Is NYC no longer part of the United States of America?
That is true at no level in prior American history. It is also nuts!!
You can bet your sweet ass on that one. The objections will come from real Americans, like myself, for whom citizenship means everything and foreigners do not vote in ANY American elections.
You cannot seriously have written such nonsense as that! This is a Constitutional matter, not some family vacation!
Oh, so that has now become the new red line, to which we just moved one step closer? What drivel.
You have been co-opted by the left but remain oblivious to that fact. Good luck with the future you are in process of creating for yourself, your young, and your once great country, the United States of America! I wonder when/if you ever will awaken to what the left is seeking incrementally to create. For certain, if you ever do come to your senses, it will be far too late to remediate the situation!!
States have different rules regarding convicted felons being able to vote. All states have varying residency criteria to allow or disallow someone from voting. I’m pretty sure school districts have varying rules as to who can vote, too. And yes, there are already other cities that allow all city residents to vote - NYC would just be the largest to do so. So yes, it is true.
Besides, I only said at some level, as in, there is a rational argument to be made whether I agree with it or not. What’s irrational is you or I thinking we get to dictate who is allowed to vote for some other city’s mayor.
You mean it’s a city charter matter. Possibly a State Constitution matter. It is in no way a US Constitutional matter.
You really need to simmer down. Your ranting is no better than those you are ranting about.
EDIT:
I found this article
From the founding of the country until 1926, 40 states at various points allowed noncitizens to vote in local, state and federal elections, said Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at San Francisco State University, who has written about this issue. Noncitizens could not only vote, but also hold office.
and
While Congress in 1996 prohibited noncitizens from voting in federal elections, state constitutions vary on the matter.
So when you say “at no level in prior American history”, you meant “At the Federal level in the past 25 years”?
I agree with you, but this time you are the one rewriting history to make up a justification for your position.
So you’re OK with someone who is in the country illegally and breaking our laws gets to vote in our elections? I do not agree. A country without borders is not a country.
So what! That has nothing whatsoever to do with voting by persons who are not American citizens.
Again, same thing. Those varying requirements all pertain to citizens. I made, and I make, no issue with either of the above. In both instances you are attempting to conflate two unrelated things.
Ditto. Also irrelevant.
So that makes it right in your eyes? Sorry. Two or more wrongs do not make a right.
There is not. Only left wing radicals buy into such thinking as this.
Not at all. There is one standard, an American standard. Millions of Americans have worked and sacrificed very hard over many years to become citizens and earn the right to vote. Nobody, and especially not left wing crazies, has the right simply to give that privilege away for nothing. And your attempted defense of them is as odious as are they themselves. Instead of standing up for left wing radical thinkers you should reconsider and stand tall for traditional American freedom and liberty.
Look who is talking. Your defense of the left is intolerable and wild.
Extremism in the defenseoflibertyisnovice . And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
I’m not ok with anyone who is in the country illegally doing anything except getting deported. But this doesnt involve our elections, it involves their elections. Unless you live in NYC, you’re just observing.
Councilman Steve Matteo (R-Staten Island) said, “Forget the fact that this bill is not likely to withstand a legal challenge, it diminishes the value of citizenship by giving away the right to vote to a broad swath of non-citizens, including some who have had their deportations stayed by a judge and given work authorizations as a technical matter, or others who are here to work and have no interest in becoming US citizens.”
I included information that makes it pretty clear you need to reconsider what you are calling “traditional”. It was only 25 years ago that the Federal government prohibited non-citizens from voting in Federal elections.
Dude, I explicitly said that I agree with you. But it’s your mindless dilusions about fake historical standard that makes the other side look like the reasonable ones, and I dont want them to come off as the reasonable ones. All I said was they do have a rational argument.
Last I checked, New York City is part of the United States. The US constitution says control of our borders is a national issue. New York City and for that matter New York State cannot set up their own immigration policy. Voting is a right reserved by the constitution for United States citizens.
