NationStates Jolt Archive

says one Democrat running for office. This is reminiscent of the late Mayor Daley's advice to "vote early and often".
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060603-9999-1mi3busby.html

Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: “I want to help, but I don't have papers.”

It was translated and Busby replied: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.”

Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign.

“She's soliciting illegal aliens to campaign for her and it's on tape – this isn't exactly what you call the pinnacle of ethical campaign strategy,” Bilbray said. “I don't know how she shows her face.”

Yeah, how dare she urge those people to fight for their rights? I guess her problem is she can't grant amnesties like Dubya can...

Yeah, how dare she urge those people to fight for their rights? I guess her problem is she can't grant amnesties like Dubya can...
Only citizens have the right to vote.

Illegal immigrants, if they attempt to vote, are breaking the law. Under the Constitution, they don't have the right to vote.

amen, but both parties are willing to bend over backward to increase their base
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Only citizens have the right to vote.

No shit.

Illegal immigrants, if they attempt to vote, are breaking the law. Under the Constitution, they don't have the right to vote.

You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.

I don't why people in the US seem to have a problem with understanding entire sentences or figurative speech. If it's not ignoring writing about militias, it's ignoring subordinate phrases...

No shit.



You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.

I don't why people in the US seem to have a problem with understanding entire sentences or figurative speech. If it's not ignoring writing about militias, it's ignoring subordinate phrases...

Actually, that's a comma splice, not a subordinate clause. Learn some English, Fass. She's put two independent clauses together with a comma.

Grammar errors like that usually get you an automatic F on college level papers here.

No shit.



You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.

I don't why people in the US seem to have a problem with understanding entire sentences or figurative speech. If it's not ignoring writing about militias, it's ignoring subordinate phrases...

Apparently you don't even need to obey the law to help...

Actually, that's a comma splice, not a subordinate clause. Learn some English, Fass. She's put two independent clauses together with a comma.

While speaking? Well, I'll be damned! I can just imagine her going "comma splice" in the middle of a sentence.

Grammar errors like that usually get you an automatic F on college level papers here.

Such luck then she didn't write it.

Comma splices should be avoided in speech as well.

Apparently you don't even need to obey the law to help...

Is there a law in California against people volunteering, or urging them to volunteer? If there is, it's a stupid law, and good on her to urge civil disobedience. More politicians should be so inclined.

Comma splices should be avoided in speech as well.

Comma splices are impossible in speech, since commas don't exist in speech. Well, punctuation doesn't exist in speech.

Comma splices are impossible in speech, since commas don't exist in speech. Well, punctuation doesn't exist in speech.


Commas represent a pause.

Illegal aliens don't even have the right to be in the U.S. let alone "protest".

Commas represent a pause.

Maybe she pronounced a semi-colon but the reporter misheard.

Commas represent a pause.

And those of us whose literacy goes beyond that of first grade know that periods sometimes represent pauses (among others), and that commas separate the structural elements of sentences into manageable segments.

Illegal aliens don't even have the right to be in the U.S. let alone "protest".

Yet, they're there. They might as well do something positive, like help enact political change.

Maybe she pronounced a semi-colon but the reporter misheard.


Yes, that's entirely in the realm of possibility.

The reporter should have asked her to clarify.

So, are people suggesting that you need to be a registered voter to help?

Or does the short translated statement "I don't have papers" automatically mean "I am an illegal immigrant" instead of "I am not a registered voter"?

Does anyone have the FULL transcript? i.e. was Busby talking about registered voters before the question was asked which might shed some light on what papers the guy was talking about?

In the context of the full statement: “Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help.” both sides of that comma splice could be EASILY taken to mean that you don't need to be a registered voter to help rather than to imply a suggestion that illegal aliens should try and vote.

*accuses Deep_Kimchi of partisan hackery*
*Deep_Kimchi denies*
*everyone knows Kimchi is full of crap*
*Kimchi says he is "just" trying to prove Demcorats can be corrupt "too" and that he isn't pro-Republican*
*no one believes him*

The comma splice means it's two independent clauses.

The first implies that you don't need to be a legal resident to vote.

The second implies that you don't need to be a legal resident to help the campaign.

The first statement is an endorsement of illegal activity.

The second statement is commendable.

Any questions?

The comma splice means it's two independent clauses.

The first implies that you don't need to be a legal resident to vote.

The second implies that you don't need to be a legal resident to help the campaign.

The first statement is an endorsement of illegal activity.

The second statement is commendable.

Any questions?

No, a comma splice in a verbal statement can just as easily be a clarification or restatement in better terms for the audience.

Nice try though.

No, a comma splice in a verbal statement can just as easily be a clarification or restatement in better terms for the audience.

Nice try though.

Hmm... I'm the one with the degree in English, and a comma splice is NEVER an acceptable form in speech, and the two "sentences" or "independent clauses" are not meant to support one another, and in any grammar correction, would be rendered as two separate sentences.

Why don't you go back and read "The Elements of Style" again?

