New York will allow non-citizens to vote under controversial law

[Laconia79]

You might want to start your own thread on this because you are so far off topic. I somehow doubt that you are in any position to guess who is going to hell. I doubt that hell has a political preference.

Your right I went on a rant just because I am so sick of the so call conservative Christians wanting to ignore the poor, the needy, the immigrants...Its not your problem, it was what I here, what I heard when I was much younger and ended up on the streets. I actually went to church and I asked for work they chased me off and many have stories like that as for going to hell, there is no guessing. Christ is very clear about those who do not help those in need...you go to hell...would you like scripture.

Proverbs 21:13
Those who shut their ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in their own time of need.

Luke 16:19-31
New International Version

The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

You want some more

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I personally disagree with this. Voting is a right that comes with citizens, and non-citizens should not get to vote. If people want to vote, they need to become citizens IMO

I concur

Agreed to a point, but let's remember that this applies only to local elections.

If you live in a city, work in a city, and pay taxes in a city, you are entitled to some say in what happens in the city... "no taxation without representation," after all...

Well, I think you need to consider the further implications of that...

I work for a company in a city I don't live in, I have to pay their city income taxes, but I understand that I don't get to vote in their elections.

Given that many people from red counties commute to blue cities for their 9-to-5, do you really want everyone else voting in a city's election for things like Mayoral elections and tax policy just because they paid some form of taxation to it?

To give a point of reference, I pay more in city taxes to the major city my company is located in than 90% of the residents do (as do a lot of my co-workers) despite not having set foot in the city since the pandemic since we've been working from home, should we get to go vote for issues pertaining to their city tax codes? For instance, if there's a ballot measure for city park funding that's going to raise the amount they're going to take out of my paycheck, do all of us "commuters" get to go and vote against it?


But I don't think we even need to get that complicated with it pertaining to the logistical flaws or need to beat around the bush here with regards to why NY Democrats are pushing for this policy. They know it pads their votes.

Sometimes the correct answer is the most obvious one. Much like when there was chatter about lowering the voting age to 16. Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the rationale behind that one.

 

[disciple Clint]

Your right I went on a rant just because I am so sick of the so call conservative Christians wanting to ignore the poor, the needy, the immigrants...Its not your problem, it was what I here, what I heard when I was much younger and ended up on the streets. I actually went to church and I asked for work they chased me off and many have stories like that as for going to hell, there is no guessing. Christ is very clear about those who do not help those in need...you go to hell...would you like scripture.

Proverbs 21:13
Those who shut their ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in their own time of need.

Luke 16:19-31
New International Version

The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

You want some more

You have had some unfortunate experiences and your upset because of that. You should start a thread to discuss why Christians are not helping people who need help. By the way only God decides who goes where and He has no political preferences

 

[iluvatar5150]

Are all rights important or just voting rights, do trends in the erosion of some rights indicate an attempt to erode more rights? it should be obvious.

If your contention was so obvious, you should have been able to clearly articulate it by now instead of repeatedly beating around the bush.

 

[disciple Clint]

If your contention was so obvious, you should have been able to clearly articulate it by now instead of repeatedly beating around the bush.

I do not know how much clearer I can be, maybe you have a specific question.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I think you need to consider the further implications of that...

...that's what they said when they considered giving women the vote...

I work for a company in a city I don't live in, I have to pay their city income taxes, but I understand that I don't get to vote in their elections.

How about when you work for a company in a city you do live in?

 

[rambot]

If you aren’t a citizen then you’re a guest in that locale by choice.

If you disagree with how it’s run then you move elsewhere or return home.

If you're a citizen you are there by choice too.
Not sure I follow.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I do not know how much clearer I can be, maybe you have a specific question.

My post 73:
"Care to explain the logic behind the notion that giving voting rights to somebody in one jurisdiction threatens your rights in another jurisdiction?"

My post 90:
"That doesn't answer my question. How do you lose rights in any of this? Where do your rights go?"

My post 113:
"What are you talking about? What does that have to do with you losing rights by allowing people to vote in jurisdictions where you don’t live?"

I've been pretty clear and specific about what I'm asking, but I'll restate it again:

How does affording immigrants the right to vote in municipal elections affect you and your rights when you don't live in the municipalities in which they'd be voting?

None of your responses have constituted anything other than vague innuendo. Do you think these immigrants are going to somehow dilute your rights? Do you believe they will vote away your rights entirely? If so, how? Why? What are the mechanisms by which they would do this and their motivations for doing so?

 

[disciple Clint]

My post 73:
"Care to explain the logic behind the notion that giving voting rights to somebody in one jurisdiction threatens your rights in another jurisdiction?"

My post 90:
"That doesn't answer my question. How do you lose rights in any of this? Where do your rights go?"

My post 113:
"What are you talking about? What does that have to do with you losing rights by allowing people to vote in jurisdictions where you don’t live?"

I've been pretty clear and specific about what I'm asking, but I'll restate it again:

How does affording immigrants the right to vote in municipal elections affect you and your rights when you don't live in the municipalities in which they'd be voting?

