ZeroHedge: Democrats Vote To Give Illegal Immigrants The Right To Vote

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-08/pelosi-admits-push-giving-illegal-immigrants-right-vote

Shenanigans like HR 1 are the main reason I’m inclined to support a total ban on all immigration. I get it that immigrants contribute materially to our economy and make our culture more interesting. But HR 1 shows how immigration pollutes our politics in ways that undermine our institutions. This is the exact opposite of the job an open political system is supposed to perform.

16 thoughts on “ZeroHedge: Democrats Vote To Give Illegal Immigrants The Right To Vote

  1. Maybe try reading past the lying twisted headlines on lying propaganda sites? Read and think for yourself.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text#toc-H535614BCBD3D4D019E020EE35F3481E6

    HR1 does NOT give legal or illegal immigrants the right to vote. It is against the law for illegal immigrants and legal non-citizens to vote in federal elections and nothing in HR1 changes that. The opposite in fact. In numerouse places it reaffirms that voting is for citizens. A Republican amendment that would have the federal government interfere with local decisions on who can participate in very local elections was voted down. Maybe that is the basis for the lie about what HR1 does.

    Funny how “conservatives” are all about local control until they are not.

    HR1 is a long overdue reform to modernize federal elections, bring dark money into the light and to increase citizen participation which, in the long run, is essential to the continued legitimacy of our “government Of the People, By the People AND FOR the People.”

    Of course the GOP is against because their survival depends on making it difficult for citizens to participate and allowing the billionaire class to buy all the politicians they want. Sad.

    Like

    1. RE: “HR1 does NOT give legal or illegal immigrants the right to vote.”

      Had you read carefully and done some thinking for yourself, you might have noticed a subtlety in the ZeroHedge text: “House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections.”

      So, no, HR1 does not, itself, legalize non-citizen voting. The concern, rather, is that some of its provisions would preserve or extend local practices which encourage non-citizen voting. Giving non-citizens the “right” to vote is the effect, a practical consequence.

      Some examples are the provisions for same-day registration, automatic registration, new restrictions on pruning voter rolls to eliminate ineligible voters, and mandatory extended polling periods, to name a few. All of these are credibly alleged to invite abuse, especially by exploiting illegal votes.

      You accuse me of being insufficiently attentive, but you are the one raising and attacking a straw man here. Still, thank you for sharing the text of the bill. I was not aware that it establishes a Congressional commission to administer and enforce the HR1 program. Since we already have a Federal Election Commission for such things, and a DoJ that actively enforces election law, I see no reason for the new bureaucracy and would oppose HR1 on that basis alone, if necessary

      Like

      1. You can shuck and jive all you want but the fact remains that the headline is FALSE. The Democrats did NOT vote “to give illegal immigrants the right to vote.” They would get ZERO in the way of new rights from the bill or from the defeat of that GOP amendment which would have interfered with local decisions on these matters. In non-federal elections, local jurisdictions can make their own decisions about who can vote for school boards and other local offices. That was true before HR1 and it will still be true if HR1 becomes law.

        So, you are posting – again – completely bogus articles with bogus headlines from a repeatedly bogus source. And not for the first time. And that you now affirm that you understood the “subtlety” of the Zerohedge wording and posted it anyway makes you no better than them.

        You can make all the phony allegations you want but that does not make them credible. Many states already have the various reforms included in HR1 and still there is no evidence of illegal voters being a real problem. What IS a real problem is good citizens with good intentions being denied their votes with artificially restrictive practices and “errors” in pruning the rolls.

        Laws do not enforce and administer themselves, so opposing a law simply because it requires and enforcement agency is absurdly weak reasoning. If you have a real argument please explain why measures that will facilitate broader citizen participation in our democratic processes is a bad thing. Explain why bringing dark money into the light is a bad thing.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: ” If you have a real argument please explain why measures that will facilitate broader citizen participation in our democratic processes is a bad thing. Explain why bringing dark money into the light is a bad thing.”

          I believe I have answered these questions already. To be explicit: I see no compelling reason to “facilitate broader citizen participation in our democratic processes.” On the contrary, I favor more restrictive participation that is less prone to abuse.

          As for dark money, which I haven’t mentioned, I’m not terribly concerned about it, even when it is Soros money because I trust voters to think for themselves.

