If you’re outvoted by people who had no right to vote in the first place, obviously your voted has been nullified. You can only be outvoted if those participating in the election had the right to cast a legal ballot in the first place.
So you’re saying a counterfeit twenty should be considered just as valid as a real one? You really don’t understand there’s a difference between a legal vote that should be counted and an illegal vote that shouldn’t?
Let’s say you buy some goods using a real twenty and a counterfeit twenty. Are you saying you’re morally justified to twice as much value than someone who only has a real twenty? One legal vote has still been nullified by an illegal vote. In which case, you have effectively denied that citizen his vote. Counterfeit money undermines the value of real money, and illegal votes undermine the value of legal ones.
And you do?
It isn’t a decision between one or the other. For all practical purposes, aliens voting illegally is pretty much the same as denying citizens the right to vote.
I assume “anyone” was a typographical error for “anyone in the U.S.A.”
I don’t want to snark about a typographical error, but the complete rejection of non-U.S. citizens seems perverse. (We even had a recent thread where OP supported the Iraq War as “helpful” to Iraq, yet refused to consider any but Americans in casualty accounting. :smack: )
There’s always the question of where to draw the inclusion/exclusion lines. I want my family to benefit, and perhaps my town more than another town, but a state thousands of miles away I’ve never been to? Frankly I’d make a charitable contribution to El Salvador before I’d make one to Alabama.
:dubious: All that matters is how the person is likely to vote. Republicans are happy to disenfranchise “criminal” aliens as well as legal citizens with “too little skin in the game” to afford passing registration obstacles, but frenziedly soil their pants if there’s any talk of disallowing illegal ballots from soldiers. If you think they wouldn’t reverse all these positions immediately were the vote correlations to reverse, let me try to sell you a bridge…
So your argument consists of offering definitions for the words “nullified” and “outvoted”?
And even if it’s true that your side lost the vote, how would you know it was because of illegals? Maybe the majority of them were on your side, and you just lost because of the greater number of disagreeing legal voters.
No, I didn’t raise any points regarding counterfeit cash, nor do I see its relevance.
Better than some, to be sure.
Actually, it is a decision between one or the other and there’s a significant aspect of statistical analysis that deals with it, the Type I error, where something that is true gets improperly rejected. In this case, the claimed (well, much-ballyhooed, anyway) effort to prevent Type II errors (someone isn’t a citizen, but is allowed to vote) is silent about the increase this would have on Type I errors (a citizen is not allowed to vote). There’s no good way (or at least a good way has never been put in place) to minimize Type II without increasing Type I, because that has never been the point: whichever party is arguing to prevent improper votes from illegals or felons or military people who didn’t do the paperwork properly obviously wants to increase Type I, because they see that applying a Type I to a particular group is advantageous for them.
So by default, I figure, anyone concerned about illegals casting a vote has a well-above-average chance of simply being a Republican stooge.
Well, yeah, of course… the people rallying against illegals that might vote (or any group that will probably vote in an unwanted way, really) never admits the larger goal. It wouldn’t be politic.
It is not uncommon for local and federal elections to be very close calls - sometimes even as close as just a handful of votes (local), a few hundred (state), and within .1% electoral (Presidential).
Non citizens are likely to vote Democrat since at least 1976.
A) The majority of Democrats coincidentally defend non citizen voting.
Some feel that American sovereignty, immigration and election laws are “garbage”.
A) Breathing air inside US borders makes you American enough to vote.
B) Not only should you get to vote by virtue of breathing in and out, but there should be open borders and the concept of “illegal” be scrapped altogether. Just come on in.
C) My WAG is those mindsets are held by people who would change their view if those votes went to their opposing party. (Correct me if I’m mistaken)
**We could split off into a seperate thread the issue of immigration/taxes, however it’s relevent here to touch on it because it was used as pretext/justification for voting.
It’s unclear the percentage of illegal aliens who pay taxes. Their very nature makes it impossible to track (we are used to +/-4% MOE polling data, I’d be surprised if we could hit 25% here).
A) Many of them (percentage needed) send as much as half their earnings back to their country of origin, taking it out of the US economy.
B) Many of them (percentage needed) use services paid for by US taxpaying residents and citizens, dwarfing any small contributions they do make. High cost services include:
[INDENT] a) School systems (plus additional bilingual ed)
b) Medical care
c) Public food pantries/drives
d) Utility assistance
e) Rental or housing assistance
f) Judicial system
g) Prisons
h) Child daycare assistance[/INDENT]
C) Most (need percentage) illegal aliens do not report crime or become witnesses in court against criminals, allow slumlord conditions, or report community safety concerns.
Legal residents do pay taxes even if not technically US citizens.
A) The term “resident” is generic, it could relate to temporary or permanent residency.
