IGX

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.

“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 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.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... nt-voting/

Can't wait for 2020 at this rate. They spent the last few days beating around the bush in reprimand of their own loony-tunes Ilhan Omar, and now they've wasted more time and energy trying to pass a bill that's simultaneously immoral and illegal.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:50 pmsimultaneously immoral and illegal.

Somebody mention Trump?

Experts say as many as 40 states or territories allowed noncitizen voting dating back to the nation’s founding.

That’s some originalist stuff that originalists can get behind.

You got took.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:38 pm You got took.

How so?

I'll just sit here and wait.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:18 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:38 pm You got took.

How so?

This isn't real. Here's the text:

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:26 pmExperts say as many as 40 states or territories allowed noncitizen voting dating back to the nation’s founding.

Were there forty states back at the founding of the US, Nafod? We both know that's rhetorical question.

Territories might have had a different standard of voting. Limits on whether they could send Representatives or Senators to Congress.

Be wary of the word "Expert".

But, as we detail in a recent letter to Congress, there are provisions within the bill that, while well-intended, are overly broad and vague. If enacted, they would violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. Unless those provisions are fixed, we will oppose H.R. 1 and recommend that members of Congress vote against it.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/c ... bills-much

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:05 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:18 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:38 pm You got took.

How so?

This isn't real. Here's the text:

Spells, according to your link: "Only 6 Democrats voted yes to oppose illegal immigrant voting."

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:02 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:05 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:18 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:38 pm You got took.

How so?

This isn't real. Here's the text:

Spells, according to your link: "Only 6 Democrats voted yes to oppose illegal immigrant voting."

False. Permitting illegal immigrant voting was not on the table. You'll notice this hasn't been picked up by any news sources outside of "Angry White Man Blog Daily," despite the fact that permitting illegal alien voting would be an immediate scandal.

If you read the text of the Motion to Recommit, it's a silly way to shift the argument and create fake headlines like "House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting," which is obviously false.

The Motion was to acknowledge that allowing non-citizens to vote "devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens". All but 6 Democrats voted against that. That shouldn't be a controversial position.

Also, chill with the "angry white dude" bullshit, it makes you look stupid and gullible.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:15 pmAlso, chill with the "angry white dude" bullshit, it makes you look stupid and gullible.

I looked up who was carrying the story at the time and it was daily caller et al. Not news sites. We can call them “conservative firebrands” but they’re angry white guys.

As for looking gullible
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hr1-d ... ants-vote/

Indeed, Democrat members of the House explained their opposition to Crenshaw’s motion during a brief debate. They characterized it as a purposeless diversion and “political stunt,” accurately pointing out that the larger bill itself already reaffirmed the fact that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California said:

“H.R. 1 already prevents noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, whether they are here lawfully or undocumented. In fact, the motion to recommit notices that. [The motion says] ‘Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections.’ H.R. 1 utilizes the authority in Article I, Section 4 [of the U.S. Constitution] to extend in Federal elections the opportunity for every American to vote. This motion to recommit is an effort to divert us from the mission that we are on to expand voting rights to every American citizen in Federal elections. I urge its defeat.”

The Motion was to acknowledge...

Oh, so it was about feelings. Like somebody needed a hug. How nice.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:19 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:15 pmAlso, chill with the "angry white dude" bullshit, it makes you look stupid and gullible.

I looked up who was carrying the story at the time and it was daily caller et al. Not news sites. We can call them “conservative firebrands” but they’re angry white guys.

As for looking gullible
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hr1-d ... ants-vote/

Indeed, Democrat members of the House explained their opposition to Crenshaw’s motion during a brief debate. They characterized it as a purposeless diversion and “political stunt,” accurately pointing out that the larger bill itself already reaffirmed the fact that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California said:

“H.R. 1 already prevents noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, whether they are here lawfully or undocumented. In fact, the motion to recommit notices that. [The motion says] ‘Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections.’ H.R. 1 utilizes the authority in Article I, Section 4 [of the U.S. Constitution] to extend in Federal elections the opportunity for every American to vote. This motion to recommit is an effort to divert us from the mission that we are on to expand voting rights to every American citizen in Federal elections. I urge its defeat.”