There is nothing whatsoever dilute about my thinking processes. They are rock-ribbed and go way back. Or did you mean delusions?
And any mindlessness is self-evidently on your side as your own lack of resoluteness shines through.
Finally, thanks for the compliment. But it is simply outside the ability of myself or anyone else to make leftist loonies appear reasonable. I do not know how to do that, and unlike yourself I’m unwilling to give it a try.
No, it is not. The US Constitution in no way shape or form remotely tries to even imply that only US citizens can vote in local elections. Congress even had to make it illegal for non-citizens to vote in Federal elections, and that happened 25 years ago.
Which is a separate matter altogether. I’m pretty sure this new law only includes those who are here legally, anyways.
But what you fail to understand is that when you meet leftists and Marxists half way you lose . . . we all lose. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Absent resolute opposition to their ways of thinking they win, or will, because they are not just inalterably committed to their left wing ideology, they are also extremely patient.
Who’s meeting anyone halfway? I didnt conceed a damn thing, I merely acknowledged that there is a rational argument behind this law. I in no way agreed with it nor adopted it.
From the Constitution of the United States of America:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
I concede the Constitution does not specifically address voting by non-citizens. This is because America’s founding fathers did not foresee the sort of insanity it would require even to consider the question in the first place. The same is true of abortion. America’s founding fathers did not specifically address it because they all knew no rational person would even consider it.
I refuse to condemn our founding fathers over their inability to foresee the multiple sorts of insanities which today infect far too many Americans.
So you are arguing that it is a Consitutional matter because the non-citizens are going to clog the poling places and prevent citizens from casting their votes? Because that’s the only Constitutional argument that has a lick of sanity to it.
Say you think it’s wrong to allow it, and I’ll agree. But dont make up reasons, like claiming it violates the Consitution, why it’s wrong just to defend your opinion.
I did not write that. Show me where it did. That is solely your own straw man.
See above the opinion of glitch99. I do not share his opinion.
Those are hollow words when you write so effusively in defense of the left.
Nothing need be “made up” for me to defend my position. The graveyards of America are replete with traditional Americans who, if only they could return briefly, would stand behind my thinking one hundred percent. I knew many of those people. They would find today’s crop of leftists as insane as do I.
You stated the NYC mayoral election is a Constitutional matter, then quoted the Constitution about not denying citizens their right to vote. There arent many ways to connect those two dots.
…yet you keep making stuff up to defend it.
And in general I think they’re as insane as you do. But in this case they do have a sane argument - I still think it’s wrong, but I can see how they came up with it. As opposed to, say, the whole men deciding that they’re women thing and just expecting everyone to accept it.
And yet you post time after time in defense of the left.
It’s “opposition” like yours that fuels them, buoys them up, and keeps them going. If you are unable to stand resolutely for what you know is right, at least shut up and thereby cease offering the other side succor.
You’ve fallen into that fallacy of “If you dont agree with me 100%, you are 100% against me”. I havent defended anything except for reality. I dont like made-up rhetoric from either side.
Jonathan Turley on New York city allowing illegals to vote. Who knew that New York has more sense than glitch
The first stumbling block is the state constitution itself. N.Y. Const. art. II, § 1 provides that “Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people and upon all questions submitted to the vote of the people provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election.”
The second barrier is the New York state election law, which limits the franchise “in any election” to US citizens:
No person shall be qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he is a citizen of the United States and is or will be, on the day of such election, eighteen years of age or over, and a resident of this state and of the county, city or village for a minimum of thirty days next preceding such election.
Finally, there is Section 23(2)(e) of New York’s Municipal Home Rule Law, along with § 38 of New York City’s charter, which provides that a local law shall be subject to mandatory referendum if it “[a]bolishes an elective office, or changes the method of … electing … an elective officer, or changes the term of an elective office, or reduces the salary of an elective officer during his term of office.” This is a measure coming from the City Council itself, not a referendum.