States Weigh Letting Noncitizens Vote (where is this mess gonna stop!)

reply to post by daskakik

One you can be convicted of a felony without infringing on anyone elses rights.

just so where on the same page whats a felony without infringing someone elses rights?

There are many legal immigrants in the US that are not citizens. Some are on work visas, others on student visas but the ones that would probably get the chance to vote are Permanent Resident Aliens (those with greencards). These are not citizens but are legal.

so these people who havent sworn any oath of alliegance who are here basically as guests have and should get the rights to vote ?

seems to me if i was living in canada, england or france or germany under said circumstances i dont have any rights whatsoever to vote nor should i have any.

taxations of resdient aliens and just how exactly is that enforced? since they all are "guests" they can pick up and leave at any time of their own choosing.


all my posts are moot anyways ownbestenemy thoroughly disproved them feel free to beat a dead horse tho :p

reply to post by neo96


I can give you an very narrow view too on the other end. Also, this is an answer to your question directly above....

Lets take Larry. Larry, while technically is committing a crime, decided in his own home, to smoke an illegal substance. The police catch wind of it and arrest Larry. Now in some states, possession (> 30 grams. As reference, put about 30 paperclips in your hand). 30 grams of such illegal substance is a felony, specifically lets look at Nevada.

Now that person has a felony conviction most likely. Did nothing to disparage or infringe upon anyone else or their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, because of asinine laws in the country, he is no longer allowed to vote because of that felony.

But alas, that is how the free peoples of a particular state have decided to handle such a situation.

Bringing up incredible examples to try and strengthen your stance doesn't work Neo. It rather shows that you are now hoping to salvage an argument that you are losing. Sometimes one wins when they admit defeat.

reply to post by neo96


Felony Posssion of a controlled substance would be an example. Whos rights are you infringing if you happen to have more than a certain amount of something that the government says you have no right to have.

As for the resident aliens. Well a person has to go step by step in order to become a citizen. First you become a resident alien. You take an oath and you get your SS number and start paying taxes just like a citizen. After five years in this classification you can then apply for citizenship. Some people don't take the next step and spend the rest of their lives in this classification. Basically they have all the rights of a citizen with the expetion of the right to vote, run for office and land certain government jobs.


ETA: don't know about the other countries but Canada has a similar classification

Permanent Residents in Canada

What permanent residents can do As a permanent resident, you and your dependants have the right:
* To receive most social benefits that Canadian citizens receive, including health care coverage.
* To live, work or study anywhere in Canada.
* To apply for Canadian citizenship.
* To protection under Canadian law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You must pay taxes, and respect all Canadian laws at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

What permanent residents cannot do As a permanent resident, you and your dependants cannot:
* Vote or run for political office.
* Hold certain jobs that have a high-level security clearance requirement.
* Remain in Canada if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence and have been told to leave the country.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


well i rebutt with larry in his own pursuit of his own liberty infringed on the public safety issue and the public interest controlled substances are illegal for a reason.

our laws are designed to protect the individual and society as a whole is it not? larry may be an exception to disprove the rule but the majority of "addicts" become violent and steal and they rob and infringe the rights of others to suit his own selfish needs and wants.


nah man you didnt read my last post to the other poster i said you disproved everything i said man,

reply to post by neo96


Running a red light while eating a cheese burger potentially places the public in harms way. So should the Government step in and protect us from such? You see, you like to have restrictions upon personal responsibility and liberties where you find it fitting. Yet, the above, if the said driver runs the red light and smashes into a car killing the occupants, they most likely will receive a misdemeanor. But wait! They have denied another of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

The double speak from people that proclaim liberty to be so important, but will regulate where they see fit and use the State to do so is a form of backdoor tyranny.

The man/woman sitting at home getting busted for felony possession hurt whom? Lets take it a step further. You can be drunk driving and STILL not get a felony. Yet by simply driving while impaired you put at greater risk those around you in harms way.

To maximize liberty, one must accept maximum responsibility. By allowing the State to dictate what is and is not good for you, you have already abdicated both.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


well then every law we have is an afront to everyones civil liberties so lets just do any with them all so everyone can do whatever they all want to.

you wanna get behind a wheel and drive drunk ok no problem
you wanna smoke weed in your home no problem
you want to go kill someone no problem
you want to go rape someone no problem

i get it now man our rights are being trampled on i was wrong my bad i dont know what i was thinking.

freedom and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness means we all can do whatever we want.

one must accept maximum responsibility.

yes one must accept maximum responsibility and yet there are far too many people who dont and thats why we have laws.


i merely accept without laws this current society as we all know it would not exist.

i havent abdicated anything laws were set in place before i was even born.

reply to post by neo96


This is oft taken tactic when dealing with two clashing views. Fire off the extreme view to be pulled from what I said.