You are quibbling about the spin in the original article, I am speaking to its substance.

Affirming that only citizens can vote is not merely symbolic or sentimental. In California, they are registering non-citizens who obtain drivers licenses to vote and have passed Sanctuary State laws, mirrored elsewhere, which implement non-cooperation with federal law enforcement in dealing with illegal aliens. In other words, the opposite is already occurring.

And if your objection is that it is a "stunt" because there is already a superseding federal law (i.e., "it's already illegal"), then I can only assume you feel the same way about the Democratic House's recent resolution on antisemitism, Islamophobia (lol), anti-LTBGQXYZ, etc. etc. for which there is already the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Booker-Harris Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2019, for which there is already the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and innumerable state laws.

The problem with both Republicans and Democrats is people have become so involved in the team-sports aspect of it that they have lost sight of common sense patriotic sentiment.

Affirming that only citizens can vote is not merely symbolic or sentimental.

That is exactly all it was. Symbolic red meat for the base.

The problem with both Republicans and Democrats is people have become so involved in the team-sports aspect of it that they have lost sight of common sense patriotic sentiment.

Pretty much

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:50 pmYou are quibbling about the spin in the original article, I am speaking to its substance.

My argument is that there is literally no substance to any of this, which is why the news is only being picked up by right wing media, which is consumed by non-persuadable conservative voters. So there is no substance or political effect. So the article the and OP are 100% wrong.

Affirming that only citizens can vote is not merely symbolic or sentimental.

It is literally exactly that. This is a legislative body that can pass actual laws.

In California, they are registering non-citizens who obtain drivers licenses to vote

Please source evidence of non-citizens voting in numbers.

and have passed Sanctuary State laws, mirrored elsewhere, which implement non-cooperation with federal law enforcement in dealing with illegal aliens.

Non-cooperation with ICE is probably the moral thing to do.

In other words, the opposite is already occurring.

Since the opposite would be encouraging non-citizens to vote, and nobody does that, this is also wrong.

And if your objection is that it is a "stunt" because there is already a superseding federal law (i.e., "it's already illegal"), then I can only assume you feel the same way about the Democratic House's recent resolution on antisemitism, Islamophobia (lol), anti-LTBGQXYZ,

I would say that's a 100% symbolic vote and Republicans voting against it are not shitting the bed for 2020.

I am not-joking puzzled at how you are essentially taking this original at face value after it's been fact-checked, shown to be wrong, and there's been no fallout for Democrats in the aftermath.

Two orders of business first. I am going to dispense with the quote-by-quote here, it's gotten too long. Second, in the future, please put your response in a bottle and toss it in the ocean, it is almost certain to reach me more quickly than your current 24-hour cycle.

1. It's not symbolic if it addresses a real problem. There are between 12 and 14 million undocumented people living in the US, so the issue of preventing them from participating in elections is a real problem.

2. As for "proof"...in February, 2015 California announced that it had given 605,000 illegal aliens drivers licenses: https://news.yahoo.com/california-grant ... soc_trk=tw At the same time, in September, 2015 California passed the California New Motor Voter Act, AB 1461 which automatically registers licensees to vote: https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/n ... gislature/ It's not hard to see where a problem could arise. It also is a clear example of encouraging illegals to vote.

3. Non-cooperation with ICE as the moral thing to do? Negative.

Here's the bottom line:

Nobody should be in this country illegally.
Nobody who is in this country illegally should be allowed to stay.
Nobody who is in this country illegally should be allowed to vote.

I have helped more than one person emigrate to the United States. There is a right and a wrong way to do it. Those who do it the wrong way should not be given an inch.

I'll get back to you in a few days.

Allowing illegals to vote and receive subsidies helps the plan of making USA more commie. That is why nafod and spells support it. Not because they "care about people" LOL.