It's happening

[BPPLEE]

We've been telling you why they want to let all these people into our country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/10/04/dc-council-noncitizen-vote-elections/

The bill, which received a 12-1 vote on first reading Tuesday, would amend the District’s election code and permit all noncitizen residents in D.C., including green-card holders, temporary residents on visas and undocumented immigrants, to vote in local elections, provided they meet the remaining requirements for voting in the District. Qualifying noncitizens would be allowed to vote in all local races, including mayor, attorney general, school board, D.C. Council members and chair, but not federal elections.

 

[wing2000]

We've been telling you why they want to let all these people into our country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/10/04/dc-council-noncitizen-vote-elections/

At what point does a non-citizen, who has been living, working and contributing to our society deserve representation?

This is what happens when you have a broken immigration system and a divided government that is incapable of fixing it.

 

[BPPLEE]

At what point does a non-citizen, who has been living, working and contributing to our society deserve representation?

This is what happens when you have a broken immigration system and a divided government that is incapable of fixing it.

There is a process for immigrating into our country legally and becoming a citizen. It's not fair to the people who did it the right way to give the same privileges to people who came here illegally.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Resident non-citizens have a *long* history of voting in *local* elections in this country. I'm not sure that there has *ever* been a total, nation-wide prohibition on non-citizens voting in local elections.

(This is not elections for national office.)

 

[BPPLEE]

Resident non-citizens have a *long* history of voting in *local* elections in this country. I'm not sure that there has *ever* been a total, nation-wide prohibition on non-citizens voting in local elections.

(This is not elections for national office.)

Well things usually start on a small scale and then spread. I have no problem with non citizens who have legal status voting in local elections if that is what the community members want.

 

[Clare73]

At what point does a non-citizen, who has been living, working and contributing to our society deserve representation?

When the law says he does; i.e., when he gets his citizenship, and not before.

This is what happens when you have a broken immigration system and a divided government that is incapable of fixing it.

Baloney. . .the citizenship laws are not broken.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well things usually start on a small scale and then spread. I have no problem with non citizens who have legal status voting in local elections if that is what the community members want.

And that is what is proposed in the DC council legislation. So what is the problem here if you have no problem with those kind of things?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Resident non-citizens have a *long* history of voting in *local* elections in this country. I'm not sure that there has *ever* been a total, nation-wide prohibition on non-citizens voting in local elections.

(This is not elections for national office.)

I'm not against this but here in California there is only one ballot for national and local. Can't separate one from the other.
Edit: Upon further research, California only allows citizens to vote . So I guess in other states they must seperate it. Interesting, learn something today.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[BPPLEE]

And that is what is proposed in the DC council legislation. So what is the problem here if you have no problem with those kind of things?

Did the citizens get to vote on this proposal?

 

[BPPLEE]

And that is what is proposed in the DC council legislation. So what is the problem here if you have no problem with those kind of things?

The article says it includes undocumented immigrants. Another word for illegal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not against this but here in California there is only one ballot for national and local. Can't separate one from the other.
Edit: Upon further research, California only allows citizens to vote . So I guess in other states they must seperate it. Interesting, learn something today.
Thanks for sharing.

One ballot paper, sure, but there could be multiple versions in the same precinct. I've voted in precincts that had two or more versions, usually because a legislative district sliced through precinct. (City precincts tend to align with wards or municipal electoral districts, but the state legislature has no such compulsion in creating their own districts or US House districts.)

It's also my understanding that much of the vote counting is done by big machines at the county level in California. So there would be many versions of ballots being counted at the counting facility and each would need to be marked with a ballot version to identify it properly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did the citizens get to vote on this proposal?

I assume that you read your own article posting. (I hit a paywall.) But logically it would be the current voters in DC that got to vote on this, just like it was the current voters in various states that voted on whether women could vote (which sometimes passed) or freed slaves could vote (which often failed, hence the amendment to the Constitution).