My point was to show that you accept some laws, because of your own personal view and morality and the need to have everyone live under those conditions.

The means do not always justify the means. Murder and rape, in your pointedly extreme post are recognized as such things that do deny others their natural rights.

Driving drunk is a gray area topic that could POSSIBLY lead to the denial of another persons natural rights.

Legislating the possible, leads to absolutes, in which complete control is given to the State.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


man i have seen your points so i ask what is your solution to the "absolutes"

if the states and the federal government does not legislate what happens?

people are left to their own devices one small thing leads to a more serious nature and then that leads to the the extreme..

if people actually followed the " one must accept maximum responsibility" philosophy then laws and legislation wouldnt be needed but people dont follow it.


what is the solution?

Great arguements folks.

The Solution. Get the illeagls the hell out or make they apply like they are suppose to.

A question I always want answered is how many of the alleged 25 million illegals have even apply for citizenship?

reply to post by anon72



Do legal resident aliens get to vote in other countries? I don't know, just asking.

Why can a legal resident of 13 years apply for citizenship? It seem they like out country enough to stay here.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Let us just take one more quick look at Larry shall we?
We will put this under "Cause and Effect".
CAUSE:
Larry lives in a State where it is a Felony to have more than 30g of an illegal substance. Larry knows this BUT chooses to do so anyway.
EFFECT:
Larry gets busted. Larry may serve jail time and loses his right to vote in that state.


Apparently the illegal substance in question meant more to Larry than his right to vote so why should he not lose that right?
There are many ways Larry could have avoided the entire situation. The fact is that he made a choice and now must live with the consequences.
Evidently Larry does not have his priorities in order.

Sorry Larry!

We have slowly over time become a Victimized Nanny State

reply to post by Quadrivium


Let's ignore the fact that the 'Larry' example was addressing the issue of felony offences that do not infringe upon anybody's rights. Let's ignore the contingent fact that your statement is a non sequitur that attacks 'Larry' from an altogether different angle. I want to discuss the central issue of criminality versus liberty.

'Larry' believes that the law concerning possession of contraband is a violation of his rights. He believes that he should have the maximum freedom possible, limited only to those actions that do not infringe upon the rights of others. When he came into possession, he did not decide to forfeit his rights. His decision was to stand up for his rights by participating in civil disobedience. He is protesting the law's violation of his rights in a way that does not infringe upon anybody else's rights.

America is victimized by its harsh legal environment, and it has nobody to blame but its citizens. Laws in America originate with the People, as Represented in the Lower House of Congress. It is the People that demand harsh punishments for anything that they judge to be an infringement of moral law. It is the People that elect their Representatives when they promise to impose morality laws on the nation. It is the People who violate the rights of every American by depriving them of freedom of conscience. Morality and law should not intertwine. The law should exist solely to defend the rights of every person, regardless of their moral standing.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

Your post is the perfect example of why I stated that we have become a Victimized Nanny State.
You seem to think Larry is the victim.
Larry made a stupid choice that can not be justified.
If Larry did not agree with the Law there are several LEGAL things he could have done. A- Larry could have petitioned.
B- Larry could have tried to educate people on what he thought was a problem.
C- Larry could have lobbied against the laws in place.
D- Larry could have moved to a state with laws less as strict.

My personal belief is that Larry did not think he would be caught. And now that he has been busted he chooses to blame others for his stupid choices in life.
It sounds like Larry is a victim though. It sounds like he has become a victim of the Nanny State where everything is always someone else's fault the individual should never be held accountable for their own stupidity.
Laws are there for a reason. If you do not like them then fight them legally. You can not change the law by breaking it (unless your an illegal alien with a democrat controlled congress, that is).

reply to post by Quadrivium


I would have to say that you won the debate.

Good work and presentation on your ideas etc.

reply to post by Hefficide


The right wing HAS to use misleading topics, it's the only way to instill hate and fear and that's exactly what the OP is intended to do. "Aren't you just sick of it?", every post like this has that statement at it's core. Of course when they are back in power it will be "How dare you question it? Why do you hate freedom and America?" This crap is getting way too old.

They creep out from under their "Im not a racist" rocks and attack legal residents of the US and when you pin them down it will be the ILLEGALS they are really concerned with cause they are "fair and balanced". If you turn your head for a second though what do you know they attack the legal aliens.