Boston weighs giving NON CITIZENS the right to vote

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places.

Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.

would that be local elections or national?
Maryland allows it in some towns but only for local issues.

It can only be local.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

would that be local elections or national? Maryland allows it in some towns but only for local issues.

They would have been local elections, not national.

I did mention local elections snake and if you knew it was that way why weren't you more specific? are you trying to troll?

You are such a goofus, rebflake. My prior examples were local. Nothing was said about national, except you. You asked me, I corrected you, you virtual signaler, and that's it.

Where exactly did you identify it was local elections?
"Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places. Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s"
You didn't know if it was national or local until I mentioned it to you.

Where did I say national elections, rebflake? You do this all the time. You try to set a trap and then step into it. And what point are you trying to make? I doubt you know.

You said
Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places. Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.

You could have wrote
Non citizens have voted in local elections legally since the 1790s in various places. Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.
Which you would have been correct but you didn't you said American ELECTIONS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places.

Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.

would that be local elections or national?
Maryland allows it in some towns but only for local issues.

It can only be local.

Which I pointed out unlike jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

rebflake, you are the boss of no one. No where did I say "national" elections. Local elections in the US are "American" elections. You can't even set a trap correctly.

 

[MindWars]

Boston weighs giving legal, non-US citizens voting rights | Boston.com

Guess they are tired of doing the hard work of finding the illegals to come and vote so now they want to legalize allowing NON CITIZENS to vote...not like commiechusetts can get any worse anyways.

They are basically telling the idiots of society they will be cheating. NON CITZENS WILL VOTE you true American Democrats better wake the fk up you stupid azz sob's!!!!!

 

[Unkotare]

Non-U.S. citizens living in the country legally may one day be allowed to vote in Boston elections." How terrible. Legal aliens having a say in the goings on in the CITY they reside. How is that in any way bad? They pay the same taxes, have to deal with the same problems and they did it legally, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote in city elections?

Incrementalism butt-wipe. Next, it's the State elections, Then federal. Talk about disenfranchisement. Can I go to Mexico on my next vacation and vote there? **** no!

No, but for instance my American wife can vote in my city elections (I'm Belgian). She can't vote on the federal level. Nobody here bats an eye. I have a question. Why does it seem to me that Republicans go out of their way to make voting as exclusive and difficult as possible?" Land of the free" rings very hollow when curtailing freedoms is so high on the policies list.

Everyone who gives half a shit what Belgium does with its elections, raise your hand.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Boston weighs giving legal, non-US citizens voting rights | Boston.com

Guess they are tired of doing the hard work of finding the illegals to come and vote so now they want to legalize allowing NON CITIZENS to vote...not like commiechusetts can get any worse anyways.

Is there something in the water up there. Could be the Commies have taken over the whole state.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Blacks are leaving the democrat Party in droves and they've already registered every dead person. If not Illegals, who's left to vote democrat?

People from Canada.

 

[Moonglow]

Boston weighs giving legal, non-US citizens voting rights | Boston.com

Guess they are tired of doing the hard work of finding the illegals to come and vote so now they want to legalize allowing NON CITIZENS to vote...not like commiechusetts can get any worse anyways.

Your comments don't jibe with the story,,did you forget to read the article?


The City Council is holding a hearing Tuesday on the idea at the request of Council President Andrea Campbell. The council is considering ways to make city elections more inclusive, including allowing immigrants with legal status in the country the right to vote in municipal races.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

They would have been local elections, not national.

I did mention local elections snake and if you knew it was that way why weren't you more specific? are you trying to troll?

You are such a goofus, rebflake. My prior examples were local. Nothing was said about national, except you. You asked me, I corrected you, you virtual signaler, and that's it.

Where exactly did you identify it was local elections?
"Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places. Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s"
You didn't know if it was national or local until I mentioned it to you.

Where did I say national elections, rebflake? You do this all the time. You try to set a trap and then step into it. And what point are you trying to make? I doubt you know.

You said
Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places. Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.

You could have wrote
Non citizens have voted in local elections legally since the 1790s in various places. Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.
Which you would have been correct but you didn't you said American ELECTIONS

It was wrong then and is wrong now. Legal or not. Elections are for American. Period. Don't care where you came from or family came from you rejected your country to become Americans. I should say that Slaves did not have the right because they were property not seen as human by people in the South, some who disagreed with it. My family hated the slave thing so much they or most of them moved North as a group and bought slaves on the way to turn them into freemen in the North. Freedom comes slowly for some people, but they vote more than white people.

 

[harmonica]

dumbasses....whoever thought that up needs to be booted out of the US --NOW

 

[bigrebnc1775]

rebflake, you are the boss of no one. No where did I say "national" elections. Local elections in the US are "American" elections. You can't even set a trap correctly.

You said AMERICAN electionS careful how you backstep away from your mistake.
Normal people would have said local elections if that was what they were talking about.
Admit it you were trying to be misleading.

 

[fncceo]

Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places.

Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.

would that be local elections or national?
Maryland allows it in some towns but only for local issues.

In all elections, voting is managed on a local level. If illegals are allowed to vote in local election, nothing will stop them from voting in national elections.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Non citizens have voted in American elections legally since the 1790s in various places.

Indianola and Galveston and San Antonio allowed German and Irish immigrants to vote before naturalization into the 1850s.

would that be local elections or national?
Maryland allows it in some towns but only for local issues.

In all elections, voting is managed on a local level. If illegals are allowed to vote in local election, nothing will stop them from voting in national elections.

Think of it this way we could all go to California and vote.imagine the political shift if that happened.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Blacks are leaving the democrat Party in droves and they've already registered every dead person. If not Illegals, who's left to vote democrat?

Jakestarkey

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb is unhappy that he failed once again in his arguments, which is not unusual at all. He is misleading in misconstruing my comments but has failed.

American elections are just that: Americans voting. In this case, local governments have and are considered giving legal non-citizens the right to vote locally on certain issues.

Historically, we find in Judicial Watch, "The United States also has a long history of noncitizen voting at the local, state and national levels. Aylsworth (1931) notes that “during the nineteenth century, the laws and constitutions of at least twenty-two states and territories granted aliens the right to vote.” From the founding of the Republic to the early 20th century, various territories and states enfranchised noncitizen residents for several reasons." http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...tizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf

 

[longknife]

Boston weighs giving legal, non-US citizens voting rights | Boston.com

Guess they are tired of doing the hard work of finding the illegals to come and vote so now they want to legalize allowing NON CITIZENS to vote...not like commiechusetts can get any worse anyways.

This is the only thing that must be followed when it comes to voting at all levels {My bold for emphasis]

The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Non-U.S. citizens living in the country legally may one day be allowed to vote in Boston elections." How terrible. Legal aliens having a say in the goings on in the CITY they reside. How is that in any way bad? They pay the same taxes, have to deal with the same problems and they did it legally, so why shouldn't they be allowed to vote in city elections?

Incrementalism butt-wipe. Next, it's the State elections, Then federal. Talk about disenfranchisement. Can I go to Mexico on my next vacation and vote there? **** no!

No, but for instance my American wife can vote in my city elections (I'm Belgian). She can't vote on the federal level. Nobody here bats an eye. I have a question. Why does it seem to me that Republicans go out of their way to make voting as exclusive and difficult as possible?" Land of the free" rings very hollow when curtailing freedoms is so high on the policies list.

We have a constitution. Have your wife read it to you!

Funny. I've actually read the constitution. I see absolutely nothing that prohibits anyone voting in city elections. In fact the constitution says absolutely nothing about voting on the local level. Even more, by the original constitution if you are a woman you wouldn't be allowed to vote either. Thankfully, later politicians recognized that the constitution wasn't the bible.

There is an amendment process! It is long and drawn out! Go for it!

Just need 5 justices to amend the Constitution

 

[longknife]

Incrementalism butt-wipe. Next, it's the State elections, Then federal. Talk about disenfranchisement. Can I go to Mexico on my next vacation and vote there? **** no!

No, but for instance my American wife can vote in my city elections (I'm Belgian). She can't vote on the federal level. Nobody here bats an eye. I have a question. Why does it seem to me that Republicans go out of their way to make voting as exclusive and difficult as possible?" Land of the free" rings very hollow when curtailing freedoms is so high on the policies list.

We have a constitution. Have your wife read it to you!

Funny. I've actually read the constitution. I see absolutely nothing that prohibits anyone voting in city elections. In fact the constitution says absolutely nothing about voting on the local level. Even more, by the original constitution if you are a woman you wouldn't be allowed to vote either. Thankfully, later politicians recognized that the constitution wasn't the bible.

There is an amendment process! It is long and drawn out! Go for it!

Just need 5 justices to amend the Constitution

The Justices DO NOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. They can only rule on whether or not a LAW is constitutional. And that can be overturned simply by Congress passing a new law and the President enacting it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, but for instance my American wife can vote in my city elections (I'm Belgian). She can't vote on the federal level. Nobody here bats an eye. I have a question. Why does it seem to me that Republicans go out of their way to make voting as exclusive and difficult as possible?" Land of the free" rings very hollow when curtailing freedoms is so high on the policies list.

We have a constitution. Have your wife read it to you!

Funny. I've actually read the constitution. I see absolutely nothing that prohibits anyone voting in city elections. In fact the constitution says absolutely nothing about voting on the local level. Even more, by the original constitution if you are a woman you wouldn't be allowed to vote either. Thankfully, later politicians recognized that the constitution wasn't the bible.

There is an amendment process! It is long and drawn out! Go for it!

Just need 5 justices to amend the Constitution

The Justices DO NOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. They can only rule on whether or not a LAW is constitutional. And that can be overturned simply by Congress passing a new law and the President enacting it.

Simplistic. Congress can pass a law re-segregating public education by race, the President will sign it, and SCOTUS will say "no".