Posted on Oct 30, 2014
What do you think of noncitizens voting in American elections?
62.5K
880
244
25
23
2
First of all, I hope I know the answer to this question, but one never knows, so I'm asking.
Today, in the "People's Republic of Maryland," this story broke: Non-citizens may be voting (http://www.wtop.com/46/3732751/Md-official-Noncitizens-may-be-voting). I believe it's a valid concern and something should be done to stop it.
What do you think?
Today, in the "People's Republic of Maryland," this story broke: Non-citizens may be voting (http://www.wtop.com/46/3732751/Md-official-Noncitizens-may-be-voting). I believe it's a valid concern and something should be done to stop it.
What do you think?
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 123
CW5 (Join to see) I believe only US Citizens should be allowed to vote. As a citizen we earn that privilege. I say privilege for if you commit a felony, renounce your citizenship, or become convicted of perjury to name a few, that privilege is stripped. Illegal re entry into the US is a felony (at some point) and this means NO VOTE.
Why should someone who is not a citizen have the right to vote?
While I agree "Undocumented immigrants" are people, the right to vote is not the same as being respected as a person or individual. Provide respect, and if the undocumented immigrant wishes to vote have them become documented as a citizen and earn the right to vote.
Our right to vote is a sacred duty for all citizens. I will vote as often as the poles are open.
Why should someone who is not a citizen have the right to vote?
While I agree "Undocumented immigrants" are people, the right to vote is not the same as being respected as a person or individual. Provide respect, and if the undocumented immigrant wishes to vote have them become documented as a citizen and earn the right to vote.
Our right to vote is a sacred duty for all citizens. I will vote as often as the poles are open.
(4)
(0)
SSG Don Waggoner
I agree with your statement except for the point that merely becoming a felon or a perjuror should strip one of one's right to citizenship/vote.
(1)
(0)
SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS
SSG Don Waggoner Thank you for your comment. I was not saying to add that, but I know in many states this is already existing law. You know better than I as an attorney, but I also thought you were able to petition to have the right to vote reinstated but it is not automatic in those states.
Thank you again,
Thank you again,
Thank you again,
Thank you again,
(1)
(0)
With illegals voting and ballot boxes switching votes, I don't have a lot of hope for the upcoming elections.
(4)
(0)
SSG Don Waggoner
When you, or anyone else, personally can identify an "illegal" intentionally voting in the election, please let me personally know. This rumor is BS.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Steven Erickson
There have been several documented cases where touch-screen voting machines aren't properly recording the voter's "touch". See the link in Cpl (Join to see)'s post above.
I'm not a big proponent of conspiracies, but I know: 1) people, generally, are relatively incompetent and unconcerned (resulting in "mis-calibrated" voting machines); 2) people, generally, will accept a "wrong" if it benefits them.
I'm not a big proponent of conspiracies, but I know: 1) people, generally, are relatively incompetent and unconcerned (resulting in "mis-calibrated" voting machines); 2) people, generally, will accept a "wrong" if it benefits them.
(0)
(0)
Anyone who believes in law and order should find the answer relatively simple. Noncitizens don't have the right to vote in local, state and federal elections and should never be afforded the right to do so until they are naturalized. The whole thing about not requiring voter identification is nonsense. That is a setup for election fraud.
(3)
(0)
The Constitution with the applicable amendements is pretty clear that only US citizens over the age of 18 may vote in Federal elections. Foreigners, green card holders, illegal immigrants and US citizens under 18 years of age are ineligible to vote. Integrity in our election process ensures that the voice of the citizens of the United States is not lost
(3)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see), Registration Director Wagner is just being exceptionally candid about the minimal checks in almost all registrar's offices.
There are sound legal and philosophical reasons for basing voter registration on a presumption that residency is equivalent to citizenship, and those reasons trace back to a very familiar line in the Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In legal terms, that used to mean that any person physically within the United States was presumed to be a legal citizen and the legal burden of proof lay with anybody challenging that presumption -- after all, if the government's sovereignty derived from the collective consent of the citizenry, the government should have severely constrained power to disavow the citizenship of a native resident.
Please do not mistake this as an argument against requiring voters to identify themselves. Requiring prospective voters to make the minimal preparations for voting of registering in advance and carrying some form of identification to show that they are who they claim to be are nothing at all like requiring you to document your citizenship just to vote (or get a job -- a whole 'nother grumble of mine).
