Letting non-citizens vote?

[Tallpine]

Ok...

So, who gets to vote?

What does one have to do to prove sufficient ownership and participation, sufficient subscription to and endorsement of the "basic legacy values" of the nation?

Well, it's not perfect, but there is this naturalization and citizenship process that you can go through ... 

[longeyes]

So, who gets to vote?

What does one have to do to prove sufficient ownership and participation, sufficient subscription to and endorsement of the "basic legacy values" of the nation?

I think that is exactly what this country is in the process of resolving, by all available means.  Everything that is going on is part of our identity crisis.

[vaskidmark]

Ok...

So, who gets to vote?

What does one have to do to prove sufficient ownership and participation, sufficient subscription to and endorsement of the "basic legacy values" of the nation?

So far, it's folks who were born here and folks who were not born here but have gone through the citizenship process.  Given that approximately 52% of them screwed up big time the last time they voted for a President I say we need to be administering some sort of test.

Problem is, I'm not sure what to test them on and what the passing grade ought to be.  (And if there is any way I can assure myself that I will only take the test on "good days" as opposed to "bad days".)

Other than that, I'm just sure I'm not willing to let non-citizens vote on anything.  If they want a say in how things are run they can either pick better geographically-situated parents or go take the test.

stay safe.

stay safe.

[Ben]

Problem is, I'm not sure what to test them on and what the passing grade ought to be.  (And if there is any way I can assure myself that I will only take the test on "good days" as opposed to "bad days".)

I'm mail-in voting when I get home tonight. It will take me at least 3 hours to do so because (as I always do) I will be looking up information on all the candidates and propositions from sources ranging from the far left to the far right. This does not include the time I've used while casually perusing news sources over the last couple of months.

Too many people simply take a "voting recommendations" flyer from some organization they associate with (whether it be the NRA, Republicans, Democrats, Unions, whatever) and do what it says. Or worse, vote according to televised campaign ads.

[longeyes]

Well, the 9CC just weighed in, with Sandra Day O'Connor somehow in  the zombie chair on the panel...  Citizenship--what a concept!

http://washingtonindependent.com/101721/court-rules-arizona-cant-demand-proof-of-citizenship-for-voter-registration

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration
            By ELISE FOLEY 10/26/10 6:03 PM
The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results.

Non-citizens who attempt to vote can — and often do — face deportation, which opponents of the Arizona law argued is enough to deter fraud. “The penalties against non-citizens registering to vote are very serious and have served Arizonans — and all Americans — well for decades,” Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a plaintiff in the case, said in a press release. The court seemed to take this view by ruling the federal law does not allow states to require would-be voters to prove citizenship. But in other states, politicians are still proposing legislation that would crack down on voting by non-citizens.

Kris Kobach, who is running for Kansas secretary of state and helped draft Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, has said he wants to require proof of citizenship at polling stations, claiming “the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive.” Kobach won support for this idea from likely governor Sam Brownback, who is currently serving as a Republican senator.

Colorado Republican state Rep. Ted Harvey told TWI he plans to introduce a bill requiring documentation for voter registration in the form of a birth certificate or passport.

In Arizona, challengers to the 2004 law said in a press release that the law had prevented citizens who did not have documentation of their citizenship from voting. “We are elated that the Ninth Circuit has properly applied federal election law and struck down the documentary proof of citizenship requirement,” said Jon Greenbaum of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who argued the case for appellants. “This will enable the many poor people in Arizona who lack driver’s licenses and birth certificates to register to vote.”

[Monkeyleg]

Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results.

And axe murders are infrequent enough to not have a big impact on society. So why criminalize axe murders?

[Ben]

Well if the election experts say illegal voting doesn't affect results, then that settles it.

Also, the penalties deter the act? Sort of like we're crime free because no one ever robs, rapes, or murders anyone because of the penalities?

This is one of the more lame-brained rulings by the 9th. And that's saying something.

[tyme]

What would be the distinction between green card holders and citizens if green card holders were allowed to vote?

If the problem is that it's too hard for green card holders to become citizens, then streamline that process.

If the problem is that these people are ideologically opposed to becoming citizens and that's why they've put it off, then they can shove it.

Paying taxes should not automatically enfranchise anyone if they're unqualified to become a citizen, or if they don't want to become a citizen.

[BridgeRunner]

Gentlemen, I was referring to the proposal that real property ownership or some other demonstration of investment in the nation should be required, not the current standard dictated by the 14th amendment.

[De Selby]

Source?

Yeah, Micro started with the bailouts - if you look historically at the value of labor stolen through slavery (which was instituted by propertied classes), the adjusted dollar figures there are certain to trump food stamps and similar social welfare takings in the 20th century.

Of course that's an estimate which could be disputed - I doubt any reasonable person could come up with a basis for disputing that propertied and rich folk have received huge amounts of money from the Government (the bailout) and voted to deprive other people of their money (slavery, taxes to support bailouts) though.

I'm a little bit stunned that there's much dispute on this point at all.  The idea that poor people will vote to take other people's money, but rich people won't, is quite ridiculous.

[De Selby]

Some corporations do (and Democrats and unions). "Wealthiest property owners" is a broad and disingenuous brush.

So who do you think benefitted from the bailouts if not primarily management and the larger stakeholders? 

Are there no propertied-up union heads or Democrats?

No, I think "wealthiest property owners" in this context is entirely accurate. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yeah, Micro started with the bailouts - if you look historically at the value of labor stolen through slavery (which was instituted by propertied classes), the adjusted dollar figures there are certain to trump food stamps and similar social welfare takings in the 20th century.

