Allow Illegal Aliens to Vote?

[Seth]

For Seth, a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers-but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

And what he meant was that it was absurd for the states to require a man to own property in order to have the right to vote -- which was typically the case.

I specifically said REAL property, not just "property." Real property or government service, I'd modify that far. But if you live on government money, you don't get to vote, period. Gotta have some skin in the game if you want to make the rules.

[Svartalf]

and I'm pretty sure that the example given works equally well if you replace "seth" by "cabin and garden plot"

[Seth]

Is it wrong that I agree with Tyrannical?

I mean, giving special rights to kids brought in as toddlers, as kids to illegals, feels like a window for all kinds of traffics and fraud, just involving younger people.
Same way, I'd deny citizenship to kids born on the Soil of mothers illegally present there, if only to avoid any kind of anchor baby phenomenon.

The term is "anchor babies," and there is actually a tourist industry revolving around bringing pregnant aliens over here on a tourist visa at term so they can deliver their kids here, making them US citizens.

A simple change in immigration law that would deny citizenship status to any child born in the US to two aliens not here legally as resident aliens would solve that problem.

[Svartalf]

Aliens legally present, if temporarily, don't pose a real problem, unless you feel violated by sharing citizenship with wealthy foreigners like Hindi industrials and saudi princes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Blimey, I agree with ces.

[Coito ergo sum]

Is it wrong that I agree with Tyrannical?

I mean, giving special rights to kids brought in as toddlers, as kids to illegals, feels like a window for all kinds of traffics and fraud, just involving younger people.
Same way, I'd deny citizenship to kids born on the Soil of mothers illegally present there, if only to avoid any kind of anchor baby phenomenon.

Well, I couldn't support, in good conscience, sending a 13 year old to Mexico who had been brought without her consent to the US as a 2 year old. I could certainly see imposing criminal and civil penalties against the parents who committed the offense, though.

[JimC]

Only if the Men in Black say it's OK...

[Coito ergo sum]

New Haven Asks State to Allow Non-Citizens to Vote
New Haven's mayor wants illegal immigrants to be able vote in municipal elections.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/loca ... 69598.html

I go farther - allow non-resident non-citizens to vote! Vote in any election anywhere around the world!

I agree. I really wish I had a vote in the last Vanuatu election...

Vanuatu Prime Minister --

[Coito ergo sum]

Aliens legally present, if temporarily, don't pose a real problem, unless you feel violated by sharing citizenship with wealthy foreigners like Hindi industrials and saudi princes.

Well, those temporarily legally present would not be, by definition, illegal aliens. They'd be legal aliens. They still can't vote, but they're legal.

[Coito ergo sum]

For Seth, a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers-but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?"

And what he meant was that it was absurd for the states to require a man to own property in order to have the right to vote -- which was typically the case.

I specifically said REAL property, not just "property." Real property or government service, I'd modify that far. But if you live on government money, you don't get to vote, period. Gotta have some skin in the game if you want to make the rules.

I think if you have skin, then your skin is in the game. If one is going to be subject to laws, one has the right to have a say in how they are made and who the leaders are. Now, if you want to deprive me of my right to vote, but also make me not subject to the laws of the land, then that would be fair.

[Coito ergo sum]

Only people who pay federal taxes should be allowed to vote, and citizenship shouldn't matter. Good bye Democratic Party :twisted:

The Democrats would just push a law through that provides federal funds to people to pay their federal taxes. Problem solved.

Only those citizens who own real property and pay property taxes should be permitted to vote.

Well, I disagree, and that is certainly not in keeping with the Constitution. I thought you were a strict constructionist.

Anyone who takes any government subsidy AT ALL (yes, including farmers and Social Security retirees) should be prohibited from voting, since there's an inherent bias towards supporting the taxing authority that provides the subsidy.

That doesn't make any sense, since Social Security is more of an insurance plan that you pay into via wages, and you are entitled to it. It's not a subsidy that is means tested, or based on need. You paid in, you get the money. It's not a tax.

Not really. You pay in and it goes directly to someone else, so it's a redistributionist tax levied on the PROMISE that when you retire, someone else will be taxed to support you. Problem is it's inherently unfair, particularly these days, because retirees are living longer and longer and they don't just get what they paid in, they get benefits for LIFE, which means they can get much MORE than they paid in, at someone else's expense. It's a government subsidy paid for by taxing current workers, no matter what you care to call it, and it's a Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained in a world where the retirement class is larger than the working class.

That may or may not accurately describe what the government is ACTUALLY doing with the money, but it isn't what the deal is legally supposed to be.

And, it's o.k. if retirees get more than they paid in. The idea is that interest was to be made on the money, and also that some folks will collect less than they paid in, because they get hit by buses and whatnot before they turn 65.

It's kind of like how some folks pay in to the unemployment compensation fund, but never collect, but others get to collect because they are unemployed. It's a lot like insurance.

And, anyone who takes a tax deduction, like on a home mortgage interest, is effectively getting a subsidy. So, the only persons who'd be voting in your twisted world would be those that own property free and clear.

Wrong. A tax deduction is simply taxes not paid, not a government subsidy. Your argument fails on the premise that all income generated by an individual belongs to the government, and that as a result that income which is not taxed is an income loss to the government and a "subsidy" to the individual. That's a hoary old Democrat/Progressive canard that has no basis in reality or economics.

No, my premise was not that.

A tax deduction says that person X, who makes $50,000, pays more in taxes than person Y, who makes $50,000, but pays a mortgage with interest. To be fair, they both should pay the same. Giving Y a deduction for the mortgage interest is no different than having him pay the full tax, and then writing him a check for the mortgage interest deduction amount.

[Svartalf]

Aliens legally present, if temporarily, don't pose a real problem, unless you feel violated by sharing citizenship with wealthy foreigners like Hindi industrials and saudi princes.

Well, those temporarily legally present would not be, by definition, illegal aliens. They'd be legal aliens. They still can't vote, but they're legal.

Context, I was responding to seth's concerns about childbearing tourism, whereby the children of non resident aliens just happen to be born on US soil.

[Coito ergo sum]

Aliens legally present, if temporarily, don't pose a real problem, unless you feel violated by sharing citizenship with wealthy foreigners like Hindi industrials and saudi princes.

Well, those temporarily legally present would not be, by definition, illegal aliens. They'd be legal aliens. They still can't vote, but they're legal.

Context, I was responding to seth's concerns about childbearing tourism, whereby the children of non resident aliens just happen to be born on US soil.

Simple - just deny visas to pregnant women....

[Svartalf]

and put preggers ladies from visaless countries back on the plane?

[Seth]

and put preggers ladies from visaless countries back on the plane?

Yup, you betcha.