Also, given the common practice of using voter registration records for selecting candidates for jury duty, it would seem very reasonable to require the courts to notify the registrars when somebody who has registered to vote has explicitly disavowed his or her citizenship to avoid jury duty. After all, that's just taking the self-identified non-citizen at his or her sworn word.
There are sound legal and philosophical reasons for basing voter registration on a presumption that residency is equivalent to citizenship, and those reasons trace back to a very familiar line in the Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In legal terms, that used to mean that any person physically within the United States was presumed to be a legal citizen and the legal burden of proof lay with anybody challenging that presumption -- after all, if the government's sovereignty derived from the collective consent of the citizenry, the government should have severely constrained power to disavow the citizenship of a native resident.
Please do not mistake this as an argument against requiring voters to identify themselves. Requiring prospective voters to make the minimal preparations for voting of registering in advance and carrying some form of identification to show that they are who they claim to be are nothing at all like requiring you to document your citizenship just to vote (or get a job -- a whole 'nother grumble of mine).
Also, given the common practice of using voter registration records for selecting candidates for jury duty, it would seem very reasonable to require the courts to notify the registrars when somebody who has registered to vote has explicitly disavowed his or her citizenship to avoid jury duty. After all, that's just taking the self-identified non-citizen at his or her sworn word.
(3)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
1LT William Clardy, thanks for your response. I like your thinking/reasoning. There's a similar "rule" under AR 381-10 (Intelligence Oversight), that people in the U.S. are presumed to be U.S. persons unless there is proof to the contrary; however, the reg does say "An alien in the United States is presumed not to be a U.S. person, unless the intelligence component obtains specific information to the contrary." So, it's not exactly the same ... there's that "alien" exception.
The problem I have with the presumption of citizenship is that 240 years ago that may have been a reasonable concept. Today, however, with the speed and ease of movement, it's a whole other story.
The problem I have with the presumption of citizenship is that 240 years ago that may have been a reasonable concept. Today, however, with the speed and ease of movement, it's a whole other story.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
CW5 (Join to see), if you'll indulge me using some loose numbers, let's put the presumption of citizenship in perspective.
Let's say use the "high side" estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants, which translates into roughly 6.26 percent of the population being non-citizens who are here illegally.
From a societal perspective, that is a huge problem because they're a large enough population to disrupt the whole notion of cultural assimilation.
However, that still mean that roughly 19 out of every 20 people you see are legal residents, and the vast majority of them are native born citizens. If you were a gambling man, would you consider betting on the 18- or 19-to-1 favorite in a horse race to be a safe bet?
I'd rather keep my majority presumption than presume everybody's here illegally.
Let's say use the "high side" estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants, which translates into roughly 6.26 percent of the population being non-citizens who are here illegally.
From a societal perspective, that is a huge problem because they're a large enough population to disrupt the whole notion of cultural assimilation.
However, that still mean that roughly 19 out of every 20 people you see are legal residents, and the vast majority of them are native born citizens. If you were a gambling man, would you consider betting on the 18- or 19-to-1 favorite in a horse race to be a safe bet?
I'd rather keep my majority presumption than presume everybody's here illegally.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Sir, I see your point. Absolutely. This topic of discussion could lead to a discussion of a national ID of some sort, which I support wholeheartedly, but I know many people are against it.
Your point is a good one. The odds are in "my" favor.
Your point is a good one. The odds are in "my" favor.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Hell NO. This administration is using this as a way on ensuring democrats win elections. whatever it takes.....
(0)
(0)
Honestly, what is the point of having any rules at all, if when it comes to ACTUALLY ENFORCING THEM, you're treated like you're the Devil incarnate? It's easy to say "Undocumented immigrants are people too; let them vote" when you don't consider having some sort of mechanism to ensure the integrity of the process. Let's look at it this way: If a platoon sized element of immigrants were to walk in your house, start eating your food, and otherwise claiming your home for themselves, how would you feel if someone said to you, "undocumented immigrants are people too, let them take over your home, and if you don't agree to that, you're a RACIST?" Bottom line: it's an issue of showing some good old fashioned respect and having some manners and being a "good house guest" until you get your own place, and like it or not, the integrity of the process in which we govern needs to trump PC induced effeminate BUTTHURT!
