२७ जून, २०२२
"A law that would have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections in New York City was struck down by a State Supreme Court justice in Staten Island who said it violated the State Constitution...."
"The legislation placed New York City at the forefront of a national debate about voting rights, as some states began to expand eligibility while others went in the other direction, moving to explicitly bar noncitizens from voting."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
Civil rights of "the People" and "our Posterity".
Democrats dodged a bullet, assuming upheld on appeal. Don't see referendum.
Did it allow illegal aliens to vote or only legal aliens?
As it should. They are NOT citizens, and should come here legally. IF we had a REAL congress who actually did their jobs, they would have fixed the work visa system so that people wanting to come for work, can...but letting them stay here illegally is going to bite Democrats in the ass, especially with an open border, and illegals bills that WE will be paying for.
Recognizing the purpose of constitutions - to limit the government.
Saw it in Bruen.
Saw it in Dobbs.
Saw it in this NY voter case.
It should be seen when Obergefell gets challenged.
I sure could use an explanation as to why noncitizens get to exercise the definitive power of a citizen, viz., choosing who shall make law.
Maybe there is an equitable or incremental argument —that noncitizens contribute economically and socially and culturally to the communities in which they live and work, and thus deserve a voice— but for me the problem with that argument is, it’s a classic slippery slope. How many vibrant murals” or how much tax paid, is enough to justify extending the franchise? By giving people a way to buy the right to vote *without demonstrating and swearing allegiance to the nation* it would cheapen citizenship, reducing it from a binding monogamous vow to an open marriage of convenience.
In local elections, residency is more important than citizenship. I can't comment on the details of the New York constitution, but anyone who lives in a city legally should be allowed to vote in that city's elections.
BTW, in New York, the Supreme Court is the lowest level, the trial court. It is not the final word.
The NY state constituent is so unambiguous that the appellate court really had no shame free option other than to strike the law.
That's great news. California cities allow non-citizens to vote, so maybe it will percolate up to the SC sometime.
Meh, business as usual.
Regular reminder:
The New York State Supreme Courts are the LOWEST level of courts in NY.
Now, we had the same headline when a low level judge struck down NY's post-2020 redistricting, and that was upheld all the way to the top.
But this case is far from over
DEAD citizens will still be allowed to vote democrat though.. Right?
And should we allow scab workers to vote for shop stewards and higher officials in the local labor union?
I'm sorry "wendybar" "...they would have fixed the work visa system so that people wanting to come for work..." According to Homeland's Annual Report (July 2020) on nonimmigrant entries to the USA, temporary workers and Trainees where: 2017 - 2.4 million; 2018 - 2.4 million; 2019 2.6 million. These numbers do no include all of the H1-H4 entries which equaled to another 500k immigrants per year over the same 3 years. Plus another 1 million of legal immigrants granted citizenship every year for those same 3 years. So the question is for you to answer - how many people are enough?
How about visitors? A quite sizable chunk of NYC's economy comes from the pockets of visitors, else why so many hotel rooms per square mile Downtown? If illegal immigrants have an ecomonic interest in NYC/Bronx County elections, Quaestor has a similar interest in the outcome of NYC/New York County elections. Since the Bloomberg admin, NYC has tried to pry more and more cash from the wallets of visitors. It's taxation without representation!
They are NOT citizens, and should come here legally. IF we had a REAL congress who actually did their jobs, they would have fixed the work visa system so that people wanting to come for work, can...but letting them stay here illegally is going to bite Democrats in the ass, especially with an open border, and illegals bills that WE will be paying for.
Except that is not what this law is about at all. The vote would be limited to legal residents only (I am not sure whether it is further limited to only permanent residents). And it is only for local elections.
And before you go and start creating fanciful scenarios where legal residents could sneak in a vote for Federal or even statewide officials, NYC has its local elections on off (odd) years, so the ballot doesn't include state or federal candidates or statewide resolutions.
In layman's terms: This law won't pass the 6-3 SCOTUS majority. We're going to kill this baby before the Supremes get a chance to not only terminate this pregnancy but make the source/ground infertile for fifty years.
We're going to kill this baby before the Supremes get a chance to not only terminate this pregnancy
Abort. Killing, other than self-defense through reconciliation, is a universal criminal act perpetrated against the individual, society, and humanity. [Elective] Abortion is an ethical choice in the enlightened sense of philosophical euphemisms.
I don't understand why non-citizens should have the right to participate in any US elections, local, state, or federal. Have seen the assertion 'but it is a local election...' a few other times but haven't read any of the arguments justifying it (I think that where I've read of it the 'yes' position was treated as a given for all right-thinking people). Have got a vague recollection re some jurisdiction in Portland allowing this so I expect I ought to pay attention.
@tim maguire: "In local elections, residency is more important than citizenship."
Why?
To my mind, your comments are usually models of intelligence and sound reasoning, but I am not seeing the basis of this one.