None of your responses have constituted anything other than vague innuendo. Do you think these immigrants are going to somehow dilute your rights? Do you believe they will vote away your rights entirely? If so, how? Why? What are the mechanisms by which they would do this and their motivations for doing so?

It set a precedent, it provides a first step in accomplishing the ultimate goal of allowing all non citizens to vote in national elections, of becoming a world of no individual nations. and do you have to ask what the ultimate goal is when you see all the people being allowed to enter our nation from the south? what is the reason for that incursion being encouraged by the liberals? Obviously it is the goal to let everyone vote and the liberals are counting on the fact that they will receive the majority of votes of the non citizens. Is that clearly spelled out now?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It set a president,

precedent -- the "president" is Joe Biden. </grammarpolice>

it provides a first step in accomplishing the ultimate goal of allowing all non citizens to vote in national elections, of becoming a world of no individual nations.

How is this the first step? Seems like the steps leading up to this started a while ago...

and do you have to ask what the ultimate goal is when you see all the people being allowed to enter our nation from the south? what is the reason for that incursion being encouraged by the liberals?

Humanitarianism, perhaps?

Obviously it is the goal to let everyone vote and the liberals are counting on the fact that they will receive the majority of votes of the non citizens. Is that clearly spelled out now?

Like alphabet soup.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It set a president, it provides a first step in accomplishing the ultimate goal of allowing all non citizens to vote in national elections, of becoming a world of no individual nations. and do you have to ask what the ultimate goal is when you see all the people being allowed to enter our nation from the south? what is the reason for that incursion being encouraged by the liberals? Obviously it is the goal to let everyone vote and the liberals are counting on the fact that they will receive the majority of votes of the non citizens. Is that clearly spelled out now?

Yeah, you’re just afraid of immigrants and some one world government conspiracy. You could have saved some time by saying that in the first place.

 

[disciple Clint]

precedent -- the "president" is Joe Biden. </grammarpolice>



How is this the first step? Seems like the steps leading up to this started a while ago...




Humanitarianism, perhaps?



Like alphabet soup.

Thanks for the correction teacher. Sometimes I type way to fast and fail to check my finished product. I think the content was clear.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yeah, you’re just afraid of immigrants and some one world government conspiracy. You could have saved some time by saying that in the first place.

Many previously classified "conspiracy theories" proved to be true when all the facts came out. some of those were a lot less likely than what I have posted. Just something to think about before you summarily dismiss something.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...that's what they said when they considered giving women the vote...

Two totally separate issues...

Comparing women's suffrage to a scenario of non-citizens getting to vote aren't the even in the same ballpark.

Seems like trying to draw that comparison is a somewhat transparent attempt to equate the mindset of a person who doesn't want non-citizens to vote to the nearly-universally despised notion of denying women the right to vote.

Or to put it more plainly, seems like this comparison is trying to imply "people who don't want non-citizens to vote are the same kind of bad people as the sexists of yester-year".

How about when you work for a company in a city you do live in?

Oh, well then you get to vote there...because you're an official citizen of that city.

As noted before, the attempt to allow non-citizens to vote is just as transparent in its intention as the efforts by the GOP to restrict certain types of voting, and when some Democrats were pushing to get the voting age lowered to 16.

Republicans: "Demographic group XYZ doesn't tend to vote for us, so it would make it easier for us if we could make it so fewer of them get to vote"
Democrats: "Demographic group XYZ sides heavily with us, so it would make it easier for us if we could add their numbers to our tally"

Both are scenarios where people are trying to manipulate the system, they're just coming at it from different angles.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Two totally separate issues...

First step off the slippery slope...

Comparing women's suffrage to a scenario of non-citizens getting to vote aren't the even in the same ballpark.

If you say so.

Seems like trying to draw that comparison is a somewhat transparent attempt to equate the mindset of a person who doesn't want non-citizens to vote to the nearly-universally despised notion of denying women the right to vote.

There was a time that notion wasn't despised at all... But the women who fought to change it certainly were.

Or to put it more plainly, seems like this comparison is trying to imply "people who don't want non-citizens to vote are the same kind of bad people as the sexists of yester-year".

Oh, good... I was afraid I was being too subtle.

Oh, well then you get to vote there...because you're an official citizen of that city.

Makes sense to me. What's the problem?

As noted before, the attempt to allow non-citizens to vote is just as transparent in its intention as the efforts by the GOP to restrict certain types of voting, and when some Democrats were pushing to get the voting age lowered to 16.

True, but the democrats have an advantage here -- their transparent efforts will result in giving more rights and freedom to more people, while the GOP's efforts are for less.

Giving the prevailing philosophy and mood of the country, who has the easier job?

Republicans: "Demographic group XYZ doesn't tend to vote for us, so it would make it easier for us if we could make it so fewer of them get to vote"
Democrats: "Demographic group XYZ sides heavily with us, so it would make it easier for us if we could add their numbers to our tally"

Exactly as it was when the 19th Amendment was being debated... except ironically, the roles were reversed.