She is quite right that you do not need papers to vote, at least in Oklahoma. When you register to vote, you are not asked for any type of identification or even proof of address. You are simply handed a form to fill out wherever you please to fill it out. On the form, there are two boxes to check one says, "Yes, I am a US citizen" and the other says "Yes, I am 18 years old or older." Then you sign the form "under penalty of law etc, and place the form in the basket or mail it in. A few weeks later you get your voter registration card in the mail.

When you do go to the poll to vote here in Oklahoma, you are not asked for your voter registration card or any other form of identification. (That may change.) You simply give the poll worker your name, she looks it up in the book, you sign, she initials, and you are handed a ballot.

Yep, no need papers to vote in Oklahoma.
:(

She is quite right that you do not need papers to vote, at least in Oklahoma. When you register to vote, you are not asked for any type of identification or even proof of address. You are simply handed a form to fill out wherever you please to fill it out. On the form, there are two boxes to check one says, "Yes, I am a US citizen" and the other says "Yes, I am 18 years old or older." Then you sign the form "under penalty of law etc, and place the form in the basket or mail it in. A few weeks later you get your voter registration card in the mail.

When you do go to the poll to vote here in Oklahoma, you are not asked for your voter registration card or any other form of identification. (That may change.) You simply give the poll worker your name, she looks it up in the book, you sign, she initials, and you are handed a ballot.

Yep, no need papers to vote in Oklahoma.
:(

Maybe all the illegals in Texas need to move to Oklahoma, and elect their own Senators.

*accuses Deep_Kimchi of partisan hackery*
*Deep_Kimchi denies*
*everyone knows Kimchi is full of crap*
*Kimchi says he is "just" trying to prove Demcorats can be corrupt "too" and that he isn't pro-Republican*
*no one believes him*

You win and end the thread through accurate prediction. Kudos.

Hmm... I'm the one with the degree in English, and a comma splice is NEVER an acceptable form in speech, and the two "sentences" or "independent clauses" are not meant to support one another, and in any grammar correction, would be rendered as two separate sentences.

Why don't you go back and read "The Elements of Style" again?

Elements of Style has no place in critiquing intent in a Q&A - ESPECIALLY one where the speaker is bouncing back and forth between two languages. It is not uncommon for a bilingual person to accidentally use a direct translation from the other language, and then correct themselves with the proper native term. And "papers for voting" IS a direct translation from spanish that would imply an equivalence to "voter registration"

Elements of Style has no place in critiquing intent in a Q&A - ESPECIALLY one where the speaker is bouncing back and forth between two languages. It is not uncommon for a bilingual person to accidentally use a direct translation from the other language, and then correct themselves with the proper native term. And "papers for voting" IS a direct translation from spanish that would imply an equivalence to "voter registration"

You're telling us that when people speak they can mid-sentance correct or add something to what they're saying? OMG, it's like you've actually heard people talk!

Maybe all the illegals in Texas need to move to Oklahoma, and elect their own Senators.

ROFLMAO :p

Hmm... I'm the one with the degree in English, and a comma splice is NEVER an acceptable form in speech, and the two "sentences" or "independent clauses" are not meant to support one another, and in any grammar correction, would be rendered as two separate sentences.

Why don't you go back and read "The Elements of Style" again?


You know - Looking at the sentance structure in your fiirst paragraph, I think perhaps you need the refresher reading of "The Elements of Style" more than Busby.


And you are only trying to communicate in ONE language!

Is there a law in California against people volunteering, or urging them to volunteer? If there is, it's a stupid law, and good on her to urge civil disobedience. More politicians should be so inclined.

No you twit - there is however a law against entering the US illegally - which is the point.

You're telling us that when people speak they can mid-sentance correct or add something to what they're saying? OMG, it's like you've actually heard people talk!

Once or twice.... lol.

Besides, why a Republican wants to start critiquing speech based on splitting the finest points of proper grammar at the same time as they have GW in office is funny as hell!


Shall we go down that road again?


I wonder if OBGYN's are still "practicing their love" across the country?

No you twit - there is however a law against entering the US illegally - which is the point.

And there are laws against lending your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor. We still don't know that the person she was talking to was indeed "illegal," nor seems there to be anything that should preclude "illegals," once in the country, to volunteer.

And there are laws against lending your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor. We still don't know that the person she was talking to was indeed "illegal," nor seems there to be anything that should preclude "illegals," once in the country, to volunteer.

Other than the fact that they ARE in the country... :rolleyes:

Oh, and illegal is illegal - there is no need for quotes around it unless you feel for some reason that legal immigration should be abandoned completely.

Other than the fact that they ARE in the country... :rolleyes:

So, whenever you see an "illegal," you no doubt don your INS-costume and deport them at once? Or, when you see them talk, you immediately tape their mouths shut? Or, when you see them breathe, you call them air thieves! Or, when they pee, you clench their dicks? Because, you know, wouldn't want the "illegals" to actually do anything, because apparently anything they do is "illegal..." :rolleyes:

Oh, and illegal is illegal - there is no need for quotes around it unless you feel for some reason that legal immigration should be abandoned completely.

