House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting

[mystery-ak]

 The Washington Times ›

House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting
Stephen Dinan March 08, 2019

House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.

The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber — then under GOP control — voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.

“We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in,” Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.

The 228-197 vote came as part of a broader debate on Democrats’ major legislative priority this year, HR 1, the “For the People Act,” which includes historic expansions of voter registration and access, as well as a major rewrite of campaign finance laws.

The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections.

more

https://outline.com/9deeDd

[IsailedawayfromFR]

How can this possibly be endorsed by our Constitution, the document these people swore to uphold?

At a minimum, they should all be voted out of office.

I believe they should all be removed from their congressional seat as failing in their sworn duty.

[Bill Cipher]

How can this possibly be endorsed by our Constitution, the document these people swore to uphold?

At a minimum, they should all be voted out of office.

I believe they should all be removed from their congressional seat as failing in their sworn duty.

Find a provision that rules it out.  Otherwise, since the states are largely masters of the qualifications of electors, it would seem that they can extend the franchise to illegals. 

The Supreme Court might read such a power out of the constitution, but that would rely on the same penumbras and emanations that have been criticized elsewhere.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Find a provision that rules it out.  Otherwise, since the states are largely masters of the qualifications of electors, it would seem that they can extend the franchise to illegals. 

The Supreme Court might read such a power out of the constitution, but that would rely on the same penumbras and emanations that have been criticized elsewhere.

How about the opening line which says

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

An illegal by definition cannot be someone who forms and establishes the basis for the form of government of a country.

Otherwise, we all should be voting in European elections and anywhere else we wish to.

[Jazzhead]

I gotta give 'em credit.   There's nothing stealthy about the Dems' radicalism.    They are daring the nation to reject Trump in favor of their identity politics and socialism.   

They're opposing the control of illegal immigration,  and instead seeking to legally reward them.

They are candid about taking the health plans away from 140 million Americans.

They say they're going to raise taxes.   They say they're going to bully us all with their divisive kulturekampf.   

They refuse to tamp down the anti-Semitism in their ranks.    And they are letting their own leadership be bullied by the priorities of a yap-mouth freshman with a twitter following and a penchant for pushing race and class-war memes.

Oh yeah, and your gun rights?   They want to pack the Court so they can take them away.   

And against this stands the cartoon of Donald Trump.    Republicans better start thinking about what they believe.     

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Does 50% of the country actually want this? What world am I living in where that is possible?

[Jazzhead]

Does 50% of the country actually want this? What world am I living in where that is possible?

IN a world where the alternative is the horrible-bigot-caricature Donald Trump, playing 24/7 in the mainstream media.   Trump can't be our nominee.  The stakes are too high.   

THIS IS HOW RADICALISM FINDS PURCHASE, FOLKS.   Trump is too polarizing,  too much an easy rallying call for the other side.   Whether that's a bad rap or not doesn't matter, it's reality.   We need another candidate because the alternative is just too awful to contemplate.   

[Chosen Daughter]

What is it that we don't understand the word illegal?  I want to kick their behinds back to country of origin.  That is what should happen.  I can't figure out how our government could vote for this?

[libertybele]

Find a provision that rules it out.  Otherwise, since the states are largely masters of the qualifications of electors, it would seem that they can extend the franchise to illegals. 

The Supreme Court might read such a power out of the constitution, but that would rely on the same penumbras and emanations that have been criticized elsewhere.

How so?  They are not legal citizens of the U.S. 

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment provides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.” It prohibits states from discriminating among voters based on age, for people who are at least 18 years old, and grants Congress power to “enforce” that prohibition through “appropriate legislation.

[libertybele]

What is it that we don't understand the word illegal?  I want to kick their behinds back to country of origin.  That is what should happen.  I can't figure out how our government could vote for this?

My understanding that this applies to local elections, but I have no doubt that if it passes, it will lay the groundwork for ilelgals to vote in the federal election.

