Legal U.S. Immigrants Blast D.C. Law Allowing Illegal Migrants to Vote in Local Elections
Legal U.S. immigrants unloaded their fury on Fox News over the new D.C. law allowing illegal migrants to vote in local elections if they’ve been in the city for 30 days:
Immigrants Mike Diaz and Alma Ohene-Opare joined “Fox & Friends First” Wednesday to voice their opposition to undocumented immigrants being permitted to vote so long as they have resided in D.C. for at least 30 days.
“Why are we devaluing American citizenship?,” asked Ohene-Opare, a Ghanaian immigrant who became a U.S. citizen after nearly two decades of living and working in the country.
“What does it mean to be American anymore? Is there anything that differentiates the American citizen from anybody who just comes into this country?”
The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act was passed earlier this week.
It will make a huge difference since Arizona and Texas have been bussing illegal immigrants to D.C.
Today ALL 13 Councilmembers sent a letter to Senate leadership opposing the efforts to disapprove properly adopted DC laws. We ask them to stand up against any attempts to undermine the autonomy of the District and the democratic rights of DC residents! #HandsOffDC pic.twitter.com/dI6sXEAKiW
— Phil Mendelson (@ChmnMendelson) February 23, 2023
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Anyone wish to refute the claim that D.C. is a foreign country hostile to the USA?
No. Will anyone also dispute that it is filthy, crime-ridden (I’m talking the city, not the Capitol Bldg), corrupt, expensive, and with a populace hostile to non-blacks?
You better put that caveat in there. The FBI is watching.
crime-ridden (I’m talking the city, not the Capitol Bldg)
But you wouldn’t be wrong the other way ’round, either.
“It will make a huge difference since Arizona and Texas have been bussing illegal immigrants to D.C.”
It will either make no difference at all, or a positive difference, because it’s impossible for any change to make DC more leftist than it already is.
I don’t believe you should be able to vote unless you are a NET taxpayer. If you take more out of the system than you put in, you should have a bit of say.
I agree. Unfortunately the constitution explicitly bans such restrictions, courtesy of the 24th amendment. So enacting such a ban would require another amendment, which is very difficult to do. The 24th must have seemed to the public like a good idea at the time; then again, so did the 19th.
then again, so did the 19th.
Bless your heart.
disabled vets like me may have something to say about that.
Non-citizens voting in local elections is valid because they pay taxes and so should have some say; the presumption is that they’re long-term residents though.
The free-stuff-for-themselves problem isn’t unique to aliens.
Licit revenue or migrated capital funds?
Show me that local legal alien voting has no cross over into national political decisions. Voting and citizenship are linked.
Who says they’re linked? And what crossover could it have? They still won’t be able to vote in presidential elections. And nobody in DC can vote in congressional elections.
They still can’t legally vote in Presidential elections. That is quite obviously NOT what alaskabob was talking about.
And DC residents most certainly CAN vote in congressional elections – they have a non-voting Representative in Congress.
Those who would vote illegally already do so. Allowing them to vote legally in local elections won’t change that.
And no, Eleanor Norton is NOT a Representative. She’s a non-member to whom the House has granted certain privileges.
Note, “He is not a member of Congress”.
Allowing them to vote legally in local elections won’t change that.
Oh, c’mon! You know it most certainly will make it harder to find those illegal votes unless the ballots are entirely separate. Even then it becomes much easier to “accidentally” slip an illegal alien both ballots instead of only the one they’re allowed to vote on.
The ballots are separate. Or they’ll have to print separate ones. And you can’t “accidentally” slip an illegal alien both ballots, at least not often enough for it to make any difference. Poll workers have to account for all ballots, and reconcile their records at the end of the day. The number of ballots you started with must equal the number of ballots from your table that were cast, plus the number returned and voided, plus the number you spoiled and voided, plus the number left over. A difference of one or two over the course of the whole day can be papered over, but not a significant difference.