THat is unless they have a special vote where anyone who lives in DC (say, with a valid DC ID) is allowed to vote. Things like that have happened before, notably in the election of delegates to ratification conventions for the US Constitution. The Philadelphia convention strongly suggested (the could not insist) that the election of delegates to the ratification conventions were open to the widest franchise possible (OK, it was basically free men over 21) overriding the usual property ownership restrictions that many states imposed. Most (if not all) states complied with this expanded franchise for the specific purpose of determining the nature of national government.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm not against this but here in California there is only one ballot for national and local. Can't separate one from the other.
Edit: Upon further research, California only allows citizens to vote . So I guess in other states they must seperate it. Interesting, learn something today.
Thanks for sharing.

There is only one ballot where I live too.

 

[BPPLEE]

I assume that you read your own article posting. (I hit a paywall.) But logically it would be the current voters in DC that got to vote on this, just like it was the current voters in various states that voted on whether women could vote (which sometimes passed) or freed slaves could vote (which often failed, hence the amendment to the Constitution).

THat is unless they have a special vote where anyone who lives in DC (say, with a valid DC ID) is allowed to vote. Things like that have happened before, notably in the election of delegates to ratification conventions for the US Constitution. The Philadelphia convention strongly suggested (the could not insist) that the election of delegates to the ratification conventions were open to the widest franchise possible (OK, it was basically free men over 21) overriding the usual property ownership restrictions that many states imposed. Most (if not all) states complied with this expanded franchise for the specific purpose of determining the nature of national government.

All that's fine but this proposal will allow undocumented immigrants to vote. That's the problem.

 

[BPPLEE]

I assume that you read your own article posting. (I hit a paywall.) But logically it would be the current voters in DC that got to vote on this, just like it was the current voters in various states that voted on whether women could vote (which sometimes passed) or freed slaves could vote (which often failed, hence the amendment to the Constitution).

THat is unless they have a special vote where anyone who lives in DC (say, with a valid DC ID) is allowed to vote. Things like that have happened before, notably in the election of delegates to ratification conventions for the US Constitution. The Philadelphia convention strongly suggested (the could not insist) that the election of delegates to the ratification conventions were open to the widest franchise possible (OK, it was basically free men over 21) overriding the usual property ownership restrictions that many states imposed. Most (if not all) states complied with this expanded franchise for the specific purpose of determining the nature of national government.

This was voted on by the council not an issue the citizens got to vote on. The council members are elected officials and that's the way our government works but I still think the citizens should have got to vote on this and even if they did undocumented immigrants should be excluded.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This was voted on by the council not an issue the citizens got to vote on. The council members are elected officials and that's the way our government works but I still think the citizens should have got to vote on this and even if they did undocumented immigrants should be excluded.

OK then it sounds like it was approved by the officials elected to make such decisions by the current voters. What is the problem with the passage mechanism then? Was the vote super close?

 

[John Owen]

I think only resident citizens should be able to vote. Am I a Nationalist?

 

[BPPLEE]

OK then it sounds like it was approved by the officials elected to make such decisions by the current voters. What is the problem with the passage mechanism then? Was the vote super close?

Not even close this time. It has been tried and failed several times. This time there was only one vote not in favor

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not even close this time. It has been tried and failed several times. This time there was only one vote not in favor

Since the elected council of DC is overwhelmingly in favor, I would assume that the general population is at least pretty favorable to it as well. So again, I must wonder what the problem is.

 

[wing2000]

There is a process for immigrating into our country legally and becoming a citizen. It's not fair to the people who did it the right way to give the same privileges to people who came here illegally.

I agree. And it's too bad that wasn't addressed 40 years ago. Ever since, our American companies and individuals have gainfully employed illegal immigrants. Let's stop pretending our country is going to expel x million people and reset the clock. We need immigration reform, including a path to citizenship. Otherwise, the number of people living in the shadows will grow.