The notion that people can be "illegal" is ludicrous.

The notion that people can be "illegal" is ludicrous.

Come on Fass you can do better than that. You know people can not be illegal, and you know people can be illegal immigrants. Quit playing semantics. :(

Come on Fass you can do better than that. You know people can not be illegal, and you know people can be illegal immigrants. Quit playing semantics. :(

There is a large difference between an "illegal person" and someone entering a country illegally. I do not condone the implication of calling someone "illegal."

Let's cut the grammar lesson short.

Is there any reason why non-citizens cannot vote?

Chapter and verse, please.

So, whenever you see an "illegal," you no doubt don your INS-costume and deport them at once? Or, when you see them talk, you immediately tape their mouths shut? Or, when you see them breathe, you call them air thieves! Or, when they pee, you clench their dicks? Because, you know, wouldn't want the "illegals" to actually do anything, because apparently anything they do is "illegal..." :rolleyes:



The notion that people can be "illegal" is ludicrous.


Gee you are narrow mided - and you clench peoples dicks? eek! Myself - I do not work directly for law enforcement (though in my industry I can be arrested for not reporting suspicious activity) but I do report illegal or suspicious activity when I see it.

Immigrants can be in a country legally or illegally - I should know. People cannot be illegal - but their actions most certainly can. Illegal immigration most certainly can be - and is - illegal.

Anyone else find it funny, pathetic, and yet sort of cute that DeepKimchi has been reduced to dragging out his grammar books and minutely analysing reported speech in order to reinforce his beliefs?

Talk about being in a state of denial. That man's in a whole fucking continent of denial.

The notion that people can be "illegal" is ludicrous.

Would you prefer we use the term "outlaws"? Makes them sound dangerous too.

Gee you are narrow mided

You're the one who seems upset that "illegals" are doing something.

and you clench peoples dicks? eek!

This is where reading comprehension separates the infantile retort from, well, actually understanding what was written.

Myself - I do not work directly for law enforcement (though in my industry I can be arrested for not reporting suspicious activity) but I do report illegal or suspicious activity when I see it.

So the politician should have become the snitch?

Immigrants can be in a country legally or illegally - I should know. People cannot be illegal - but their actions most certainly can. Illegal immigration most certainly can be - and is - illegal.

And yet volunteering doesn't seem to be. And, no, I won't start using "illegal" in the flawed way you use it.

Would you prefer we use the term "outlaws"? Makes them sound dangerous too.

Oh, USians seem to find them that already. Outlaws as well as dangerous.

And there are laws against lending your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor.

Yes, we are all aware of the stupid archaic laws, or "abandonlaw" as I like to call it. These laws are usually along the lines of "It is illegal to fart in a public swimming pool on the second Monday of April."

Let's cut the grammar lesson short.

Is there any reason why non-citizens cannot vote?

Chapter and verse, please.



First, look close at the 14th amendment, the 19th amendment and the 27th amendment. Second - put on your fucking common sense hat.

First, look close at the 14th amendment, the 19th amendment and the 27th amendment. Second - put on your fucking common sense hat.

It's not "common sense." Non-citizens can vote in Sweden in municipal, county and European Parliament elections. There's nothing "common sense" about only letting citizens vote at all.

You're the one who seems upset that "illegals" are doing something.



This is where reading comprehension separates the infantile retort from, well, actually understanding what was written.



So the politician should have become the snitch?



And yet volunteering doesn't seem to be. And, no, I won't start using "illegal" in the flawed way you use it.


Yes, I am upset that illegals are even here. My reading comprehension is adequate enough to shed light on your infantile stretch for the absurd and poor attempt at offending me. POliticians are sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of the United States - it is even more their responsibility to report illegal activity than a citizen like myself - calling us names won't make it any different. Volunteering is not illegal - but the presense of an illegal immigrant is. The term illegal immigrant is gramatically correct - your position however - is flawed, weak, petty and quite naive.

And look - I could respond and blast your every point without having to create multiple quotes or breaking up your post into tiny sections.

It's not "common sense." Non-citizens can vote in Sweden in municipal, county and European Parliament elections. There's nothing "common sense" about only letting citizens vote at all.


Yet another completely ignorant and wrong statement.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm

Suffrage: Universal over 18. After 3 years of legal residence, immigrants may vote in county and municipal elections, (but not in national elections).

Now, if they want to dilute the vote of their citizens that's their business - but then - they are not governed by the US constitution - are they?

Apparently you wouldn't recognize common sense if it reached out and clenched your dick.

Yes, I am upset that illegals are even here.

Oh, you're one of those. Never miind then.

And look - I could respond and blast your every point without having to create multiple quotes or breaking up your post into tiny sections.

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/128/

You're welcome.

Let's cut the grammar lesson short.

Is there any reason why non-citizens cannot vote?

Chapter and verse, please.

Amendment XXVI - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History

1. 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.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Note the words "citizens."

Oh, you're one of those. Never miind then.




And what - exactly - are you implying by that? Be very careful here.

Is there any reason why non-citizens cannot vote?

