Quote
BrandonA
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

This is how the 26th amendment reads so it seems to me the answer is no because in order to earn the right to vote you must be a CITIZEN. Thanks for the easy question, case closed.

Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2022 01:21PM by Jake Morgan.

Quote
InjPumpEd
Go to any other country and see if they will let you vote in their elections, if they even have them, lol! The answer you get is the same our should be. Not a citizen, no voting. Period! Prisoners are paying a debt to society with loss of some rights and privileges, Voting being one. What positive influence could letting prisoners and illegal aliens possibly provide? For the best for the country? Or for certain politicians? Pretty clear answer here.

Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal.

Quote
Jake Morgan
Can you give some examples so we can assess how it's working for those countries. Just because they allow it doesn't mean it's been a good thing for them. For example... Jimmy's dad lets him stay up late, why can't I stay up late? Those types of arguments don't really matter much too me without more context. Is Jimmy doing good in school? Is he a pain in the arse in the morning? Does he nap in the afternoon? etc...We need more context on the other countries that allow it.

We have a Constitution that I personally believe is a much better founding document than any other country (sorry people outside the US). I believe the majority of countries would trade places with us in a minute and the Constitution is a huge reason for that. I think this is proven by the fact that more people want to immigrate here more than any other place on earth. We need to honor that document, or legally change/amend it (similar to the post on the Pulling Forum about NTPA rules... honor the rules or change them but don't dismiss them when it's convenient or when it hurts your feelings).

One last comment... those non-citizens who are here (whether legally or illegally) all chose to come here knowing full well that they would not get to vote for their representatives until they were citizens. They knew that and yet they still came here. They made that choice. Now they need to work within the rules to gain the privileges/ responsibilities of citizens.

Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal.

Quote
BrandonA
What benefit to the country would there be in letting non citizens vote?

As far as I can see....none. I realize there is a difference between a noncitizen and an illegal alien. Two totally different arguments. Plenty of non citizens living here legally. My point is just that there is no benefit to letting them vote. If they wanted to vote they'd become citizens. Why do they need to become citizens in order to vote? Because that's what the constitution says and its just logical.

I don't go on vacation to Cancun in hopes of voting in the next Mexican election

Quote
TripleAlphaProcess

What benefit to the country would there be in letting non citizens vote?

As far as I can see....none. I realize there is a difference between a noncitizen and an illegal alien. Two totally different arguments. Plenty of non citizens living here legally. My point is just that there is no benefit to letting them vote. If they wanted to vote they'd become citizens. Why do they need to become citizens in order to vote? Because that's what the constitution says and its just logical.

I don't go on vacation to Cancun in hopes of voting in the next Mexican election

It's a fair question but then someone might ask what's the benefit of the unemployed voting, or those on welfare, or those that dodge taxes, or break the law? I guess a response could be allowing a good upstanding non-citizen to vote is better than what the constitution allows to vote because those that are here legally, are gainfully employed, and pay taxes are much more likely to vote in ways that benefit others that do that (i.e. most of the people on this forum).

Quote
TripleAlphaProcess
There's an interesting topic under debate in NY. Should non-citizens be allowed to vote in local and national elections? Why or why not?

These are people that are in the US legally, have a SS number, have state and federal identification, pay taxes...etc but are not yet citizens.

I will start it off:

Yes-They pay taxes (in many cases more than the national average), contribute to society and of course the basis of voting rights, "No taxation without representation."

No-They are not citizens and therefore have not pledged their allegiance to the US or they don't know about enough about the US (although most US citizens can't pass the citizen test anyway)

Discuss.....

Side Note: We are no longer accepting PayPal donations. They have changed their terms of service and stated they would fine PayPal users for spreading "misinformation" and "hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory". PayPal did not provide definitions for some of these vague terms. Woke corporate policies regarding "misinformation" could result in an automatic fine of $2,500 which would have been removed directly from the customer’s PayPal account. PayPal did backdown from some of their policies but quietly implemented portions of them in later terms of service. A financial institute has no right to monitor social media accounts or speech. This is unacceptable and I'll no longer do business with PayPal.

Quote
Jake Morgan
Certain rights are an incentive to citizenship, i.e. voting being the main right afforded to citizens and it’s an encouragement/incentive for non-citizens to gain citizenship. If you allow all those rights to be transferred to non-citizens what would be the incentive to become a citizen?

Allowing non-citizens the right to vote deincentivises citizenship… how is that a good thing?

My next question is a simple one; where will it stop? Once you open this door it’s only a matter of time until illegal immigrants will enter the discussion about getting the right to vote… after all some of them have been here illegally for decades. They work here, they shop here, they worship here, etc… and you could make similar arguments that they contribute to American society. So why not them? Then the next issue is why not allow non-citizens to vote in State elections? Then it will become why not amend the Constitution to allow them to vote in National elections. Where does it end? We have a problem with moving the goal posts and this will be no different, the goal posts will move quickly.

Also, citizenship is also a public acknowledgment that you are putting the priorities of this country first. The USA doesn’t officially allow dual citizenship (some other countries allow you to become a citizen without renouncing your American citizenship but that’s not true if entering the USA). The USA only wants citizens who will pledge their allegiance to this country. It’s a public confession that you will put America first. (for Christians out there, it’s like baptism, a public confession that you belong to Christ). It may only be a small public acknowledgment to some, but it seems like a really, really, really big deal to the men and women who go through the naturalization process. The them the step of citizenship matters and to them they have earned the right to vote.

Quote
legal
Switch this thread's topic 180 degrees.
A US citizen legally moves to another country, to live and work there for at least a few years or perhaps, most / all of the work career. But did not acquire that country's citizendship.
So should that person still be allowed to vote in US elections? I am not referring to US military or diplomats.