• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by redleghunter, Mar 9, 2019.

  1. NW82

    NW82 Quote scripture or your argument is invalid.

    738
    +453
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    US-Libertarian
    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; the key point there is that this only applies to citizens not illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, Title 18 of the U. S. Code is the main criminal code of the federal government of the United States. 18 U.S. Code § 611:

    (a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—
    (1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;
    (2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
    (3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.
    (b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
    (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if—
    (1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);
    (2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and
    (3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

    The key point here is the Federal Government, specifically the US House is what the OP is talking about, not individual States. Regardless of what State, it is illegal for a noncitizen to vote in any Federal election, as laid out in Title 18, Section 611.
     
  2. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +2,320
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    The key point here is that the Republicans wanted to add a amendment saying “It is the sense of Congress that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States Citizens.” There is nothing in the bill that would have made it legal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, so it's pretty obvious it was in reference to several local jurisdictions letting non-citizens vote.
     
  3. Arcangl86

    Arcangl86 Newbie

    +2,320
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Green
    Except there is no change. All that happened is that Democrats rejected an amendment that would have been nothing more then a statement that Congress felt that giving the franchise to any illegal immigrants eroded the voting rights of US citizens. It's illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, and nothing in this bill changes that. It was strictly symbolic and aimed at several states who expanded the franchise to non-citizens for local elections, which is their right.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. SinoBen

    SinoBen Active Member

    253
    +99
    Australia
    Christian
    Married
    What kind? Half the country who voted for those on that side of the isle. Not realising this is just one scheme of the globalists, that's big picture.
     
  5. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor Supporter

    +2,170
    Catholic
    Married
    That isn't correct. The article from the OP states: "But Republicans had hoped to send a message to localities such as San Francisco, where noncitizens are now allowed to vote in school board elections."

    "It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican."

    This, we can see that the point of the OP was voting in state elections.
     
  6. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +12,693
    Christian
    Married
    Well...since the Republicans were convicted because of evidence I'm curious where the evidence of all those "crimes" Sec. Clinton committed got to? :scratch:
    tulc(is just curious) :wave:
     
  7. tulc

    tulc loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

    +12,693
    Christian
    Married
    Evidently they learned some things when they moved to America, because it started here, not there. :wave:
    tulc(just thought that should be pointed out) :)
     
  8. jgarden

    jgarden Senior Veteran

    +1,420
    Methodist
    House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting

    Perhaps the OP would care to cite a source more reputable than "The Washington Times!"

    The Washington Times
    *************************************
    - founded on May 17, 1982, by Unification movement leader Sun Myung Moon and owned until 2010 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate founded by Moon
    - currently owned by Operations Holdings, which is owned by the Unification movement
    - throughout its history, The Washington Times has been known for its conservative political stance

    - drawn controversy for publishing racist content, including commentary and conspiracy theories about United States president Barack Obama and support for neo-Confederatism
    - has published material promoting Islamophobia
    ]- has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change, as well as ozone depletion and second-hand smoke

    - 2002, at an event held to celebrate The Washington Times' 20th anniversary, Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."

    - when The Washington Times began it had 125 reporters, 25% of them Unification Church members
    - former employees, including have insisted that The Washington Times was always under Moon's control
    - editorial staffs have either been released or resigned on protest, charging that the top officials of the Unification movement stifled editorial criticism of political repression in South Korea

    - 1991, Moon said he had spent between $900 million and $1 billion on The Washington Times and by 2002 that had risen to $1.7 billion - $2 billion
    - after 33 years, The Washington Times finally had its first profitable month in September 2015 although its prime purpose was not to make money but for the Unification Church to influence decisions in Washington

    - "The Washington Times is like no major city daily in America in the way that it wears its political heart on its sleeve. No major paper in America would dare be so partisan." (The Columbia Journalism Review, 1995)

    -
    "The Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal leanings of The Washington Post ..." (The Washington Post, 2002)

    - "There is even a daily newspaper—The Washington Times—published strictly for the (conservative) movement's benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries." (Harper's Magazine, 2008)

    The Washington Times - Wikipedia
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. NW82

    NW82 Quote scripture or your argument is invalid.

    738
    +453
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    US-Libertarian
    You literally just told me that everything I quoted from Title 18 of the US Code and the Constitution was incorrect. I suggest you look it up.
     
  10. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor Supporter

    +2,170
    Catholic
    Married
    No, I didn't. I simply showed that the OP was about states allowing non-citizens to vote on local issues, exactly we US code says they can. The Republicans want this stopped and claim the House voted in favor of illegal immigrants voting.
     
  11. AACJ

    AACJ Please Pray

    +968
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  12. AACJ

    AACJ Please Pray

    +968
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    Demacrats understand that any Dem victory at the local level can only further any possible goal or agenda pertaining to state and federal elections. Baby steps. Is that not how a society normally progresses in its lawmaking concerning controversial issues. Start off small and hope to end big?

    One small victory in sanctioning the participation in the voting process for non-US citizens makes the idea seem more reasonable to the masses. Once people are used to illegals voting for members of a city's Board of Education, then it is easier to push the envelope a little further. And of course Dems cloak such agenda under the guise of fair treatment of all.

    Unfortunately, such allowance even at the local level, to some degree, actually serves to undermine the main reasons for establishing and maintaining a lawful system whereby foreign nationals obtain legal citizenship and are not permitted to cross into the US illegally. After all, some of the same reasons that Dems give for allowing illegals to vote for members of a city's Board of Education can also be applied to an argument allowing illegals to vote for the office of the President. For exmple, Dems claiming that illegals should be allowed to vote for members of a city's Board of Education because they supposedly should have a say in the education their children receive in the US can then claim that illegals should be able to vote in presidential elections because ultimately the president will pass laws effecting their children, and surely they should have a right to influence such laws since they will affect their children.