First, look close at the 14th amendment, the 19th amendment and the 27th amendment. Second - put on your fucking common sense hat.

Yet another completely ignorant and wrong statement.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm

Suffrage: Universal over 18. After 3 years of legal residence, immigrants may vote in county and municipal elections, (but not in national elections).

Ever so nice of you to make my point for me, about there being nothing "common-sensed" about not letting non-citizens vote. Apparently it's so not "common-sensed," that even the US, which isn't exactly known for common sense policies, allows non-citizens to vote.

Again, cheers for making my point, mate.

Oh, USians seem to find them that already. Outlaws as well as dangerous.

I thought you were a person who did not like the use of derogartory terms when refering to people.

And what - exactly - are you implying by that?

Oh, you should know very well.

Be very careful here.

No, I think I'll remain as "careless" as I want, but thanks for the superfluous suggestion.

I thought you were a person who did not like the use of derogartory terms when refering to people.

"Outlaws?" I was mirroring what I was responding to.

It's not "common sense." Non-citizens can vote in Sweden in municipal, county and European Parliament elections. There's nothing "common sense" about only letting citizens vote at all.

What about in national elections such as Parliment? Also, those non-citizens who do vote, do they have to be in the country legally?

Oh, you should know very well.

.


No - I really don't . Tell me what you are suggesting - just be careful for you really do not know much about me to be attempting to define me.

It must come from a culture of corruption in the democratic party, Nancy Pelosi, LOL.

Ever so nice of you to make my point for me, about there being nothing "common-sensed" about not letting non-citizens vote. Apparently it's so not "common-sensed," that even the US, which isn't exactly known for common sense policies, allows non-citizens to vote.

Again, cheers for making my point, mate.


Um - if you mean the point that you are a dolt - then you're welcome. Second - where is it you see anything in the US sugesting non-citizens have a right to vote? Third - how does any of this relate to giving illegal immigrants the right to vote or even participate in the political process? You'd have to be a dolt to argue that. Oh - answered my own question. NM

Ever so nice of you to make my point for me, about there being nothing "common-sensed" about not letting non-citizens vote. Apparently it's so not "common-sensed," that even the US, which isn't exactly known for common sense policies, allows non-citizens to vote.

Again, cheers for making my point, mate.
Did I miss something, where in that site did it say anything about being able to vote in the US when not a citizen?

"Outlaws?" I was mirroring what I was responding to.

No, not outlaws, the "U" word. It is a very derogatory term and you used it to denegrate Americans.

Did I miss something, where in that site did it say anything about being able to vote in the US when not a citizen?

When I click that link, I'm redirected to "http://www.state.gov/" I'm assuming the site says something about the US. It doesn't?

Nice pic of Condy, though. Makes her seem not so evil.

No, not outlaws, the "U" word. It is a very derogatory term and you used it to denegrate Americans.

USian? That's not a derogatory term, and, believe me, when I denigrate USians, you'll know.

When I click that link, I'm redirected to "http://www.state.gov/" I'm assuming the site says something about the US. It doesn't?
It talks about Sweden.

When I click that link, I'm redirected to "http://www.state.gov/" I'm assuming the site says something about the US. It doesn't?


It talks about Sweden.


ROFLMAO!!!

He must be one of those. (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dolt?view=uk)

What about in national elections such as Parliment?

If non-citizens from the EU, then yes. If non-citizens not from the EU, no, but there is significant opinion that parliamentary voting should be opened up as well. Again, just goes to show there is nothing "common sense" about restricting voting rights to citizens only.

Also, those non-citizens who do vote, do they have to be in the country legally?

If one isn't here legally, one isn't registered with the government, which means they can't send you "röstkort" which means you can't vote. However, the person who asked, asked about "non-citizens" - not "illegals."

It talks about Sweden.

The site he linked to? As I wrote, I get a picture of Condy and her saying something about Iran, or whatnot.

Oh, so the US doesn't let immigrants vote at all? Well, if it doesn't, it's amazingly stupid, as opposed to "common-sensed" as claimed.

If non-citizens from the EU, then yes. If non-citizens not from the EU, no, but there is significant opinion that parliamentary voting should be opened up as well. Again, just goes to show there is nothing "common sense" about restricting voting rights to citizens only.



If one isn't here legally, one isn't registered with the government, which means they can't send you "röstkort" which means you can't vote. However, the person who asked, asked about "non-citizens" - not "illegals."


Actually - nobody asked about anything having to do with Sweden - your brought that up yourself.

ROFLMAO!!!

He must be one of those. (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dolt?view=uk)
I think the amusing part about the post is that he is going on about common sense.

Heh - Epsilon. Good point. hehe.

The site he linked to? As I wrote, I get a picture of Condy and her saying something about Iran, or whatnot.

Oh, so the US doesn't let immigrants vote at all? Well, if it doesn't, it's amazingly stupid, as opposed to "common-sensed" as claimed.
Non citizens can not vote in the US. So far, you have yet to put forth any reasonable argument for non citizens having the right to vote.