No, you must be a citizen of the United States, this is insane
I agree, but they should at least have to be legal residents.
As I understand it, the law even allows foreign diplomats to vote.
No. Only citizens should vote, as there is an assumption they do not have allegiances contrary to the locality. (Yes, I know that isn’t what it once was, either.) If you aren’t an actual citizen/subject of the locality you should never be allowed to influence how they do things. You aren’t “one of them” so you have no business interfering.
(I’m using “locality” and such to make the statement universal. There are obvious differences between “local” and “state” and “national” in our country, as concerns citizenship and residence.)
We are already well into the process of making the votes of citizens, born or naturalized, worthless and pointless. Vote fraud has decided the last two national elections with no resistance. “Ballots” can always be manufactured and inserted into the system in such a way as to overwhelm the actual votes of living, breathing citizens.
Allowing hostile foreign invaders to further devalue the votes of citizens is just another step along the path of finally removing even the pretense that those not of the Nomenklatura of both soganannte parties have any say in how they are ruled. The questions that remain are what will be the nature of the new Social Contract that will arise to replace the Constitution and its history, and how that Social Contract will be imposed.
Everything you have said is true. I have often been saddened that there has been such low energy out of a few, like Mike Lindell, to try to do anything about the cheating.
Even here so many doubters about cheating, I almost lose my mind because the caliber of people here, not only the Professor and his colleagues is so high, but the commentators.
Blows my mind because without valid voting, there is no country and everything else is secondary to that
We can’t do anything without proof. It’s not like you have any.
Anyone taxed. Anyone, anywhere taxed.
Last one to leave the water closet, be sure to jiggle the handle.
Voters without borders.
Read the Constitution much? The District has no autonomy. It is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Congress.
Congress has allowed certain powers of Govt to be carried out by local officials but Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws at will. Further, the District’s elected government exists at the pleasure of Congress and can be revoked at any time.
Time to revoke it
The District has autonomy, granted by the Home Rule Act. Just because it isn’t in the constitution doesn’t make it not real. Revoking it would require a new statute to be passed by both houses and signed by the president; unless and until that happens, DC autonomy is the supreme law of the land, as the constitution puts it.
Ummmm, no. While the Home Rule Act delegates authority to DC, it still doesn’t have actual autonomy. It is NOT a state, no matter how much they wish it were.
No, it’s not a state, nobody claims it is. But the Home Rule it has is autonomy. And that autonomy is the supreme law of the land unless and until Congress decides to change it.
No, Milhouse, that “autonomy” is a delegation by Congress.
The Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and says Congress ultimately runs DC.
Once again, you’re letting pedantry obscure the argument being made:
The politicians in DC are claiming they can run their own town, as if it’s a fiefdom of their own; but their authority is only a grant (unlike the states) from Congress. It is wholly within the hands of Congress. They can play at running their town, but that town ultimately belongs to Congress.
Hence, they are not autonomous and Congress is not in any way usurping said “autonomy”.
The constitution says federal statutes are the supreme law of the land. Such as the Home Rule Act. So DC has autonomy. That it’s created by statute doesn’t change that fact.
And they didn’t say Congress is “usurping” their autonomy, they said it’s “undermining” it. Which it is. Naturally, they don’t like it. Let them not like it.
This is incorrect. It passed back in November, but all DC laws must be transmitted to Congress, which then has 30 days, excluding weekends, holidays, and congressional adjournments or recesses that are of at least 3 days or are sine die.
The act was transmitted to the House on January 10, so the 30 days expired on February 23. But the Senate didn’t get it until January 30, so their 30 days don’t run out until March 14. DC jumped the gun in announcing that it has become law; the senate still has two weeks to act, though it’s not likely to.