    But it seems to me that giving the voting rights that belong to US Citizens to non US-citizens serves, to some degree, to legitimize foreign nationals crossing illegally into the US and therefore serves to ultimately support the leftist agenda of open borders. In addition, it is both undermining and a contradiction to require a school board member to be a US citizen but then allow the installment of that school board member by the votes of non-US citizens. So any proposed law pertaining to illegals voting in the US must be examined in light of the real and larger agendas that work for an open border and making it legal for non-US citizens to vote in both state and federal elections.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  13. NW82

    NW82 Quote scripture or your argument is invalid.

    738
    +453
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    US-Libertarian
    The issue is that the federal government, specifically the house, did vote in favor of of this. It's a political ploy, to garner support. Why did a federal entity even have to vote on this when the law already allows states to do so? Do you see the difference? That and most conservatives want people to follow the law. Illegals break the law, by definition, so why is that OK?
     
  14. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor Supporter

    +2,170
    Catholic
    Married
    The House did not vote to allow illegal immigrants to vote. The claim made in the OP is a lie and does not exist in HR 1.
    A ploy of the right wing to give misinformation about the Bill.
    Nothing in this Bill changes or effects that law.
    Liberals and moderates also want people to follow the law. The voting rights law allows states to allow non-citizens to vote on local issues. HR 1 changes nothing about that but Dan Crenshaw wanted to add a provision about illegal immigrants which would have gone against title 18 you mentioned which allows states to allow non-citizens to vote on local issues.
     
  15. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,306
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Only citizens can vote in Federal elections, so it wouldn't matter.

    It's funny how republicans are in favor of states' rights, until they have control of the federal government,.
     
  16. EpiscipalMe

    EpiscipalMe Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,288
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Married
    There is no way the Republicans were going to vote in favor of the law even with the amendment. Political games.
     
  17. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,902
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I'm afraid that's a straight up falsehood.
    Here is a transcript of the FBI director admitting Clinton felonies and perjury.

    Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?”
    Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

    Gowdy:”Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?”
    Comey: “There was classified material emailed.”

    Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?”
    Comey: “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

    Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?”
    Comey: “No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”

    There is a mountain of evidence against Hillary. Maybe one day the Republicans will have the courage to enforce the law EQUALLY.
     
  18. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,306
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Barbarian observes:
    Just one problem. Evidence. There isn't any.



    Well, let's take a look...


    Trey Gowdy sums up his investigation:

    During a press conference following the release of his committee’s final report on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) refused to say that Hillary Clinton “lied” about her role in its aftermath.

    Asked by one reporter if T-shirts and bumper stickers that read “Hillary Clinton Lied, People Died” are “true,” Gowdy replied, “You don’t see that T-shirt on me, and you don’t see that bumper sticker on any of my vehicles.” Asked more directly if he thinks she “lied,” Gowdy said, “That’s a word you couldn’t use in a courtroom.”

    He urged reporters to read the full report before drawing any conclusions about Clinton’s actions.
    Benghazi Committee Head Trey Gowdy Won’t Say ‘Hillary Lied’

    And there you are. Unless you think Trey Gowdy is lying for Hillary Clinton, there's nothing there. Is that what you want us to believe?
     
  19. KWCrazy

    KWCrazy Newbie

    +1,902
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Trey Gowdy doesn't have to say Hillary lied. Your hero Comey proved it conclusively enough to convict anyone if there were actually equal justice. Must because Gowdy is a southern gentleman who presents the facts and lets others conclude (as any experienced prosecutor does) it doesn't change the fact that your queen is a criminal. If the rule of law is EVER restored in America she has much to answer for.
     
  20. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,306
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    More to the point, he finally had to admit that she didn't break any laws. He spent over a year, trying to make it happen. And he's a very competent prosecutor. So there you are.

    It's time for you to come to terms with the world as it actually is.

    If you spent less time, trying to imagine what other people think, and more time checking out the evidence, you'd do a lot better here. Comey might well have been the deciding factor in the election, when he announced Clinton was under investigation, only to later announce she hadn't broken any laws. And Trump's own Justice Department Inspector General confirms the fact, even while criticizing Comey's mishandling of the case:

    A report by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog found no political bias in the conduct of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and account, but it offers a scathing condemnation of how former FBI Director James Comey and other FBI employees handled aspects of the investigation, including extensive violations of Justice Department rules and protocols.

    The report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz is a blow to both Comey and President Trump, who have fought a protracted battle in the press since the president abruptly fired Comey in May 2017. For Comey, the report is a harsh indictment of his judgment and decision-making that tarnishes his long career in law enforcement. The report also criticizes former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and several other Justice Department officials.

    Yet the report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable. Trump has positioned himself to dismiss these findings, however. The president has repeatedly said that the Justice Department is a hive of political conspiracy against him.
    Watchdog Report Dismantles Trump Claims, but Slams Comey and the FBI


    It's the fact that the Trump administration is likely to undergo the same treatment, that has you worked up. What goes around, comes around.

    You really do spend an inordinate amount of time, imagining ideas for other people, don't you? I'm just noting that the extraordinary attempts by the republicans to find something, anything, that might stick against Clinton, came up short. On the other hand, I've lost track of the number of Trump people indicted, convicted, or pleading guilty. These numbers are one of the key differences between the Obama administration and the kindergarten currently in the WH.

    Seems to be working very well. In spite of years of effort and tens of millions of our tax dollars, the republicans were unable to gin up any crimes Hillary committed. And in a much shorter time, Mueller has managed to take out a large number of Trump criminals.

    Learn to live with the facts.
     
Loading...