They have no legal right to be or remain, here, much less to vote. Your argument skips this pesky fact, and naively assumes that they’ll remain here, or should. They won’t and shouldn’t. Source: Laws.
Pesky fact: They are here and currently have a legal right to vote in some elections in some locales. My argument neither assumes that illegal aliens will remain here nor should. It is simply a discussion of existing incontrovertible fact and my opinion on the reasoning behind that fact. We are also talking about two things at this point in the conversation, which I’ve tried to keep clear. When I say non-citizens I also include legal aliens - who are both here legally and have a legal right to vote for some things in some places. That right is extended to them by that local authority, which they are not restricted from doing either by the constitution or further law. These folks will continue to remain here regardless of illegal immigration laws and continue to have this right as long as these locales continue extending it to them and no state or federal laws are passed to prevent the locale from extending those voting rights (or no court decides the action is in violation of existing law). That’s just fact as well. Source: My actual arguments vs what you say they are; Actual laws
I actually didn’t see it two years ago. I noticed it for the first time in my feed a week ago and several times again this week. So definitely active....again, apparently.
That one made the rounds in the months after the election. I actually agree with part of its sentiment. The left is as bonkers over Trump as the right was over Obama. The why is meh.
Same as a lot of places it’s mainly property tax withbsome sales tax. Non-citizens who rent are paying property tax in pass-through.
I agree, the why is dumb. It’s obvious Republicans hate black people and Democrats hate orange people.
There are absolutely aliens here illegally. There are also aliens here illegally. We still talking about both or back to just illegal aliens? Neither is allowed to vote in federal elections. Neither is currently allowed to vote in state elections, though not prevented by federal law. Both are currently allowed to vote for school board in San Francisco. Legal aliens are allowed to vote in municipal elections in a handful of Maryland cities.
If you aren’t a citizen of the United States, you have no right to vote in any election, at any level, for any reason, ever - nor do you have any expectation or right to demand it. However long it takes, however circuitous the path, citizenship will eventually be the preeminent question of singular importance, and which will lose this issue for you. This is a non-issue, and not a point of reasonable debate, prior to that.
I am confused because your first statement sounds like a statement of fact rather than opinion. However, non-citizens have had a history of voting in some way in this country for .... hundreds of years? Perhaps it is our use of the word right. When I use it I use it in the context of these entities have extended the right to vote to the individuals for certain elections (that is, they have allowed them to legally vote). There at the present time these non-citizens absolutely have the right to vote. Are you using in a different way. Is it the Right (e.g., constitutional right, God-given right, etc.) to vote - such as a fundamental claim to the privelidge to vote that should not be denied by any local authority? If that’s your argument then I would agree they do not have that fundamental right to demand it. Or, are you using right in the same way I am? If so, how do you square that there hasn’t been a challenge - or at least a successful challenge - nor any federal law preventing the idea of non-citizens participating in state or local elections? Given this - it absolutely does seem to be an issue with validity to discuss despite your apparent desire that it isn’t.
California lawmakers are proposing a sugar tax, and banning drinks bigger than 16 oz. in restaurants. Most people I know hate it, but the socialist movement seems to love it.
I have mixed feelings about those moves. 1) it affects the poor more than the wealthy in multiple ways 2)arbitrary by nature 3) on the other hand, it is a vice and not really a food item 4) it is unhealthy