(3)
(0)
SGT James Hastings
I totally agree with you. At the same time those illegal immigrants by and large wouldn't be here very long unless American employers didn't hire them. On the flip side, a vast majority of young people feel that certain types of work is beneath them and would rather be unemployed living off their parents than work. Immigrants don't feel any work is beneath them. It helps them eat. Where they left they couldn't eat because there was not enough work. I'm not supporting illegal immigrants, just trying to add some perspective.
(0)
(0)
The US Constitution explicitly states that CITIZENS of the United States have the right to vote in our elections. CITIZENS... That doesn't mean "undocumented immigrants" or people here on visas or green cards... it means CITIZENS. There's a big difference between a citizen and a resident too.
(3)
(0)
SSG Don Waggoner
Sgt. Jamie Barrie, I think you need to look at the Conatitution a bit more closely. I believe you will find what you said to be there, actually is not there.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Don Waggoner , before I posted my comment I went and read everything in the Constitution that had to do with voting and it clearly stated.. citizens..
(1)
(0)
SSG Don Waggoner
The right to vote itself is nowhere explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. What it does say, in Amend. 15, 19, 24, and 26 is that if such a right is granted to ciitizens in general, then citizens cannot be denied the right to vote because of race, gender, being older than 21, or be made to pay a poll tax. It doesn't say that the States or lesser governments cannot grant the rights to non-citizens, at least in non-federal elections. The language in the Constitution does seem to apply to citizens, but the definition of citizen is not made clear. The definition of citizen was much different when these amendments were passed than it is considered to day. In addition, some people who would always have been considered citizens were, nonetheless, denied the right to vote, and some still are. From the beginning, almost all states denied the right to vote for persons who did not own property (land), unmarried women, Indians, slaves, and others. Those classifications have gone away, but today felons in most states, even those who have completed their sentences, cannot vote, but they can be drafted into the armed services, or join, they can be cops, they can be legislators, congresspersons, and president. The Constitution does seem to grant the right to vote to all citizens, but it does not do so explicitly, just as it doesn't grant the right to privacy explicitly, but seems to when reading between the lines. So, it doesn't say that "citizens," and only citizens, "have a right to vote," rather it states that if the right to vote is granted, it cannot be withheld from certain classes of citizens. And, today, our definition of what a citizens is has been clarified somewhat by legislation. BTW, I tend to agree that only citizens, as defined by law, should be allowed to vote, unless an entity decides otherwise.
(1)
(0)
SSG Don Waggoner
I apologize. I should have said being 18 or older. If you are at least 18, you cannot be denied the right to vote, if you otherwise have that right.
(1)
(0)
I believe that US citizens should vote and voting should be extended to people that pay taxes in this country, only because if you are contributing to the country, I think you should have a say on who the people you're contributing to or how you should be governed. Just my two cents.
(3)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
I understand the laws and reasoning for them. I am posing a question of right to give up representation for release of tax obligation in a state. This is a hypothetical situation, I actually plan to retire overseas and work as a DoDDs teacher. I will still pay federal but I am also stuck with state unless I change residence. There is no legal opportunity of just Federal without state and states are making residency rules more difficult to get the states that don't have an income tax.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
With the comments mentioned above, would you be willing to change the current law to allow for non-citizen tax paying citizens the right to vote? What circumstance would have to be met for a non-citizen to vote?
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
MSgt (Join to see), I could see a plausibly rational argument for allowing tax-paying legal immigrants making tangible progress towards citizenship an opportunity to vote, but that's about the extent of my flexibility on that issue.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
1LT William Clardy, I respect your opinion. I think tax-paying legal immigrants should be able to vote in local elections but not Federal to include congressional elections. This allows the people in the local area to vote and affect the area they live in but not to endanger America as a whole by individuals that may not be here for the long run unless they get citizenship.
(1)
(0)
There's just no way a non USA person should be allowed to vote in our country. If they want to vote somewhere, they can go back to the country they are from and vote there.
Conservative ire hit fever pitch last fall when The Man Who Would Be King issued his royal edict granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, aka: future Democrat voters. Turns out conservative concerns regarding voter fraud and other illegalities in connection with Obama’s executive action were right on the money. Or the ballot box, as the case may be.
In news that should surprise no one, The Washington Times reports that President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty “will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections.” Testifying before Congress on Thursday, state elections officials say that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers illegals will be granted “create a major voting loophole.”
Wasn’t that the end game all along?