Both are scenarios where people are trying to manipulate the system, they're just coming at it from different angles.

Once again, exactly as it was when women tried to vote -- the Southern Democrats fought against it tooth and nail, and eventually abandoned a filibuster and finally allowed the vote.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Comparing women's suffrage to a scenario of non-citizens getting to vote aren't the even in the same ballpark.

Why not? People definitely *did* worry about the implications of the female vote. Would women become independent of men? Would they get jobs or credit cards? Would civilization collapse because women wouldn't want to have children? Would cats and dogs live together? Mass hysteria. (Sorry, the last one was from Ghostbusters.)

Resident, non-citizen men had the right to vote in (mostly local) elections in many places in the US *before* women (citizen or not) did.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As noted before, the attempt to allow non-citizens to vote is just as transparent in its intention as the efforts by the GOP to restrict certain types of voting, and when some Democrats were pushing to get the voting age lowered to 16.

Republicans: "Demographic group XYZ doesn't tend to vote for us, so it would make it easier for us if we could make it so fewer of them get to vote"
Democrats: "Demographic group XYZ sides heavily with us, so it would make it easier for us if we could add their numbers to our tally"

But there really isn't much of D v. R issue here. This NYC proposal would only affect NYC local elections, not NY state elections (legislature, gov, etc.). The GOP is so irrelevant in NYC politics that the GOP nominee for mayor was treated like a novelty candidate when he showed up to vote dressed eccentrically and with one of his dozen or so cats nestled inside his jacket. Sufficient to say, he had no chance and the real contest was the Dem primary.

There would, no doubt, be some shifts in the internal power dynamics of NYC politics and the factions that gain no doubt aren't opposed generally to it. The biggest proponents are likely the immigrant communities themselves, where only the adult children of immigrants born here and the naturalized can vote.

Since older people in those communities are more likely to be ineligible, the political leanings of the newer voters might be more conservative than their neighbors.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But there really isn't much of D v. R issue here. This NYC proposal would only affect NYC local elections, not NY state elections (legislature, gov, etc.). The GOP is so irrelevant in NYC politics that the GOP nominee for mayor was treated like a novelty candidate when he showed up to vote dressed eccentrically and with one of his dozen or so cats nestled inside his jacket. Sufficient to say, he had no chance and the real contest was the Dem primary.

There would, no doubt, be some shifts in the internal power dynamics of NYC politics and the factions that gain no doubt aren't opposed generally to it. The biggest proponents are likely the immigrant communities themselves, where only the adult children of immigrants born here and the naturalized can vote.

Since older people in those communities are more likely to be ineligible, the political leanings of the newer voters might be more conservative than their neighbors.

NYC is the same city that elected Rudy Giuliani as their mayor in the not too distant past, correct?

Bloomberg was also their mayor (and not as a Democrat) within the last decade.

So to pretend that the GOP has "no skin in the game" in NYC is a bit of a stretch.

And as you mentioned, there could be some "internal tension" between the two factions of democrats (moderates vs. further left) that could be impacted.

In either case, it's still an attempt to solidify power by changing the rules.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why not? People definitely *did* worry about the implications of the female vote. Would women become independent of men? Would they get jobs or credit cards? Would civilization collapse because women wouldn't want to have children? Would cats and dogs live together? Mass hysteria. (Sorry, the last one was from Ghostbusters.)

Because the arguments around women voting were more rooted in other ideological aspects, and not political factions trying to usurp each other.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you say so.

They are different, for the reasons I mentioned in my reply to the other poster.

One was a case for a group of citizens to rightfully have their voice heard and have a say in their government.

The other is an attempt by a political faction to "pad their stats" so to speak.

There was a time that notion wasn't despised at all... But the women who fought to change it certainly were.

Right, but this isn't that time...and as noted, the motivations were different as were the dynamics.

The historical situation you're describing involves a group fighting for their right to have their voice heard.

This involves a political faction (that already has quite a bit of stroke) trying to bolster their own influence.

To make it an adequate comparison, this would be like if during that historical period, a group said "hey, we know women are typically in line with ideologically, so let's try to get the law changed so they can vote and help us beat our rivals"

But that wasn't the core of the women's suffrage movement.

Oh, good... I was afraid I was being too subtle.

Ah yes, because wanting to keep voting confined to citizens is exactly the same as being an 1800's male chauvinist.

C'mon, you can do better than that.

Makes sense to me. What's the problem?

Nothing if you're a citizen.

True, but the democrats have an advantage here -- their transparent efforts will result in giving more rights and freedom to more people, while the GOP's efforts are for less.

I didn't say that what they're doing is "worse" than what the GOP does. I've been very vocal about those issues surrounding both voter id laws as well as some other common GOP practices like gerrymandering to gain an advantage...I don't like those "rigging" attempts either.

Furthermore, simply "giving more freedoms to more people" doesn't, by default, make it the more ethical position.

The arguments you're making for this could just as easily be applied to 14-16 year olds (who can work in most states), they live there, they get taxes taken out of their check. Should 14 year olds be able to influence public policy?