The best you come up with is calling Americans "amazingly stupid", and so far, that doesn't win you many arguments.

The site he linked to? As I wrote, I get a picture of Condy and her saying something about Iran, or whatnot.

Oh, so the US doesn't let immigrants vote at all? Well, if it doesn't, it's amazingly stupid, as opposed to "common-sensed" as claimed.

It is in our Constitution and so far we have not seen fit to change the requirement that you must be a citizen.

Oh, you're one of those. Never miind then.

So - you gonna back this with anything - or just run off with your tail between your legs?

It is in our Constitution and so far we have not seen fit to change the requirement that you must be a citizen.

I've claimed several times in the past that the US constitution is poorly written, outdated and seriously in need of an overhaul.

Actually - nobody asked about anything having to do with Sweden - your brought that up yourself.

You claimed something to be "common sense." I was using an example to show, that no, it is not common-sensed at all.

I've claimed several times in the past that the US constitution is poorly written, outdated and seriously in need of an overhaul.
And your claim means exactly what?
Your opinion really has no bearing on the matter really. You are welcome to find a relevant case going before a federal court, one that deals with the US Constitution, and file a friend of the court brief, if you so wish. Not sure what good that would do.

You still haven't given a reasonable argument in favor of giving non-citizens the right to vote in the US.

I've claimed several times in the past that the US constitution is poorly written, outdated and seriously in need of an overhaul.

That is your opinion and you have a right to your opinion. I'm sure your country also has some laws that I would consider outdated and in need of an overhaul. However, not being a citizen or resident of your country I have no right to tell you what your laws should be. :)

Non citizens can not vote in the US. So far, you have yet to put forth any reasonable argument for non citizens having the right to vote.

No one's presented a reasonable argument they shouldn't. What was claimed was that it was "common sense." I've that refuted that as an erronous assmption.

The best you come up with is calling Americans "amazingly stupid", and so far, that doesn't win you many arguments.

I called USians "amazingly stupid?" Where in this thead?

I sggest you learn to separate between calling a policy stupid, and USians stupid.

You claimed something to be "common sense." I was using an example to show, that no, it is not common-sensed at all.
All you showed in that post was that you assumed where that link went to and really didn't show any common sense.

No one's present a reasonable argument they should. What was claimed was that it was "common sense." I've that refuted that as an erronous assmption.



I called USians "amazingly stupid?" Where in this thead?

I sggest you learn to separate between calling a policy stupid, and USians stupid.
Please, quit dodging the question... give one reasonable argument for non-citizens having the right to vote in the US.

You claimed something to be "common sense." I was using an example to show, that no, it is not common-sensed at all.

The fact that Sweden allows it has nothing to do with the common sense required to interpret the constitution.

I've claimed several times in the past that the US constitution is poorly written, outdated and seriously in need of an overhaul.


Yup - that whole personal freedom stuff is sooo 18th century...

All you showed in that post was that you assumed

When I click the link, I am taken to http://www.state.gov. It says nothing about Sweden. It says a lot about the US, and has pictures of Condy on it. I've repeated this several times now. I've clicked the link several times. I still get redirected to the front page of the US state department's website. I don't how many times I have to write that for you manage to understand it.

and really didn't show any common sense.

Oh, but if only you would show the ability to understand the written word.

Please, quit dodging the question... give one reasonable argument for non-citizens having the right to vote in the US.

He doesn't have one. Besides, Sweden probably doesn't have enough non-citizens in the entire country to influence an election so that is not an issue with them.

The fact that Sweden allows it has nothing to do with the common sense required to interpret the constitution.

Oh, how you revise. You were claiming it was "common sense" not to let immigrants vote. You made a flawed assumption, just like I made a poor one in thinking that your link was supposed to refer me to the frontpage of the US State Department's homepage, and that you were trying to say something about the US.

What I should have done was to ask you if it was indeed your intention for it to redirect me, just as you shouldn't have assumed there was anything "common sense" about what you were claiming.

He doesn't have one. Besides, Sweden probably doesn't have enough non-citizens in the entire country to influence an election so that is not an issue with them.

Oh, 1.2 million out of a population of 9 million are immigrants. It would be democratically untenable to deny the right to vote to so many inhabitants.

When I click the link, I am taken to http://www.state.gov. It says nothing about Sweden. It says a lot about the US, and has pictures of Condy on it. I've repeated this several times now. I've clicked the link several times. I still get redirected to the front page of the US state department's website. I don't how many times I have to write that for you manage to understand it.

.


Now you are just plain lieing. The link works fine. You can even cut and paste if you need.

Please, quit dodging the question... give one reasonable argument for non-citizens having the right to vote in the US.

I'll give a reasonable answer for any country in the world: The fact that one lacks citizenship doesn't in any way mean one should be worth less than a citizen, or that one is more incapable of taking a stand in polical issues.

Also, seeing as the US allows immigrants to die for it in its projections of power and wars of agression (http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_1997_pr9731.htm), it seems quite the shitty thing to do not to allow them to vote.