It is illegal for non-citizens to vote. But since when do those who enter the country illegally worry about complying with the law when it comes to voting? Although anyone registering to vote must attest s/he is a citizen, many illegal immigrants simply ignore that part – kind of like crossing the border illegally. And states lack the tools to weed them out.
Testifying before Congress on Thursday, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives via shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus, curbside or other efforts often can’t or won’t differentiate between legal and illegal status of registrants, so illegal immigrants will still get through.
Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, also said some motor vehicle bureau workers automatically ask customers if they want to register to vote, and that some noncitizens have broken the law on that basis.
Last November, Obama announced executive action granting tentative legal status and work permits to nearly 4 million illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. But wait. It gets better. Reports The Washington Times:
Republicans say there are a host of unintended consequences, including the chances of illegal voting, a perverse incentive created by Obamacare that would make newly legalized workers more attractive to some businesses than American workers and complications with the tax code.
The newly legalized workers can apply for back refunds from the IRS even for years when they didn’t file their taxes, agency Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday.
Both Koskinen and the secretaries of state who testified to the House Committee on oversight and Government Reform on Thursday said they never heard from President Lawless about potential consequences in advance of his policy changes.
That assumes, of course, that Obama could tear himself away from the links long enough to actually think through some of those pesky potential consequences.
Not to be outdone, Democrats immediately accused Republicans of “voter suppression.” Funny how minor details like the law and the Constitution only seem to matter to these folks when they’re trying to further their own agendas. Or recruit new Democrat voters. Or, in the case of The Man Who Would Be King, who seems to routinely ignore both whenever they represent an inconvenient detour on his road to lawlessness, continue his unilateral reign, unchecked.
In January, the House voted to defund President Obama’s executive action on immigration and roll back the 2012 Obama administration order on so-called “Dreamers,” which granted tentative legal status to children brought to the U.S. as illegal immigrants as well as work permits. Senate Democrats blocked the bill earlier this month.
Conservative ire hit fever pitch last fall when The Man Who Would Be King issued his royal edict granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, aka: future Democrat voters. Turns out conservative concerns regarding voter fraud and other illegalities in connection with Obama’s executive action were right on the money. Or the ballot box, as the case may be.
In news that should surprise no one, The Washington Times reports that President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty “will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections.” Testifying before Congress on Thursday, state elections officials say that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers illegals will be granted “create a major voting loophole.”
Wasn’t that the end game all along?
It is illegal for non-citizens to vote. But since when do those who enter the country illegally worry about complying with the law when it comes to voting? Although anyone registering to vote must attest s/he is a citizen, many illegal immigrants simply ignore that part – kind of like crossing the border illegally. And states lack the tools to weed them out.
Testifying before Congress on Thursday, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives via shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus, curbside or other efforts often can’t or won’t differentiate between legal and illegal status of registrants, so illegal immigrants will still get through.
Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, also said some motor vehicle bureau workers automatically ask customers if they want to register to vote, and that some noncitizens have broken the law on that basis.
Last November, Obama announced executive action granting tentative legal status and work permits to nearly 4 million illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. But wait. It gets better. Reports The Washington Times:
Republicans say there are a host of unintended consequences, including the chances of illegal voting, a perverse incentive created by Obamacare that would make newly legalized workers more attractive to some businesses than American workers and complications with the tax code.
The newly legalized workers can apply for back refunds from the IRS even for years when they didn’t file their taxes, agency Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday.
Both Koskinen and the secretaries of state who testified to the House Committee on oversight and Government Reform on Thursday said they never heard from President Lawless about potential consequences in advance of his policy changes.
That assumes, of course, that Obama could tear himself away from the links long enough to actually think through some of those pesky potential consequences.
Not to be outdone, Democrats immediately accused Republicans of “voter suppression.” Funny how minor details like the law and the Constitution only seem to matter to these folks when they’re trying to further their own agendas. Or recruit new Democrat voters. Or, in the case of The Man Who Would Be King, who seems to routinely ignore both whenever they represent an inconvenient detour on his road to lawlessness, continue his unilateral reign, unchecked.
In January, the House voted to defund President Obama’s executive action on immigration and roll back the 2012 Obama administration order on so-called “Dreamers,” which granted tentative legal status to children brought to the U.S. as illegal immigrants as well as work permits. Senate Democrats blocked the bill earlier this month.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next


Voting
Maryland