We will all come to own conclusion of course, and it’s a safe bet no one’s overall opinion changed - including mine. If anything my views now are now re-reinforced.
My personal feelings are: Group 1) Many people like any vote for their party no matter how it is garnered, how many times it is counted, which country it comes from, or if pulled from a magic hat (or trunk of car, attic, basement, abandoned buildings, etc) Group 2) Others prefer an orderly patriotic system who hold American values, laws, traditions, soveriegnty, fairness, and economic health as sacrosanct.
**Group 3) **Doesnt really give a shit as long as they can make money off it or increase their power (personal and/or professional). More often this group bleeds over into Group 1 than Group 2.
I’d assume much more that that - all the states but five (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon - none of who strike me as an especially plum destination for illegals, but I’m prepared to be corrected) levy a sales tax. Were I to visit the U.S., I could (in theory, though I’ve never bothered to do so) get a refund for sales taxes on my purchases there - not an option for an illegal immigrant.
Do Democrats want illegal alien votes? Sure. Do Republicans want illegal alien votes? Of course. Do Democrats and Republicans want votes from anyone who’s willing to vote for them? Yes - that’s the whole point in running for office.
Do you think if some Gay Mexican Communist Atheist wanted to vote Republican, they’d tell him “No, we don’t want your vote. Go vote for the other guy.”?
The issue isn’t who wants the votes. The issue is what’s been doing to get the votes.
Yep. Unless you navigated the expensive, arbitrary and kafkaesque hell of naturalization, you too vote and became a citizen by the sole virtue of breathing.
Nope. I don’t even have a party.
This applies to poor people in general. Of course most Republicans would rather they not be able to vote too.
Not only do I not support crim-aliens voting in elections on any level, I would further restrict voting to 1 per household, provided such household owns (or mortgages) a home, includes at least one individual who has worked and payed taxes in the majority of their adult years, or includes at least one individual who is handicapped or retired.
I’m not in favor of illegals voting - not that I think they would, since they tend not to like wandering around places with lots of government officials. I think the legal immigrant problem is more interesting.
Tourists don’t get to vote on taxes, which is exactly why hotel occupancy taxes are so high nearly everywhere. But they are very temporary. There are tons of legal immigrants where I live. Now, not letting them vote to encourage them to become citizens might make sense. But I can see situations where a school in an area with a high number of legal immigrants might get shortchanged relative to schools in areas with more voters. The idea of legal residents being allowed to vote on issues that directly affect them isn’t totally crazy.
As for illegals, I’m sure voting rights wouldn’t affect the immigration rate one bit.
Well, “illegal alien” is one of those terms that really gets hackles up and inspires knee-jerk reactions.
So let us take two persons:
A; Was born in Canada, is a legal USA resident of 10 years, married to a US Citizen, has a Masters degree, owns a home, owns a small business pays income, sales & property taxes, is wares of current issues and news, and is active in PTA and the community.
B. Was born in USA. Owns no property, is homeless, unemployed, dropped out of High School, a minor criminal, pays no income or property taxes and doesn’t give a rats ass about his community.
Who can really say that Person B better deserves to vote than Person A?
Not just that, but voting means registering. Gun nuts are always fretting about how gun registration inevitably means gun confiscation. I can see illegal immigrants taking the same line to deportation.
That is exactly the right analysis, but Republicans aren’t as statistically ignorant as you think. They talk about the evils of Type II errors, but they actually want to encourage Type I errors, since that would cover far more Democratic voters than Republican ones. They’d change their tune fast if the illegals looked like geezers packing handguns.
I directly quoted another poster’s words who called voting requirements as “garbage”. I realize this sort of topic get people to behave rudely but I wont hold it against anyone.
Yes-the Democratic party sees the illegal alien vote as a way to maintain their deathgrip on the ageing Northeast and Midwestern city political machines. Massachusetts just lost a congressional seat-and the DP wants to reverse this. Take a dump like Detroit, Michigan-in order to keep the Federal Aid dollars flowing, the Democrats need a higher population-magically making citizens out of aliens is a neat way to shore up their power base.
There is also a big push to allow the children of aliens preferential tuition at state universities-this is (again) an attempt to get more Federal Program money.
As the (citizen) population ages (and moves to sunbelt cities), the DP is desperate to keep its grip-it cannot allow the center of power to shift to southern, conservative states.
Hence, we will see the DC party hacks make an all out push for a general amnesty/automatic citizenship for the ilegal aliens.
:dubious: All that matters is how the person is likely to vote. Republicans are happy to disenfranchise “criminal” aliens as well as legal citizens with “too little skin in the game” to afford passing registration obstacles, but frenziedly soil their pants if there’s any talk of disallowing illegal ballots from soldiers. If you think they wouldn’t reverse all these positions immediately were the vote correlations to reverse, let me try to sell you a bridge…