Of course that's an estimate which could be disputed - I doubt any reasonable person could come up with a basis for disputing that propertied and rich folk have received huge amounts of money from the Government (the bailout) and voted to deprive other people of their money (slavery, taxes to support bailouts) though.

I'm a little bit stunned that there's much dispute on this point at all.  The idea that poor people will vote to take other people's money, but rich people won't, is quite ridiculous.

http://archvillain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/not-this-again.jpg

[MicroBalrog]

Don't forget all the differing limitations of individual and economic liberty that wealthy people and corporations lobbied for.

Tariffs, subsidies (do you think it is the poor who get corn subsidies? Really?), gun control (several gun companies were known to be in favor of GCA-68 because it limited the imports of cheap military surplus rifles, and of course there was Ruger), the War on Drugs (William Randolph Hearst), private prison companies, the big media corporations, the entire Motion Picture Association of America... do you see where this is going?

There's abjectly no reason to believe that just because people have more money they'll love freedom more.

[MicroBalrog]

Remember, the Orren Boyles, Ellsworth Tooheys, and Jim Taggarts of this world are out there.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So who do you think benefitted from the bailouts if not primarily management and the larger stakeholders?  

You have got to be kidding me.

Do you really not understand that the bailouts were primarily loans, not giveaways, and that in most cases those loans have already been paid back with interest?

Do you really not understand that the major stakeholders and senior management of the bailed out firms like AIG and Bear Sterns got completely wiped out in their respective companies' bailouts?  The stakeholders of the stronger banks like Goldman and JP Morgan have basically no more or no less than they did before the bailouts, and the stakeholders of the weaker banks are substantially poorer today than they were before.  These folks have lost more money than you can fathom, and yet you somehow believe the government has made them richer?

This year, social security will pay out some $700 billion in tax dollars.  Pay out.  Give away.  Forever.  That's as much as the one time TARP bailout was, and the SS money will never be paid back.  Ever.  The final tab on the financial sector bailouts will likely wind up being on the order of $100b, which is far less than we spend on this one specific branch of welfare every single year, year in and year out.

If you think that FedGov spends more money on rich people than on poor people, I strongly urge you to go look at the federal budget and find out just where our tax money is really going.  You need to get a clue.  Start here.

[MicroBalrog]

Do you really not understand that the bailouts were primarily loans, not giveaways, and that in most cases those loans have already been paid back with interest?

That makes it better.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That makes it better.

It makes it not a giveaway, which rather refutes the notion that it was a giveaway.

[Perd Hapley]

That makes it better.

I will assume you are serious. It's obviously better. Not perfect, but better.

[MicroBalrog]

The question is not how much money wealthy people get from it - although I suspect it's a giant lot of money. The question is whether wealthy people are somehow inherently a constituency for liberty. They're not, not anymore than anybody else is.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The question is not how much money wealthy people get from it - although I suspect it's a giant lot of money. The question is whether wealthy people are somehow inherently a constituency for liberty. They're not, not anymore than anybody else is.

That is precisely the question.  Shootin Student made the assertion that wealthy people are given hordes of money by the FedGov (rather, he said they take lots of money from FedGov, more than the poor, but taking and giving are the same either way, just a matter of perspective).  The answer is clearly NO.  The bailouts did not give them large amounts of money, and I don't see any other substantive sources of money being taken by the rich through other means, certainly nothing on the scale of what the poor are taking.

The expenditures of the federal government are a matter of public record, and it's easy to see where the money goes.  There's no reason for you to suspect things about it - go look and see what it really is.  And there's no call for Shootin Student to misrepresent what it is when we can all check the facts for ourselves and see that he's lying.

I'll link to it again, just to make sure you know where to go.  Go HERE for data on how American tax money is spent.  It shows it all in nice, colorful charts.

The question of whether property holders are a constituent for liberty is a different question entirely.  If you'd like to discuss that instead then let's go for it.  

I rather suspect that property owners are a constituent for liberty.  Property rights are one of the more important aspects of liberty, no?  Seems to me that property owners stand to lose the most when property rights are lost, and would therefore be somewhat more eager than non-property owners to want property rights respected.

You might make a case that someone with a little property would like to see property disrespected such that he can take for himself the property of someone more wealthy than he.  But as Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, for each of the wealthier folks above you from which you would seek to steal, there are ten poorer people below you looking to steal from you.  The strategy is ultimately futile and ineffective, and the best long term way to ensure wealth for yourself is to protect property rights for all.

[MicroBalrog]

Property rights have little to do with being wealthy.

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Property rights have little to do with being wealthy.

Say what?!

 

[MicroBalrog]

Say what?!

 

How is that difficult to comprehend?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Do you truly not understand that wealth and property rights are inextricably linked?

The wealth of that poor cottage owner, small though it may be, result entirely from his property rights.  Without his property rights, he would have nothing.  

Without property rights, wealth does not exist.  One could have power, perhaps, but not wealth.

[MicroBalrog]

That is true, of course.

But it's not true that a person with a large amount of property is necessarily going to have a vested interest in freedom.

A large company, or interest group linked to said company will be tempted - reasonably - to lobby or agree to a regulation, if that regulation protects it from small competitors by the virtue of raising barriers to entry. As long as the regulation is not too onerous, and the company's assets aren't being seized, why not?

In a moral and philosophical sense, even the poorest man has a vested interest in private property as a moral concept.  Even the man who lives out of his car has the sacred, individual, inviolable right not to have it ripped from him, and to be secure in its confines.

There are reasons why any given class of people can be persuaded to turn from these principles - the middle class, the wealthy, the poor, intellectuals, engineers, young, old. But there's no class that's inherently anti-freedom or pro-freedom.