This is absolutely absurd and unconstitutional.  These people are NOT citizens.  Therefore they have NO rights to vote.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

 Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

A great reason why illegals should not be counted towards the allotment of Representatives.  If other states want to water down their citizens' votes, well it sucks but that's their right, but they shouldn't be able to water down mine.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment provides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.” It prohibits states from discriminating among voters based on age, for people who are at least 18 years old, and grants Congress power to “enforce” that prohibition through “appropriate legislation.

Does this answer your question @Bill Cipher

[skeeter]

Find a provision that rules it out.  Otherwise, since the states are largely masters of the qualifications of electors, it would seem that they can extend the franchise to illegals. 

The Supreme Court might read such a power out of the constitution, but that would rely on the same penumbras and emanations that have been criticized elsewhere.

Its amazing what rights some people find in the Constitution. Its the most bendable charter ever!

[Jazzhead]

For what it's worth,  the thinking is that (for better or worse)  the children of illegals are permitted to attend public schools,  so their parents should have the ability to vote for members of the school board,  since they deserve the same say as any other parent in how the education of their children is administered. 

[truth_seeker]

IN a world where the alternative is the horrible-bigot-caricature Donald Trump, playing 24/7 in the mainstream media.   Trump can't be our nominee.  The stakes are too high.   

THIS IS HOW RADICALISM FINDS PURCHASE, FOLKS.   Trump is too polarizing,  too much an easy rallying call for the other side.   Whether that's a bad rap or not doesn't matter, it's reality.   We need another candidate because the alternative is just too awful to contemplate.

Rep. Omar is not too polarizing, however?


I note Trump won over several weak, delicate, mainstream "Republicans," because he was persuasive.


There are simply too few on the right, that can persuade.

Today being "persuasive" means taking the risk of "polarizing."


While these risk-averse Republicans hide from their shadows, Trump tells it like it is.


Why is a Somali-enyan refugee, making anti-semetic rmarks in OUR halls of government?

There SHOULD be a long line of Republicans ready to put her and her supporters in their places, rhetorically. And in doing so, draw many others to the GOP side.


Inability to do so,is the great problem. Not Trump being "too provocative."


Do Pelosi,Omar, AOC, Warren approve of killing recently born people?

Do Berni, Beto, Harris approve of biologic males, ruining female sports at every level?




 

[Cyber Liberty]

IN a world where the alternative is the horrible-bigot-caricature Donald Trump, playing 24/7 in the mainstream media.   Trump can't be our nominee.  The stakes are too high.   

THIS IS HOW RADICALISM FINDS PURCHASE, FOLKS.   Trump is too polarizing,  too much an easy rallying call for the other side.   Whether that's a bad rap or not doesn't matter, it's reality.   We need another candidate because the alternative is just too awful to contemplate.

Your solution seems to be, get rid of Trump next Primary, regardless of whether he wins it fair and square, and replace him with a Kasich.  I have a great, fresh idea!  Let the voters decide who they want as a candidate.

[Cyber Liberty]

How so?  They are not legal citizens of the U.S. 

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment provides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.” It prohibits states from discriminating among voters based on age, for people who are at least 18 years old, and grants Congress power to “enforce” that prohibition through “appropriate legislation.

There exist lawyers who will tell you Statutes' supremacy stands well above the piddling Amendments.  Especially the 2nd.

[Absalom]

How about the opening line which says

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

An illegal by definition cannot be someone who forms and establishes the basis for the form of government of a country.

Otherwise, we all should be voting in European elections and anywhere else we wish to.