The other DC act that’s up for congressional review is an insane reform of its criminal code, which might as well have been drafted by a committee of career criminals. Such bills require 60 days’ review instead of the usual 30, and Joe Manchin has announced that he will vote against it, when and if it comes up in the senate. So it depends when Schumer decides to bring it up; if he does it while Fetterman is out, it will fail, 50-49 (assuming all other Dems vote for it, and all Reps vote against). So he will try to delay the vote until Fetterman comes back, but he may not be able to. And then we will see whether Biden vetoes it.
which might as well have been drafted by a committee of career criminals
Ummmm, Milhouse, it was DC politicians, so….
Shows ballots are more important to Marxists than votes
We owe illegal aliens just one gift from the American taxpayers. A Happy Meal, map and a compass so they can start walking home. Their home where they are free, some required, to vote in their elections.
Now, must those thirty days be consecutive?
They’re not consecutive. They exclude weekends and holidays, and days on which both houses have recessed or adjourned for at least three days or sine die.
This law is patently unconstitutional and should be immediately challenged in court
No, it is not unconstitutional. Not only is there nothing in the constitution against it, but in the early days of the Republic it was quite common for aliens to be allowed to vote in local elections.
But it is not a law yet, because the senate’s 30 days of review have not yet expired.
We ask them to stand up against any attempts to undermine the autonomy of the District and the democratic rights of DC residents!
The attempts to “undermine autonomy” are in accord with the actual Constitution as refers to D.C. You don’t have “autonomy.” And your residents don’t have “democratic” rights, they have the rights of citizens in a republic.
So, you are wrong on every count.
Also, isn’t opening up voting to someone essentially making them citizens? Does D.C. have the authority to do so? It’s not a state (where we could argue there is some authority for making citizens). And otherwise the federal gov’t currently has the authority to do that.
They do have autonomy. The Home Rule Act gives them that. Congress could take it away again, but unless and until it does so they have it.
And Congress exercising its unquestioned right to veto their proposed laws does tend to “undermine” that autonomy. It doesn’t contradict it, because it’s a condition of that autonomy in the first place, but it undermines it. That doesn’t make it wrong.
And no, allowing aliens to vote doesn’t make them citizens. At most it recognizes that they are citizens of the city, which is what “citizen” really means. That doesn’t make them citizens of the state (in the cases of other cities that have done this) or of the USA.
But really it doesn’t even do that; there’s no reason citizenship and voting have to be linked. Many citizens can’t vote, so clearly they’re not linked. If citizenship doesn’t come with a franchise, then why should a franchise come with citizenship? They are two separate things that happen to usually coincide, but not always.
Here’s another thought. I am aware of countries where, if you own property and therefore pay taxes in multiple cities, you can vote in local elections in all of them. As far as I know no state in the USA allows that, but there’s no reason they shouldn’t.
there’s no reason citizenship and voting have to be linked
They’re intrinsically linked, Milhouse. By definition, you’re allowing an alien to direct your municipality – someone who has no responsibility to it. While it might have been done in some places, it is idiotic and violates the very concept of citizenship – that you are a member of that body politic and should have a say in its governance. They don’t usually coincide, they always coincide in the one direction.
But it is a link in only direction. Just because some have been denied the franchise while being citizens does NOT invalidate the idea that only citizens should have the franchise. It’s a logical fallacy to believe that. No one but a member of that polity (defined as “citizenship”) should be exercising any influence on how it’s run.
You can argue that owning property and paying taxes makes you a member of the polity. Generally, America has not used that criteria in modern times. The reason is a fundamentally American one: we don’t belong to the rest of the world. We don’t even allow “international law”* to rule us, except where we have agreed by a super-majority in the states’ representative chamber after initial agreement by the executive branch.
(* Though, a great many of our leaders are progressives, making them globalists, and they continually attempt to undermine that independence.)
became a U.S. citizen after nearly two decades of living and working in the country.
let that sentence sink in.
We are merely the servants of the citizens of the world.
Plus, of course, overlords brokering our services to those other folks for private jet rides and carrying charges.
We should be grateful to them.