          Finally, you misrepresent my objection to HR1’s Congressional commission. I object because it is redundant. I might add that it also has some undemocratic attributes that I suppose are intended to make it vulnerable to controlling political influence.

          Like

          1. You make it clear that you really, really do not like democracy. You are not alone. Republicans in general do not like it because they have nothing in the way of good ideas, good arguments, a good record and most of all good leaders so they are – rightfully – deathly afraid of the Vox Populi,

            Like

          2. RE: “You make it clear that you really, really do not like democracy.”

            I’m in good company. Plato didn’t “like” democracy, either, and for good reasons.

            Like

  2. The echo chamber and right wing ideologues jumped all over the “…all newcomers…” phrase like cockroaches on a piece of candy.

    That fact that a few years of green card holding and another 6 months a person can become a legal citizen.

    Compared to many countries these are newcomers. But nothing says that non-citizens can vote in national elections.

    For that matter, I have lived in Virginia for almost 50 years, and I am a newcomer. I am also a 1st generation immigrant, that also makes me a newcomer.

    Yes, a few localities have considered allowing non-citizens to vote for such things as school boards. And of course the wingnuts jumped on that two as the first step to Sharia law.

    Admittedly, there has always been an anti-immigrant faction. And all new waves of immigration are generally not treated with open arms. And sometimes, this anti-immigrant fanaticism takes really ugly turns. Like the Bower guy who shot up a Synagogue, killing 9 people and maiming dozens. It wasn’t enough that this guy hated Jews and was part and parcel of the jerks who believe in the “international banking cartels” run by Soros and company. He also picked that Synagogue because they were part of a long standing organization that helped immigrants. Of course this was right after months of haranguing by Trump and his minions about the “hordes” of “murderous, raping drug dealers” shooting their way across our border before the 2018 elections.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Yes, a few localities have considered allowing non-citizens to vote for such things as school boards.”

      Do you think non-citizens should vote for school boards or for similar things. I don’t.

      Like

      1. If they are green card holders, pay taxes and live and work in a community I have no problem with certain local issues that pertain to them as well as citizens.

        It complicates registration to a certain degree. There would have to be two voter registration lists, but in the age of computers, that would be doable.

        I look at the issue from the viewpoint of an immigrant. Green card holders are already vetted. I had to pay a fee, take a test, pass a background check and swear an oath of allegiance to become a US citizen.

        So the odds are pretty good that my citizenship is taken pretty seriously by me since it was not just by accident of birth.

        It was a conscious choice, a deliberate effort and executed at the age of majority.

        So when people like yourself, and this includes Trump, want to ban immigration it kind of hits home.

        Particularly when you write: “…immigration pollutes our politics in ways that undermine our institutions…”.

        That sounds like something Steve King would be proud of as an ultra-Nationalist lamenting the disparagement of “white supremacy” and “white nationalism”.

        So there is your answer with appropriate explanation and justification for your review.

        Like

        1. _RE: “That sounds like something Steve King would be proud of as an ultra-Nationalist lamenting the disparagement of ‘white supremacy’ and ‘white nationalism’.”

          What it sounds like is not the same as what it is, making “what it sounds like” a very odd criticism, I think. But I appreciate your reasoning.

          My family has been here for about three generations, so I have no particular claim to an American national identity. Instead, I look at who can vote and for what as a political science question.

          In theory there is no natural limit on the number of identifiable stakeholders in any political process. For example, the population of Viet Nam could reasonably be described as a stakeholder in the election of Richard Nixon. But that’s impractical.

          Verifiable citizenship may seem arbitrary in this sense, but it has the virtue of restricting political participation in a useful way.

          Like

      2. You don’t think non-citizens should be able to vote in local school board elections. Even though their children are going to those schools and their taxes are paying the bills.

        Okay. Fair enough – that is a reasonable and defensible position. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether local jurisdictions can continue to decide for themselves. The GOP says no. The Democrats say Yes. The reality is that not many have done that nor is there any reason to expect that a lot will, but it is still their decision and their preference is ALSO reasonable and defensible.

        Like

          1. “Do you think non-citizens should vote for school boards or for similar things. I don’t.”

            As Mike Wallace used to say “your words, not mine”.

            Like

          2. My words, but you brought it up: “Yes, a few localities have considered allowing non-citizens to vote for such things as school boards.”

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s