---------------------------------------------
A reflection.
Our Constitution was created by those quite familiar w/the history of governing
law from Hammurabi, Sargon and on to the English Whigs, their contemporaries.
As such, our Constitution is a distillation that is not unique in history, no matter
how often we insist on romanticizing it.
In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia created the concept of Sovereign Right which
defined a nation/state as an entity w/clearly demarcated borders and those birthed
within those borders as having the absolute right to decide who may/may not enter
their country, whether permanently of temporarily and under what conditions.
This core principle of international law has governed immigration since that time.
By the way, when was the last (or first ?) time anyone heard any of our congress-critters
mention/utter this concept?
Arguing about the intent/meaning of this adjective or that adverb in the Articles is a dead end!
-------------------
An observation.
Going back and forth w/a cinder block is a pointless exercise, as they have neither
perspective nor point of view; rather they are merely promoting an agenda.

[Bill Cipher]

Does this answer your question @Bill Cipher

No, it doesnt.  Since you think it does, please explain.

[Bill Cipher]

Its amazing what rights some people find in the Constitution. Its the most bendable charter ever!

No, what’s amazing is the number of people who magically discover that the Constitution exactly implements their fondest political wishes, as if they were the ones who drafted it. 

On this particular point though: what happened to all those courageous states rights folks?  They seem to have disappeared exactly when a states right is on point. 

I personally believe voting should be limited to citizens, and moreover to those who can demonstrate that citizenship at the polling station, but that isn’t what the Constitution says. 

[skeeter]

No, what’s amazing is the number of people who magically discover that the Constitution exactly implements their fondest political wishes, as if they were the ones who drafted it. 

On this particular point though: what happened to all those courageous states rights folks?  They seem to have disappeared exactly when a states right is on point. 

I personally believe voting should be limited to citizens, and moreover to those who can demonstrate that citizenship at the polling station, but that isn’t what the Constitution says.

I noticed that too. Why is that?

BTW I went back and could find nothing in the Constitution that said each illegal alien can't vote more than once. Maybe thats next on the House's docket.

Re states rights folks, maybe they’ve disappeared on this issue because naturalization and the integrity of national elections are the exclusive pervue of the federal government? I dunno.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

For what it's worth,  the thinking is that (for better or worse)  the children of illegals are permitted to attend public schools,  so their parents should have the ability to vote for members of the school board,  since they deserve the same say as any other parent in how the education of their children is administered.

That's like saying a bank robber that steals from a bank is now a customer of the bank since he owns the bank cash.

Any other strange logic you might have?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

---------------------------------------------
An observation.
Going back and forth w/a cinder block is a pointless exercise, as they have neither
perspective nor point of view; rather they are merely promoting an agenda.

And by some accounts, unless one confronts that verbiage that promotes that agenda, one can be deemed to be in agreement with it by silence.

It is delicious to expose the false narrative and at times one can find out what is underlying it.

For instance, it frequently is found that the arguments from one who, under the pretext of 'the law' to condone the murder of unborn children, culminates in no other rationale than a basic absence in not only morality but are also irreligious.

[Fishrrman]

Why hasn't anyone living in a city where this is permitted filed suit in federal court to have the law (permitting illegals to vote) declared unconstitutional?

And then begin the process of working upwards to an ultimate Supreme Court decision?

This should be nipped in the bud before the idea gains too much traction!

[TomSea]

There is something in the fine print about this bill at least, being only for local elections, sucks all the same but at this point, I don't think we are talking about national nor statewide elections.

PJ Media:

House Democrats Vote to Protect Illegal Alien Voting in Local Elections
By Rick Moran March 9, 2019

Democrats in the House have voted to defend illegal alien voting in local elections, a practice becoming more commonplace in sanctuary cities as Dems look to normalize illegal immigration.

Democrats beat back a Republican effort to prevent illegals from voting in any U.S. election.

It's a slippery slope that cheapens citizenship and brings us closer to the day when all residents -- legal and illegal -- will be able to vote.

See more at: https://pjmedia.com/trending/house-democrats-vote-to-protect-illegal-alien-voting-in-local-elections/

So, yes, the example of using the school board is an apt example. Better not ever have this for more meaningful elections though, I'd think that is already likely abused.