Non Citizen Voting.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by island1fox, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    I would hope that all would agree only citizens of the United States should vote in U.S. elections.

    Question : When I moved to the state I now live in a drivers license was the only requirement to apply for and get a voter registration card.

    My state as well as many others let illegals get drivers licenses. With a valid drivers license what prevents them from getting voter registration cards ??
  2. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Good question. Is there a special sticker on the Illegals license that says he is an Illegal? Jeesh...its stupid enough that we issue DLs to Illegals...
  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I think we should return to the ideal of the founding fathers in regards to voting for representative gov't. All non-citizens should be completely and totally exempt from all forms of taxation. I mean the ideal was no taxation without representation. And I have no problem denying all forms of gov't services too.

    I've searched and searched for hard provable data that gives some measure as to how many or even a %age of illegals that do vote (or even try) from what I've seen, at best the number is very low. The problem however, most of the data across all sources is just to shakey to mean much for me one way or the other.

    A big problem of illegals voting IMO it's just more of a political boogie man to frighten the boobsie with. Appears to be working too.

    Today I was out on the road listening to the radio and heard a discussion on voting with some specific numbers on just how many people do vote among lawfully eligible voters. Adding those eligible non voters into the mix, Obama was only elected by 1 in 4 total eligible voters and in the case of Texas on which the discussion was centered, almost 70% of those eligible to vote do not do so. It gave the % of total voters that elected Rick Perry governor and I'm talking in the teens. Sorry I forget the number cause even I was so shocked at what I was hearing. To say I was delightfully surprised at those facts is an understatement but if they hold up to be true, WOW! I do know nationally in the last election which was considered a heavy turnout, only 60% of total eligible voters actually went to the polls and there is real concern that number will drop this election and maybe under 50%.

    Looking at the many past election results and those who run or even win to hold office, seems to me it's the most ignorant of Americans who do actually go to the polls to vote and I base that on the results we get in the gov't we have!

    If the electoral process allowed for a none of the above or actually counted a blank ballet as voting for nobody, based on those who don't vote, Nobody would always win. This means that Nobody would pass silly laws, Nobody would screw up our lives and Nobody would enact laws based on political payoffs.

    Therefore the choice in November is clear!
  4. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    Easy, the id states on it pretty clearly, NON CITIZEN.

    Hope that cleared that up.


  5. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

    The Brief History of Non-Citizen Voting in Pre-20th Century America
    Advocates of non-citizen voting tout the fact that early in American history such practices did exist, although they differ regarding how many states or territories actually allowed it. Advocates make much of this past because in their view it demonstrates that non-citizen voting is not historically novel and they reason from that the country should therefore reestablish it.
    The first is true; the second is a non sequitur. There are things in America’s past that were not a good idea then and wouldn’t be good now, and there are practices that might have been useful at one historical point, but have long outlived their original usefulness. Non-citizen voting falls into the second category.
    Non-citizen voting has been illegal in almost every state in the Union for well over a century and no state allows this practice. This raises two immediate questions: Why did such practices develop and why did they decline? Answering these questions is more than a matter of historical curiosity. If the circumstances that encouraged non-citizen voting early in this country’s history have changed, the rationale for non-citizen voting is no longer persuasive. If the circumstances have not changed, then the rational for non-citizen voting adds weight to advocates’ efforts to resurrect it.
    There is, additionally, the question of why non-citizen voting ended and has almost completely died out. Advocates trace the decline to the anti-immigrant, racist, and xenophobic attitudes of the American public and their political representatives. If this is true, then non-citizen voting died out for reasons unacceptable to a democratic nation. If however, there were other legitimate reasons that it did so, advocates’ implied claims that it should be reinstated to make up for an historical wrong carry much less persuasive weight.
    A Varied History

    In the colonial period, the line between national and state citizenship was not clearly established. British nationality law coexisted with practices that were valid in a particular colony. Throughout the colonial and early federal period, alien (non-citizen) suffrage was not controversial because voting rights were based on property and race, not citizenship. In the post-revolutionary period, states were dominant in setting the requirements for citizenship and voting and they often limited suffrage to white males with property. The 1787 Constitution adopted the concept of national citizenship and granted Congress power over naturalization. Yet, this issue was not fully settled for three decades and even thereafter the possibility of state citizenship remained possible. Even during the colonial period and up to the War of 1812, state policies did not universally grant non-citizens the right to vote, though some did.
    Aylsworth notes that “During the 19th century, the laws and constitutions of at least 22 states and territories granted aliens the right to vote. This tendency reached its greatest extent in 1875. Even before then it had begun to recede. In the following decades a steady decline set in. The last state constitutions to grant aliens who had declared their intention to become full citizens the full right of suffrage were those of the two Dakotas in 1889. The movement to withdraw the right began with Illinois in 1848. At the opening of the present century, only one-half of the original number, or eleven states, continued to grant this right.” The last handful were voided in 1901, 1902, 1908, 1914, 1918, 1921, 1924, and the last, Arkansas, in 1926.
    The practice of non-citizen voting was ended by legislation and referendum, duly debated and passed by the people’s representatives and signed into law by their governors. It is a point worth underscoring. The process by which the public, their political representatives, and their leaders reached and implemented the decision to link voting and citizenship was debated, carried out through appropriate political channels and procedures, and therefore democratically legitimate.
    Why was non-citizen voting adopted in the first place? The answer lies in large part in the competition among states and territories to attract new settlers. It was thought that, “offering immigrants voting rights would …would encourage immigrant settlement in the region.” Or, as Raskin puts it, “The desire for immigration carried non-citizen voting along.” Bedolla, another advocate, also makes the point that after the [Civil] war, states adopted alien suffrage in order to attract new settlers. Neuman makes the same point, about the country’s westward expansion and adds the perfectly understandable point that, “As the desire for new immigrants faded, so did the acceptance of alien suffrage.”
    The practice of non-citizen voting developed in some states and territories in order to attract immigrants. However, it also did so at a time when the concept of national citizenship was in the process of developing and the idea of requiring certain civic competencies for new citizens began to take hold. These new ideas included debates about length of residency in the United States and the ability to speak and understand English. It seems clear that as an American national identity was developing and consolidating, the question arose as to how to define that identity. America settled on a creedal identity. Americans defined themselves to some degree by their democratic ideals and their values. It followed from that view that it was legitimate to ask immigrants who wanted to become part of the American national community to demonstrate a familiarity with that creed and to be able to act on it by being able to take part in that democratic process. This, in turn, led Congress to undertake the debates and legislation that over time have constituted the history of the naturalization legislation.
  6. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    You want to live with rules of the 1800's ??? You go for it.
  7. roadrunner2012

    roadrunner2012 Four hours in the mod queue for a news link Troll

    Crap, your looking for rules from the 1700's.
  8. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    18th century rules, aka, the United States Constitution.
  9. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member


    Did not clear it up for me.

    As with many Government workers it took just a flash of my drivers license --not even handed over to them to get my voter registration. Do we really think that the government agencies are that efficient ??