Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-05-18 18:24:10
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6834|San Diego, CA, USA
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cit … &tsp=1

via http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/

sfgate wrote:

Non-citizen immigrants whose children are enrolled in San Francisco public schools would be able to vote in school board elections, under a proposed charter amendment for the fall ballot that Board of Supervisors President David Chiu will introduce Tuesday.

The proposal resurrects a ballot measure that city voters narrowly rejected six years ago, with 49 percent in favor and 51 percent opposed.

Chiu ran the 2004 campaign in favor of the limited extension of voting rights and said the idea deserves a second airing. He said an estimated 1 in 3 households with children in public schools are headed by parents who aren't citizens.

Allowing them to vote in Board of Education races would help boost their involvement in their children's education, Chiu said. ''And that helps improve the quality of the schools,'' Chiu said.
Can't believe only 51% apposed last time.
2010-05-18 18:34:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA
Is "non-citizen immigrant" the new catch phrase replacing illegal immigrants now? making them sound as if there is no difference between illegal immigrant and legal immigrants. I know lets just call them NEO-immigrants.
 
You should have no voting rights unless you are a citizen of this country.
2010-05-18 18:45:22
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

lowing wrote:

Is "non-citizen immigrant" the new catch phrase replacing illegal immigrants now? making them sound as if there is no difference between illegal immigrant and legal immigrants. I know lets just call them NEO-immigrants.
 
You should have no voting rights unless you are a citizen of this country.
lol it also includes legal-immigrants, like people here on visas.

Engage your brain for two seconds before assuming it's liberal nonsense.
2010-05-18 18:49:35
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
not enough appasition
Tu Stultus Es
2010-05-18 19:00:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Is "non-citizen immigrant" the new catch phrase replacing illegal immigrants now? making them sound as if there is no difference between illegal immigrant and legal immigrants. I know lets just call them NEO-immigrants.
 
You should have no voting rights unless you are a citizen of this country.
lol it also includes legal-immigrants, like people here on visas.

Engage your brain for two seconds before assuming it's liberal nonsense.
Coulda swore I addressed that.

It has not gone un-noticed however that "non-citizen immigrant" does NOT differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. An attempt at a  inconspicuous merging of the two status's I think.

Regardless, if you are not a citizen you have no vote, nor should you.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-18 19:05:49)

2010-05-18 19:03:38
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
I have no problem with letting people with visas vote in school board elections.  I do have a problem with illegal immigrants voting in them though.
2010-05-18 19:05:48
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Is "non-citizen immigrant" the new catch phrase replacing illegal immigrants now? making them sound as if there is no difference between illegal immigrant and legal immigrants. I know lets just call them NEO-immigrants.
 
You should have no voting rights unless you are a citizen of this country.
lol it also includes legal-immigrants, like people here on visas.

Engage your brain for two seconds before assuming it's liberal nonsense.
Coulda swore I addressed that.

It has not gone un-noticed however that "non-citizen immigrant" does NOT differenciate between legal and illegal immigrants.

Regardless, if you are not a cizien you have no vote, nor should you.
I didn't say non-citizens should vote.

But the term "non-citizen immigrant" is a superset to illegal immigrants and a subset of immigrants. The term fits the situation perfectly. As you said, allowing any non-citizens voting rights is ridiculous, and that includes legal immigrants on visa.
2010-05-18 19:09:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say non-citizens should vote.

But the term "non-citizen immigrant" is a superset to illegal immigrants and a subset of immigrants. The term fits the situation perfectly. As you said, allowing any non-citizens voting rights is ridiculous, and that includes legal immigrants on visa.
Well, limiting voting for legal immigrants to school board elections doesn't seem like a problem in my book.  I mean, most of them will be citizens eventually, and they are paying into the system.

Plus, local governments have the power to give voting rights to whoever they want to for local elections.  Obviously, they can't do that with state or national ones though.
2010-05-18 19:10:08
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
You would make a mockery out of the democratic process.
2010-05-18 19:10:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would make a mockery out of the democratic process.
How so?  We're talking about school board elections -- not the state assembly.
2010-05-18 19:12:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


lol it also includes legal-immigrants, like people here on visas.

Engage your brain for two seconds before assuming it's liberal nonsense.
Coulda swore I addressed that.

It has not gone un-noticed however that "non-citizen immigrant" does NOT differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants.

Regardless, if you are not a citizen you have no vote, nor should you.
I didn't say non-citizens should vote.

But the term "non-citizen immigrant" is a superset to illegal immigrants and a subset of immigrants. The term fits the situation perfectly. As you said, allowing any non-citizens voting rights is ridiculous, and that includes legal immigrants on visa.
The phrase non-citizen immigrant applies to both legal and illegal immigrants. Period.

It is an attempt at a subtle merging of the 2 status's... After this passes, the notion that the law says "non citizen immigrant" does not differentiate between the 2 would be used.
2010-05-18 19:14:09
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would make a mockery out of the democratic process.
How so?  We're talking about school board elections -- not the state assembly.
Elections are elections. People that aren't citizens of the U.S. shouldn't have a vote in anything.
2010-05-18 19:14:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would make a mockery out of the democratic process.
How so?  We're talking about school board elections -- not the state assembly.
After that, where do you stop, next we would only be talking aobut local elections and not state elections, then we would only be talking aobut state elections and not federal elections.
2010-05-18 19:15:35
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

lowing wrote:

The phrase non-citizen immigrant applies to both legal and illegal immigrants. Period.

It is an attempt at a subtle merging of the 2 status's... After this passes, the notion that the law says "non citizen immigrant" does not differentiate between the 2 would be used.
Yeah, I know. durr

It is not an attempt at merging the statuses, the term is accurate. It is a necessary term to use when you are talking about everyone that is not a citizen - legal and illegal immigrants. There is nothing insidious about it. It's stupid to say that this is some sort of setup to merge the two in the future.
2010-05-18 19:15:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would make a mockery out of the democratic process.
How so?  We're talking about school board elections -- not the state assembly.
Elections are elections. People that aren't citizens of the U.S. shouldn't have a vote in anything.
People that are here illegally shouldn't, but I can't really say that about those who are legally here.
2010-05-18 19:18:48
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


How so?  We're talking about school board elections -- not the state assembly.
Elections are elections. People that aren't citizens of the U.S. shouldn't have a vote in anything.
People that are here illegally shouldn't, but I can't really say that about those who are legally here.
Dude at least act like you are proud of the U.S. even a little bit until you go somewhere else.

It's a matter of principle. People without the rights and responsibilities of a full U.S. citizen shouldn't be making any decisions about our nation.
2010-05-18 19:19:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would make a mockery out of the democratic process.
How so?  We're talking about school board elections -- not the state assembly.
After that, where do you stop, next we would only be talking aobut local elections and not state elections, then we would only be talking aobut state elections and not federal elections.
Well, I seriously doubt you'd get the support of the majority of a state for allowing legal immigrants (who aren't yet citizens) to vote in state elections.

I'm a supporter of states' rights and of localized government, so if a city wants to allow something very limited as a privilege for legal immigrants (that aren't yet citizens), that's fine with me.

Allowing the same for illegals isn't ok, because illegals are violating federal laws just by being here.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-18 19:20:34)

2010-05-18 19:19:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

The phrase non-citizen immigrant applies to both legal and illegal immigrants. Period.

It is an attempt at a subtle merging of the 2 status's... After this passes, the notion that the law says "non citizen immigrant" does not differentiate between the 2 would be used.
Yeah, I know. durr

It is not an attempt at merging the statuses, the term is accurate. It is a necessary term to use when you are talking about everyone that is not a citizen - legal and illegal immigrants. There is nothing insidious about it. It's stupid to say that this is some sort of setup to merge the two in the future.
No the accurate term is legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. There is no reason whatsoever to say something like non citizen immigrnats when that term covers both. There is no reason at all to talk about legal immigrantion in the same breath as illegal immigration. So there is no need to coin a term that includes both.

I took the OP as meaning legal immigrants voting. ( for now)
2010-05-18 19:21:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


How so?  We're talking about school board elections -- not the state assembly.
After that, where do you stop, next we would only be talking aobut local elections and not state elections, then we would only be talking aobut state elections and not federal elections.
Well, I seriously doubt you'd get the support of the majority of a state for allowing legal immigrants to vote in state elections.

I'm a supporter of states' rights and of localized government, so if a city wants to allow something very limited as a privilege for legal immigrants, that's fine with me.

Allowing the same for illegals isn't ok, because illegals are violating federal laws just by being here.
I understand this, however, there is no denying it is chipping away at the block by allowing legal immigrant votes now isn't it?
2010-05-18 19:21:34
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

The phrase non-citizen immigrant applies to both legal and illegal immigrants. Period.

It is an attempt at a subtle merging of the 2 status's... After this passes, the notion that the law says "non citizen immigrant" does not differentiate between the 2 would be used.
Yeah, I know. durr

It is not an attempt at merging the statuses, the term is accurate. It is a necessary term to use when you are talking about everyone that is not a citizen - legal and illegal immigrants. There is nothing insidious about it. It's stupid to say that this is some sort of setup to merge the two in the future.
No the accurate term is legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. There is no reason whatsoever to say something like non citizen immigrnats when that term covers both. There is no reason at all to talk about legal immigrantion in the same breath as illegal immigration. So there is no need to coin a term that includes both.

I took the OP as meaning legal immigrants voting. ( for now)
The OP is a perfect use of the term. I don't know why you would take it to mean legal immigrants only voting, because it stated non-citizen immigrants. We have clearly hashed out that that entails legal and illegal immigrants.
2010-05-18 19:23:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


After that, where do you stop, next we would only be talking aobut local elections and not state elections, then we would only be talking aobut state elections and not federal elections.
Well, I seriously doubt you'd get the support of the majority of a state for allowing legal immigrants to vote in state elections.

I'm a supporter of states' rights and of localized government, so if a city wants to allow something very limited as a privilege for legal immigrants, that's fine with me.

Allowing the same for illegals isn't ok, because illegals are violating federal laws just by being here.
I understand this, however, there is no denying it is chipping away at the block by allowing legal immigrant votes now isn't it?
If you're viewing this as a spectrum toward amnesty for illegals, yes.

See, the reason I'm more open to this idea of allowing legal immigrants (that aren't yet citizens) to vote in minor elections like the school board is because there is already so little incentive to follow our immigration laws.  I figure a small perk like this for those who do follow our rules can't be a bad thing.
2010-05-18 19:34:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, I seriously doubt you'd get the support of the majority of a state for allowing legal immigrants to vote in state elections.

I'm a supporter of states' rights and of localized government, so if a city wants to allow something very limited as a privilege for legal immigrants, that's fine with me.

Allowing the same for illegals isn't ok, because illegals are violating federal laws just by being here.
I understand this, however, there is no denying it is chipping away at the block by allowing legal immigrant votes now isn't it?
If you're viewing this as a spectrum toward amnesty for illegals, yes.

See, the reason I'm more open to this idea of allowing legal immigrants (that aren't yet citizens) to vote in minor elections like the school board is because there is already so little incentive to follow our immigration laws.  I figure a small perk like this for those who do follow our rules can't be a bad thing.
Or on the other hand it can be viewed as, why bother pursuing citizenship? Already have all the perks.
2010-05-18 19:36:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Yeah, I know. durr

It is not an attempt at merging the statuses, the term is accurate. It is a necessary term to use when you are talking about everyone that is not a citizen - legal and illegal immigrants. There is nothing insidious about it. It's stupid to say that this is some sort of setup to merge the two in the future.
No the accurate term is legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. There is no reason whatsoever to say something like non citizen immigrants when that term covers both. There is no reason at all to talk about legal immigrant ion in the same breath as illegal immigration. So there is no need to coin a term that includes both.

I took the OP as meaning legal immigrants voting. ( for now)
The OP is a perfect use of the term. I don't know why you would take it to mean legal immigrants only voting, because it stated non-citizen immigrants. We have clearly hashed out that that entails legal and illegal immigrants.
I musta mis-understood, I never woulda thought, even SF, would be so brazen as to ask for an illegal immigration voting right. Not yet anyway.
2010-05-18 19:40:53
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Elections are elections. People that aren't citizens of the U.S. shouldn't have a vote in anything.
People that are here illegally shouldn't, but I can't really say that about those who are legally here.
Dude at least act like you are proud of the U.S. even a little bit until you go somewhere else.

It's a matter of principle. People without the rights and responsibilities of a full U.S. citizen shouldn't be making any decisions about our nation.
Which specific rationale are you citing as an argument against letting one taxpayer with a child enrolled in public schooling vote for school matters, and another taxpayer with a child in public schooling not vote for the same thing? As far as public school matters go, where is the distinction to merit this? I can't see how citizenship plays into it.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-05-18 19:42:11)

2010-05-18 19:43:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


People that are here illegally shouldn't, but I can't really say that about those who are legally here.
Dude at least act like you are proud of the U.S. even a little bit until you go somewhere else.

It's a matter of principle. People without the rights and responsibilities of a full U.S. citizen shouldn't be making any decisions about our nation.
Which specific rationale are you citing as an argument against letting one taxpayer with a child enrolled in public schooling vote for school matters, and another taxpayer with a child in public schooling not vote for the same thing? As far as public school matters go, where is the distinction to merit this? I can't see how citizenship plays into it.
noooooooooo it is the difference between allowing one CITIZEN the right to vote and not allowing a NON-CITIZEN the exact same rights.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard