DEMOCRATS are moving to get illegal votes legitimized

RB 60 said:
I'm not trying to "muddy the waters." Illegals should be deported until they can become citizens legally, period.
Americans are already citizens, and should be treated as such, hence my statements.
Click to expand...

What makes them "illegal" is violating the law. Just like your high school beer buddies. If the law calls for a penalty, it should be applied when guilt is established. That penalty can be deportation, or it an be felony evasion with all that entails.

Citizenship isn't a "get out of jail free" card.
 
God bless America said:
What makes them "illegal" is violating the law. Just like your high school beer buddies. If the law calls for a penalty, it should be applied when guilt is established. That penalty can be deportation, or it an be felony evasion with all that entails.

Citizenship isn't a "get out of jail free" card.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was?
 
RB 60 said:
I never mentioned "voting rights." I mentioned "constitutional rights."
You are splitting hairs here where they can't be split.
Click to expand...

Voting rights are constitutional rights. So is the right to bear arms. If you apply your argument consistently I don't see how you can logically justify excluding "violent" felons from amnesty after "they've paid their debt to society".
 
Bourbon said:
Bull Shit ... it's Car Theft, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
Click to expand...

Punishment (including incarceration) is intended to serve multiple purposes in society.

Deterrence is one of them. If being convicted of a felony is not perceived to be personally detrimental, how are those contemplating criminal acts supposed to feel any reluctance to offend?
 
God bless America said:
You are arguing that citizenship confers a special status on your high school beer buddies who are guilty of felony evasion.

Unwittingly, perhaps, but that's you are trying to prove.
Click to expand...

Do you think it should be held against them for life even though they prove they can become productive citizens?
And to answer your previous post, there is a difference between "violent" and "non-violent" felonies, no? It brings back my statement on determining the severity of the crime and the length of time one can prove they can become a productive citizen.

That said, thanks for having a civil discussion here, I must get back to work.
 
God bless America said:
Voting rights are constitutional rights. So is the right to bear arms. If you apply your argument consistently I don't see how you can logically justify excluding "violent" felons from amnesty after "they've paid their debt to society".
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution make voting a constitutional right? It leaves that to the states although amendments prohibit the states from limiting voting based on race, previous condition of servitude, sex, and age 18.
 
God bless America said:
The Constitution calls for counting non-citizens who are in the country illegally? Are you thinking that the Fourteenth Amendment (Section 2) mandates it?

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.”

States have to "serve" illegal aliens?

Who told you that?
Click to expand...

No, not the 14th Amendment.

Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

It calls for an enumeration of all those living in a state and makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. There were no immigration laws for much of our early history and thus no concept of an "illegal" person at that time. They gave Congress the power over naturalization to allow non-citizens to become naturalized. I can't find anything in the Constitution giving Congress the power to control immigration; so, it is based on a liberal interpretation of the naturalization clause expanding federal power to do so.

Yes, states have to serve illegal aliens in some ways; for example, they cannot be denied an education due to their status. Some jurisdictions allow non-citizens to vote. They probably cannot be denied emergency room care but I'm not sure.
 
God bless America said:
Punishment (including incarceration) is intended to serve multiple purposes in society.

Deterrence is one of them. If being convicted of a felony is not perceived to be personally detrimental, how are those contemplating criminal acts supposed to feel any reluctance to offend?
Click to expand...

If it's not in the Sentencing from the Judge then it's .... wait

Come on folks, let's just be honest here ... we all know the real reason why Conservative/Republicans want to deplete the Vote Rolls. The same people who Fight Tooth and Nail against Abortion, couldn't give a Fuck about Babies, feeding them, Educating them or Rehabilitating them.
 
Flash said:
Where does the Constitution make voting a constitutional right? It leaves that to the states although amendments prohibit the states from limiting voting based on race, previous condition of servitude, sex, and age 18.
Click to expand...

States don't get to decide who can vote (or not) without passing Constitutional muster, so I'd say your point is specious at best.

The 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments outlaw discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex and age. States must conform constitutionally.
 
Bourbon said:
If it's not in the Sentencing from the Judge then it's .... wait Come on folks, let's just be honest here ... we all know the real reason why Conservative/Republicans want to deplete the Vote Rolls. The same people who Fight Tooth and Nail against Abortion, couldn't give a Fuck about Babies, feeding them, Educating them or Rehabilitating them.
Click to expand...

Your feelings are noted.

I happen to think election integrity is a laudable civic goal.
 
Flash said:
No, not the 14th Amendment.

Article I, Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

It calls for an enumeration of all those living in a state and makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. There were no immigration laws for much of our early history and thus no concept of an "illegal" person at that time. They gave Congress the power over naturalization to allow non-citizens to become naturalized. I can't find anything in the Constitution giving Congress the power to control immigration; so, it is based on a liberal interpretation of the naturalization clause expanding federal power to do so.

Yes, states have to serve illegal aliens in some ways; for example, they cannot be denied an education due to their status. Some jurisdictions allow non-citizens to vote. They probably cannot be denied emergency room care but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I advocate changing the statutes and policies that allow non-citizens to participate in elections. It's not allowed in other countries. Why should it be here?

I also want to reverse the Census policy of counting non-citizens for the purpose of legislative apportionment and redistricting.
 
There is in fact a substantial movement in the media to promote the idea of illegal aliens voting in our elections.

http://time.com/4859478/immigrant-voters-history/

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article165368987.html

Like an investigator, I ask myself, "who benefits". The answer seems clear; DEMOCRATS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top