -5
I challenge this statement. I just reviewed the US Constitution including the Amendments and find nothing to support it. There are 5 separate amendments in the constitution, discussing CITIZENS right to vote. It does not say legal residents, but citizens. You are either a citizen or not. Here is one: AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude-- If you are a citizen, your right to vote can not be denied due to race. It doesn't say you have to be a citizen to vote. Another: AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Again, citizens are protected but doesn't state you have to be a citizen to vote. AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Same thing. AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. ditto. How about this one: AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, ... Now this one is a little different and it doesn't say anything about "citizen". How about the Constitution itself: The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
...
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, ... Nope, not "citizen". No where do I read that you have to be a citizen to vote.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 23, 2014 19:52:22 GMT -5
I'm into that idea!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 23:43:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 20:08:20 GMT -5
I think we could give non-citizens the right to vote... as long as they pay a Poll Tax... How about: divide the National Debt by the number of non-citizens that want to vote every time there's a vote... and charge them that as their "poll tax". Well... according to billisonboard, and his postings on the appropriate Amendments... The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
That Amendment limits excluding poll taxes to Citizens...
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 23, 2014 20:56:26 GMT -5
But you have to be a citizen and the 14th amendment defines citizen as such....
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Dec 23, 2014 21:07:11 GMT -5
I think the opportunity for corruption and abuse is huge with letting non-citizens vote. Most of the immigrants in my area don't speak English. They are paid under the table. And are at the mercy of their 'employer' - they may or maynot get paid for their work.
Being from the great Corrupt State of Illinois... allowing illegal immigrants to vote could be every politicians wet dream - I'm sure their voting would be early and often and if not that - atleast it would be EXACTLY as they were told to vote.
Being totally snarky here: Maybe it would be better if maybe there was a charge to vote for non-citizens. It might be a great way to raise revenue for cities (especially in places where the immigrants are overcrowded in houses and overcrowding the public schools). I'm sure there's other examples of stuff immigrants get that they aren't exactly 'paying for'.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 23, 2014 21:09:36 GMT -5
But you have to be a citizen and the 14th amendment defines citizen as such.... The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" You have to be a citizen to not be denied or abridged the right to vote based on some criteria but none of them state you have to be a citizen to vote.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 23, 2014 21:20:04 GMT -5
... So let me get this straight, you can now vote without any of the responsibilities (like jury duty or being subject to the draft) that comes with being a citizen? ... Should being subject to the draft be a mandatory criteria for granting people the right to vote? Do the male citizens still even have to sign up for the draft anymore?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 23, 2014 21:42:14 GMT -5
I think we could give non-citizens the right to vote... as long as they pay a Poll Tax... How about: divide the National Debt by the number of non-citizens that want to vote every time there's a vote... and charge them that as their "poll tax". Well... according to billisonboard, and his postings on the appropriate Amendments... The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
That Amendment limits excluding poll taxes to Citizens... A huge number of citizens don't pay any taxes and still have the right to vote. Are we back to buying votes?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 23, 2014 22:24:10 GMT -5
Politicians already pander to illegals as opposed to listening to the ones that elect them. What else would be different?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 23:43:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 22:49:48 GMT -5
I think we could give non-citizens the right to vote... as long as they pay a Poll Tax... How about: divide the National Debt by the number of non-citizens that want to vote every time there's a vote... and charge them that as their "poll tax". Well... according to billisonboard, and his postings on the appropriate Amendments... The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
That Amendment limits excluding poll taxes to Citizens... A huge number of citizens don't pay any taxes and still have the right to vote. Are we back to buying votes? I wasn't looking to bar the non-citizens... I was looking to eliminate the debt. If you don't like it that citizens that don't pay taxes and still vote, complain to the writers of that Amendment... and the people that voted for it. And who said anything about BUYING votes anyway? ... I was suggesting CHARGING them to vote!
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Dec 23, 2014 23:04:03 GMT -5
It feels like so many of the posters here while debating this do not understand/comprehend the definition of a legal resident. Legal residents=an individual who has been accepted after careful consideration of facts, to live, work in the USA. That means the said person has passed the immigration hurdles and a background check done by FBI. Legal alien-an individual who has been accepted to reside in USA on temporary basis for travel/vacation or work. Temporary basis is the key word! These individuals are not legal residents but if the reason of their temporary stay in US is work they have to pay taxes-federal and state. No UC, SS will be withdrawn. They will not register with selective services. And last are the illegal aliens who are basically here without approval.
From these three only the legal residents should/could possibly allowed to vote before they become citizens. Considering that they already have skin in the game it seems fair. A two or three years delay on that won't make any difference. As far as the other two categories they should not be allowed to vote.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 24, 2014 8:33:00 GMT -5
Or even be here to begin with. We can't take care of our own as it is.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 12:25:19 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 12:26:22 GMT -5
I challenge this statement. I just reviewed the US Constitution including the Amendments and find nothing to support it. There are 5 separate amendments in the constitution, discussing CITIZENS right to vote. It does not say legal residents, but citizens. You are either a citizen or not. Somewhere in the "comprehensive immigration reform bill" there are Grubers lurking.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 1, 2015 13:11:58 GMT -5
non-citizens voting is the latest Ebola, Benghazi, Killer Bee.
happy 2015!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 1, 2015 13:14:14 GMT -5
no wonder the Red team is so scared. but for the record, i have no interest in convincing Limbaugh of anything. it is up to HIM to convince ME. his evidence doesn't exist, despite his "how stupid do you think i am" silliness.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 13:16:48 GMT -5
I listened to a lot of you blather on about the ACA and all the stuff people said were "myths". We know now that the "red team" was right all along. And we're right about comprehensive immigration reform.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 1, 2015 13:32:34 GMT -5
I listened to a lot of you blather on about the ACA and all the stuff people said were "myths". We know now that the "red team" was right all along. And we're right about comprehensive immigration reform. i have no idea what you are talking about. what "myths"? what were you right about all along (that the rest of us were wrong about)? but if you want to talk about the myth machine and being right: a lot of us insisted the Obama was a sort of wonky moderate that would lead that way. we predicted that he would not deviate that far from the Bush roadmap. we predicted that the economy would likely steadily improve, but this would be a difficult recovery. we predicted that little progress would be made on GITMO and taxes due to GOP intransigence. what we did NOT predict (nobody i knew) is that gay marriage would be available to US citizens in 33 states. we did not predict that Obama's drone program would look like the Bush one on steroids. that warrantless wiretapping would still be here in 2015. that Russia was headed toward a new economic collapse and the furthering of their economic "also-ran"-ness on the world stage. we never predicted that so much stupidity would take place at the state level in the last 4 years. so, just what of your marvelous prognostications are you touting as outshining all of ours? edit: there IS NO "comprehensive immigration reform", right? so, again, what are you talking about?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 14:22:57 GMT -5
Oh, c'mon.
Btw- snopes and politifact haven't updated for the Gruber revelations.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2015 13:39:26 GMT -5
Oh, c'mon. Btw- snopes and politifact haven't updated for the Gruber revelations. oh c'mon what? what comprehensive immigration reform, Paul? and what did "team red" predict that us liberals didn't? i REALLY DON'T KNOW. enlighten me.
|
|