Want to discuss 'Replacement Theory' now? We have a Federal Government who facilitates an open border, refuses to do their number 1 priority of national security (I know, you thought pronoun enforcement was our number 1 priority), and arranges for placements of large groups of illegal immigrants in key sectors of the United States.
Then you have the State governments in various lefty run states, working with the Feds to house, school, and employ these people, and when possible- get them the vote. Not in 8 or so years when they apply to become citizens, but now- immediately- today.
If one of them votes, it dilutes my vote. Essentially, it could erase my vote. One more illegal vote on top of that and I've been fully replaced. The only thing the government wants or needs out of me is my tax dollars. Other than that, they'd like me gone.
This is not the country I grew up in.
PS- Freder, seriously? "And before you go and start creating fanciful scenarios where legal residents could sneak in a vote for Federal or even statewide officials, ..." How many ballot harvests in California do we need to pore through to show illegals and dead people voting with the rest of us in National elections? Give them the right to vote in State elections in New York and I guarantee you the next step are National Elections. The Left doesn't stop at just this one thing. There is always the next thing or you are racist.
When politicians begin changing the constituency themselves in order to win elections, we're on a slippery slope. Just as Dems push to give felons the vote, if they thought they could gain somehow they'd push to give dogs and cats the vote.
"But they have a stake, too!"
Want to vote? Become a citizen. It's been that way for almost a quarter of a millennium, and it's not that hard. But if you don't have enough skin in the game to become a citizen, then you don't deserve a voice in our electoral process.
Give them the right to vote in State elections in New York and I guarantee you the next step are National Elections. The Left doesn't stop at just this one thing. There is always the next thing or you are racist.
You are a liar. As I pointed out above, this is only for local, not statewide elections (it was passed by the NYC council, which has no control over statewide elections).
You are a fucking moron or just a liar.
How many ballot harvests in California do we need to pore through to show illegals and dead people voting with the rest of us in National elections?
And of course you are lying about this, too. Michael K claimed that 3 million illegal immigrants voted in the 2016 election in Los Angeles alone. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and allowed that he meant the L.A. metropolitan area (since there are just over 3 million people who live in L.A. in total). But of course, that would mean almost every foreign born person (man woman and child) living in the L.A. metro area is here illegally, and furthermore, voted for Hillary Clinton.
Like Michael K, you are full of shit.
I never understood why Congress has not adequately resolved this issue. Under the guarantee clause of a republican form of government I don't see why Congress can't legislate who can vote.
Is limiting the franchise to citizens who are in possession of civil rights too difficult a goal to reach? Is making being an illegal alien a felony too difficult a goal to reach? Is legislating that illegal aliens are squatters and thus not subject for the purposes of Congressional districts and federal budgeting too difficult to do? I expect the Left and it's political arm the Democrat Party to be against these ideas but what excuse do the Republicans have?
If you were a semi-permanent visitor in, say, France, or Turkey, or Australia or Ghana, whether with the permission of the government or not, would you feel that you would or should have any right to vote if you were not a citizen?
This isn't hard, or even controversial. Or shouldn't be.
Just as Dems push to give felons the vote,
Most states (including Texas) allow felons who have served their sentences to vote. Two (Maine and Vermont) allow felons to vote even while they are incarcerated.
And I bet you have no problem restoring 2nd amendment rights to felons who have paid their debt to society.
"In local elections, residency is more important than citizenship. I can't comment on the details of the New York constitution, but anyone who lives in a city legally should be allowed to vote in that city's elections."
I would argue that paying taxes is more important than residency. If what we are concerned about is the person's "stake" in the community where they are voting, this ought to be the test.
You pay taxes? (more than you take out?) Deal. You get to vote.
Freder--are you saying that no illegals voted in the Federal election in California?
Or that there is no danger of illegals voting in National elections once they are permitted to vote in local elections?
If not you are full of shit yourself, having changed what Mike K said to something you claim he said at some other time, and putting it forth as a refutation of his point (which you didn't actually address).
"There is always the next thing or you are racist."
"Or"? You misspelled "And".
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
"And I bet you have no problem restoring 2nd amendment rights to felons who have paid their debt to society."
And I bet you also support that, right? Of course.
Freder lives in an alternate universe. Lala land. Typical Progressive thinking.
MalaiseLongue said...
@tim maguire: "In local elections, residency is more important than citizenship."
Why?
To my mind, your comments are usually models of intelligence and sound reasoning, but I am not seeing the basis of this one.
Thank you for the kind words. As I see it, the core issue is commitment.
At the national level, where your representatives decide issues of war and peace, of relations between nations, you show your commitment by becoming a citizen. But at the local level, where the issues are crime and schools and potholes, you show your commitment by living there, working there, sending your kids to school there. In a local election, residency serves the same purpose as citizenship does in the federal election.
boatbuilder said...I would argue that paying taxes is more important than residency. If what we are concerned about is the person's "stake" in the community where they are voting, this ought to be the test.
You pay taxes? (more than you take out?) Deal. You get to vote.
As a practical matter, there’s not a lot of difference between our positions. I may be a little more permissive, but not much.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा