BF2S Forums New try to let non-citizens vote in San Francisco

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.

Jesus christ, lowing. Read the last part of my post.

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

noooooooooo it is the difference between allowing one CITIZEN the right to vote and not allowing a NON-CITIZEN the exact same rights.

Jesus christ, lowing. Read the last part of my post.

I did, you choose to ignore the difference between being citizen and a non-citizen as inconsequential. It isn't. Period

Stop writing, start thinking. In my post I'm asking for a rationale. "It's so because I say so" isn't considered a valid rationale outside of preschool.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

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.

Um...  being able to vote for a school board is nowhere near as privileged as voting for state senators, governor, Congress members, president, or even the local sheriff.

Surely, you realize that school board elections are a very small sliver of the privileges we have as citizens.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

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.

Um...  being able to vote for a school board is nowhere near as privileged as voting for state senators, governor, Congress members, president, or even the local sheriff.

Surely, you realize that school board elections are a very small sliver of the privileges we have as citizens.

It's more of a matter of principle. Correct me if I'm wrong, thought non-citizens couldn't attend public schools =/ Well that's what I've been hearing from all my non-citizen friends in the states.

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Or on the other hand it can be viewed as, why bother pursuing citizenship? Already have all the perks.

Um...  being able to vote for a school board is nowhere near as privileged as voting for state senators, governor, Congress members, president, or even the local sheriff.

Surely, you realize that school board elections are a very small sliver of the privileges we have as citizens.

It's more of a matter of principle. Correct me if I'm wrong, thought non-citizens couldn't attend public schools =/ Well that's what I've been hearing from all my non-citizen friends in the states.

someone shoulda told the illegal immigrant that was going to college on taxpayer money here in GA. she got "racially profiled" when she couldn't produce a DL or any other form of ID after being pulled over. (Ya know, under federal law),

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.

Look, just because I will eventually be moving to Canada doesn't mean I'm no longer a citizen already.  I don't even see how pride figures into this.

It's like what mikkel said -- if two people pay into a system and the only difference between them is citizenship, is that enough of a rationale to let one vote and the other not?

I realize some amnesty groups use similar arguments when it comes to illegals, but they forget the crucial facts that all illegals are breaking federal laws and that they don't pay all the same taxes that citizens do.

However, legal immigrants do pay almost all of the same taxes as citizens.  Generally speaking, the only ones they can opt out of are ones regarding benefits they don't have access to.

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Stop writing, start thinking. In my post I'm asking for a rationale. "It's so because I say so" isn't considered a valid rationale outside of preschool.

I ca not help that you lack the common sense that holds citizens as the ones to determain a path for its society. That is the rationale. Immigrants are along for the ride that is it. If you want a voice, then become a citizen.

Immigrants aren't just along for the ride. They pay for just as much of the ride as everyone else, and don't enjoy anywhere near all of the benefits. It's not "common sense" to limit voting in any matter strictly to citizens, and it looks like even six years ago, half of the people voting on this matter also disagreed. If it was "common sense", then we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. You can't hide behind that in absence of a real argument.

As for becoming a citizen, I'm sure even you know that it's easier said than done. Most people have to wait five years. It's not "just" a matter of acquiring citizenship.

Yes they are, they have no voice in elections period. They do not determain the path of society at all, they follow the direction citizens choose.

as for becoming a citizen, tough shit, where is it in the world "just a matter of acquiring citizenship"?

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

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.

Why buy the cow if you're already getting the milk for free.

exactly

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.

Because one person is a citizen and the other isn't. How does citizenship not play a role? Why should one person who pays taxes get to vote for the president and not another person who also pays taxes?

Yes, why? What is the reason for citizenship to play a role in these matters, rather than some other distinction? Why should the opinion of an ex-pat citizen who contributes nothing to the country carry weight, whereas a legal immigrant who pays taxes and maintains a continuous presence in the country carry none? It's an arbitrary distinction. I can see the reason for it being the chosen arbitrary distinction, but I do not agree with it.

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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.

Because one person is a citizen and the other isn't. How does citizenship not play a role? Why should one person who pays taxes get to vote for the president and not another person who also pays taxes?

Yes, why? What is the reason for citizenship to play a role in these matters, rather than some other distinction? Why should the opinion of an ex-pat citizen who contributes nothing to the country carry weight, whereas a legal immigrant who pays taxes and maintains a continuous presence in the country carry none? It's an arbitrary distinction. I can see the reason for it being the chosen arbitrary distinction, but I do not agree with it.

You mean ex-pat americans? You do realize they all have to pay federal income taxes... And pay the host countries taxes as well. Lose lose situation lol.

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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.

Because one person is a citizen and the other isn't. How does citizenship not play a role? Why should one person who pays taxes get to vote for the president and not another person who also pays taxes?

Yes, why? What is the reason for citizenship to play a role in these matters, rather than some other distinction? Why should the opinion of an ex-pat citizen who contributes nothing to the country carry weight, whereas a legal immigrant who pays taxes and maintains a continuous presence in the country carry none? It's an arbitrary distinction. I can see the reason for it being the chosen arbitrary distinction, but I do not agree with it.

Because I don't want someone that has shown no level of dedication whatsoever to the country to be trusted to vote in its best interest.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because one person is a citizen and the other isn't. How does citizenship not play a role? Why should one person who pays taxes get to vote for the president and not another person who also pays taxes?

Yes, why? What is the reason for citizenship to play a role in these matters, rather than some other distinction? Why should the opinion of an ex-pat citizen who contributes nothing to the country carry weight, whereas a legal immigrant who pays taxes and maintains a continuous presence in the country carry none? It's an arbitrary distinction. I can see the reason for it being the chosen arbitrary distinction, but I do not agree with it.

Because I don't want someone that has shown no level of dedication whatsoever to the country to be trusted to vote in its best interest.

No level of dedication beyond doing everything that you have done yourself, short of (by choice or by limitation) assuming citizenship? Do you consider your only dedication to your country to be your citizenship?

Cybargs wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because I don't want someone that has shown no level of dedication whatsoever to the country to be trusted to vote in its best interest.

No level of dedication beyond doing everything that you have done yourself, short of (by choice or by limitation) assuming citizenship? Do you consider your only dedication to your country to be your citizenship?

You can't join the armed forces without being at least a PR with intent of citizenship.

You are signed up for selective service, if eligible, when you petition for permanent residence, be it conditional or not. You can be called up to die for the country, but you don't get a say in how your child's school is run?