Oh, how you revise. You were claiming it was "common sense" not to let immigrants vote. You made a flawed assumption, just like I made a poor one in thinking that your link was supposed to refer me to the frontpage of the US State Department's homepage, and that you were trying to say something about the US.

What I should have done was to ask you if it was indeed your intention for it to redirect me, just as you shouldn't have assumed there was anything "common sense" about what you were claiming.

I believe this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084106&postcount=42) is the post you're referring to. I am not the person revising...

Oh, 1.2 million out of a population of 9 million are immigrants. It would be democratically untenable to deny the right to vote to so many inhabitants.

Not exactly - they are immigrants or the (adult) children of at least one immigrant. Not the same. Regardless - why WOULD it be untenable to expect them to pursure citizenship before voting?

Oh, DeepK, what are we going to do with you?

I don't think illegal immigrants should be able to vote, either, because we shouldn't reward people for breaking the law, but, as usual, there are problems with your argument. Mostly you misunderstand how America works.

1) ANYONE can volunteer, demonstrate, distribute leaflets, campaign, lobby, and raise funds for their pet issues in US politics, regardless of whether or not they are citizens of the US, residents of the US, or even human (i.e. corporate interests).

2) Under US law, "citizen" and "registered voter" are two different things. Yes, all registered voters must be citizens, but not all citizens are automatically registered voters. The rules for citizenship are FEDERAL. The rules for registered voters are STATE. Different states have different rules. Some do not require registration at all. Some require you to register every election year. Some require you to show ID at the polling place. Some keep records of local voters and carry registration over year after year, as long as you vote in every election.

3) So, you see, there are three DIFFERENT things under discussion here.

There's political participation -- everyone can do that, including illegal immigrants. No controversy.

There's being a citizen -- illegal immigrants are not citizens. No controversy.

And there's being a registered voter -- THIS IS THE CONTROVERSY.

The rule that says only citizens can vote and the rules about how citizens vote and how elections are organized are working at cross purposes with each other. The current immigration issue, as well as scrutiny over certain recent contested elections (*ahem*), has revealed that, under many state's rules, it is possible for non-citizens to vote.

All right, we need to think about this, because that doesn't seem right, but on the other hand, it has never been considered right for US citizens to have to prove themselves to the government for anything. So what are we going to do about this? Ask US citizens to accept a government-controlled limitation that we have spent over 200 years rejecting? Or expand voting rights to non-citizens (as they do in Sweden, apparently)?

That's the debate, and it's a perfectly valid debate to have. I take it you are against expanding voting rights to non-citizens. So we'll just check you off as a "No" in that column, then, shall we?

Now you are just plain lieing. The link works fine. You can even cut and paste if you need.

When I click it, I am taken to the front page of the US State Department's website. When I copy and paste, the same thing.

Booting into Windows, and using Internet Explorer with it set to accept all cookies, and not to use a proxy, and my hardware firewall off, I finally get a page with a Swedish flag on it. Again, I should have asked you if you meant for it to redirect me.

Not exactly - they are immigrants or the (adult) children of at least one immigrant. Not the same.

Many, many of those people are not citizens. We do not have ius solis in this country.

Regardless - why WOULD it be untenable to expect them to pursure citizenship before voting?

Because ours is meant to be a modern democratic society with modern democratic values. Demanding citizenship for voting rights is the sort of thing one expects countries with outdated legal systems to do...

I'll give a reasonable answer for any country in the world: The fact that one lacks citizenship doesn't in any way mean one should be worth less than a citizen, or that one is more incapable of taking a stand in polical issues.

Also, seeing as the US allows immigrants to die for it in its projections of power and wars of agression (http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_1997_pr9731.htm), it seems quite the shitty thing to do not to allow them to vote.


The OP was discussing specifically illegal immigrants participation in the political proceess. Legal immigrants have no such restriction on volunteering. You are trying to revise the whole discussion to suit your argument. As far as voting goes - there is no logical reason why insisting a person become a citizen before they vote is anything short of logical.

Legal immigrants are quite certainly allowed to pursue nearly any vocation without restriction - including military service. They even pay taxes. Illegal immigrants do neither. Without the commitment to citizenship there is no reason for them to be allwed to vote in the US. (in fact - without that what IS the point of citizenship?) The fact that Sweden does it is hardly a ringing endorsement of common sense.

I believe this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084106&postcount=42) is the post you're referring to. I am not the person revising...

"Second - put on your fucking common sense hat." You were trying to tell him there was something common-sensed about not letting non-citizens vote. Flawed assumption - there is nothing common-sensed about it.

When I click the link, I am taken to http://www.state.gov. It says nothing about Sweden. It says a lot about the US, and has pictures of Condy on it. I've repeated this several times now. I've clicked the link several times. I still get redirected to the front page of the US state department's website. I don't how many times I have to write that for you manage to understand it.



Oh, but if only you would show the ability to understand the written word.

You have the wrong link somehow. Try this http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm
and if it doesn't work try a cut and paste.:rolleyes:

There's political participation -- everyone can do that, including illegal immigrants. No controversy.


On this you are partially wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment....

Generally, an individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution....

In Advisory Opinion 1987-25, the Commission allowed a foreign national student to provide uncompensated volunteer services to a Presidential campaign. By contrast, the decision in AO 1981-51 prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a Senate campaign....

The OP was discussing specifically illegal immigrants participation in the political proceess.

And the person you were responding to - who was not the OP, by the way, which renders your mentioning him quite irrelevant - did not mention illegal immigrants.

Legal immigrants have no such restriction on volunteering. You are trying to revise the whole discussion to suit your argument. As far as voting goes - there is no logical reason why insisting a person become a citizen before they vote is anything short of logical.

Legal immigrants are quite certainly allowed to pursue nearly any vocation without restriction - including military service. They even pay taxes. Illegal immigrants do neither. Without the commitment to citizenship there is no reason for them to be allwed to vote in the US.

So, wait, they pay taxes in the US, and work like everyone else, and die for the US, and still they are not granted the right to vote? As I said, pretty fucking shitty thing to do.

(in fact - without that what IS the point of citizenship?)

Exactly. It's quite the pointless notion, IMHO.

The fact that Sweden does it is hardly a ringing endorsement of common sense.

Alike proper sex-ed, and a viable foreign policy, the fact that the US isn't doing it speaks more on that.

"Second - put on your fucking common sense hat." You were trying to tell him there was something common-sensed about not letting non-citizens vote. Flawed assumption - there is nothing common-sensed about it.

Your assumption is incorrect. The common sense hat was required to understand that the amendments are about citizens, not anyone else. Sorry I had to spell that out for you.

"Second - put on your fucking common sense hat." You were trying to tell him there was something common-sensed about not letting non-citizens vote. Flawed assumption - there is nothing common-sensed about it.

Why the hell are you so hung up on this "common sense" thing? It is perfectly logical for a country to require voters be citizens. This is not something unique to the US.

On this you are partially wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment....

Generally, an individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution....

In Advisory Opinion 1987-25, the Commission allowed a foreign national student to provide uncompensated volunteer services to a Presidential campaign. By contrast, the decision in AO 1981-51 prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a Senate campaign....

That pretty much sounds like "political participation" to me.

She is quite right that you do not need papers to vote, at least in Oklahoma. When you register to vote, you are not asked for any type of identification or even proof of address. You are simply handed a form to fill out wherever you please to fill it out. On the form, there are two boxes to check one says, "Yes, I am a US citizen" and the other says "Yes, I am 18 years old or older." Then you sign the form "under penalty of law etc, and place the form in the basket or mail it in. A few weeks later you get your voter registration card in the mail.

When you do go to the poll to vote here in Oklahoma, you are not asked for your voter registration card or any other form of identification. (That may change.) You simply give the poll worker your name, she looks it up in the book, you sign, she initials, and you are handed a ballot.

Yep, no need papers to vote in Oklahoma.
:(
Maybe Oklahoma is similar to Massachusetts in this.

In Mass, where I live, if you want to vote in elections, you have to register with the state several weeks in advance of election day. Registering involves proving your ID and that you are a resident of Massachusetts and signing an affidavit, called the "Free Man's Oath" (quaint), saying that you are a citizen and that all your acts and deeds are of your own free will and that your vote is not controlled by anyone else.

Then, you also have to register (less ritual) with the city/town you live in. In the City of Somerville (my home) they do this via an annual census form which they use for all of: residency info, number of persons in each household, number of licensed dogs in each household, job/professions statistics, political party affiliation statistics, and veteran status.

The only bad thing that will happen to you if you don't respond to the census form is that you will be removed from the City's registered voter list and will have to re-register by the deadline before the next election or else you won't be allowed to vote. Also, if you skip two national elections, you'll also be removed from the voter list and have to re-register. But as long as you fill out the census form and vote in every presidential election, your registration doesn't change. Oh, and if you move between the census and the election, you have to alert the board of elections about that, or else, you won't be able to vote if your info and their info doesn't match up on election day.

Now, on election day, at the polling places, the volunteers have the City's voter lists for their ward/precinct, and when you show up, you don't have to show ID, but you give your name, and they ask you your address, and if your info and their info matches up, they give you the ballot.

I bothered to learn that this is how it works. I don't even know if most people connect the dots between the census and their voter registration, even though it's printed on the form.

When I lived in New York and Vermont, their systems were different and were based on driver's licenses/state IDs, rather than a separate info tracking system.

[QUOTE=Muravyets]Maybe Oklahoma is similar to Massachusetts in this.

In Mass, where I live, if you want to vote in elections, you have to register with the state several weeks in advance of election day. Registering involves proving your ID and that you are a resident of Massachusetts and signing an affidavit, called the "Free Man's Oath" (quaint), saying that you are a citizen and that all your acts and deeds are of your own free will and that your vote is not controlled by anyone else.[QUOTE]

Big difference. Oklahoma does NOT require proof of residency.

On this you are partially wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment....

Generally, an individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution....

In Advisory Opinion 1987-25, the Commission allowed a foreign national student to provide uncompensated volunteer services to a Presidential campaign. By contrast, the decision in AO 1981-51 prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a Senate campaign....
Right, they can't contribute directly, but they can volunteer to raise funds from legal contributors. Thus, let's say there was a ballot initiative to expand voting rights to undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants would be within their rights to volunteer by soliciting people who are allowed to contribute money to do so in support of candidates who support the initiative.

And the person you were responding to - who was not the OP, by the way, which renders your mentioning him quite irrelevant - did not mention illegal immigrants.

So, wait, they pay taxes in the US, and work like everyone else, and die for the US, and still they are not granted the right to vote? As I said, pretty fucking shitty thing to do.


Exactly. It's quite the pointless notion, IMHO.

Alike proper sex-ed, and a viable foreign policy, the fact that the US isn't doing it speaks more on that.

Whatever. No - it is not shitty to allow only citizens to vote. Anyone can become a US citizen. There is no reason for a permanent resident not to. Citizenship is a very useful construct. Regardles of what perceived weaknesses you find with the US - being a Swedish fanboi does little to establish the credibility of Sweden as a bastion of common sense.

Big difference. Oklahoma does NOT require proof of residency.
1) This illustrates my earlier point about different states having different rules, which is why DK's complaint about how obvious it should be that citizenship status is the standard for voting rights if flawed.

2) What does Oklahoma require? See, in the New York and Vermont systems, because they used Motor Vehicles Department info, you could be registered to vote without even knowing it. So Oklahoma possibly does have a system, even if it's not apparent.

Right, they can't contribute directly, but they can volunteer to raise funds from legal contributors. Thus, let's say there was a ballot initiative to expand voting rights to undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants would be within their rights to volunteer by soliciting people who are allowed to contribute money to do so in support of candidates who support the initiative.
umm, not exactly. Legal immigrants (guests, green card, etc.) are - illegal immigrants are not - they really have no political rights whatsoever - not even in Sweden... :)

That pretty much sounds like "political participation" to me.
Which is why it was only partially wrong - as I stated.

they really have no political rights whatsoever - not even in Sweden... :)

Actually, they do. (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx) Psst, read article 22.

Which is why it was only partially wrong - as I stated.

He is wrong if he states something wrongful. Fortunately for him, he didn't mention anything about funds, and thus was not wrong, even "partially," as he may very well have meant immaterial contributions solely. That how I understood him, at least.

Right, they can't contribute directly, but they can volunteer to raise funds from legal contributors. Thus, let's say there was a ballot initiative to expand voting rights to undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants would be within their rights to volunteer by soliciting people who are allowed to contribute money to do so in support of candidates who support the initiative.

They could also volunteer to make phone calls or hand out literature concerning the issue or supporting the candidate. However, I wonder what the public reaction would be to a political candidate that knowingly used illegal immigrants to help him/her. They might lose big time.

1) This illustrates my earlier point about different states having different rules, which is why DK's complaint about how obvious it should be that citizenship status is the standard for voting rights if flawed.

2) What does Oklahoma require? See, in the New York and Vermont systems, because they used Motor Vehicles Department info, you could be registered to vote without even knowing it. So Oklahoma possibly does have a system, even if it's not apparent.

To see what Oklahoma requires please see post #21. In Oklahoma, voter registration is not tied to drivers license or state ID. You must register to be able to vote. If you do not vote in any election during a certain period of time, you are dropped from the rolls and must re-register.

Typical Democrat.

Actually, they do. (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx) Psst, read article 22.

I saw rights in that article, but I didn't see anything I would consider a political right.

Typical Democrat.

I dunno. Taking advantage of illegal immigrants for cheap, unpaid labor makes him sounds more like a business owner to me.

I saw rights in that article, but I didn't see anything I would consider a political right.

You're saying "protection against coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate, freedom of association, the right to industrial action, protection against interventions on grounds of opinion" and so on are not political rights? Right...

You're saying "protection against coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate, freedom of association, the right to industrial action, protection against interventions on grounds of opinion" and so on are not political rights? Right...

Could be a religious right also. Or the right to participate in union organization, or promote the legalization of just about anything or promote a political candidate or position. So no, it is not specifically a political right.

Oh, USians seem to find them that already. Outlaws as well as dangerous.

Well now, if I were to simply decide to hop a container ship to Sweden, slip into the country without showing any identification to anyone, and show up to a prospective employer, could I reasonably expect a job?

Could I reasonably expect to be fed, given health care, and educated, all without being in Sweden with at the least a passport to show who I am?

Would I be able to demand that the classes I took in school be translated into Swahili because that was the only language I understood?

Could I expect to live in Sweden for the rest of my life without proving my identity and going through whatever process I need to become a citizen?

And while I will admit, the VAST MAJORITY of people coming to the US just want jobs, it is NOT unreasonable to want to know who is crossing the border. Not all illegal immigrants are cute and cuddly and just want to work, as Mary Nagle and her family unfortunately found out.

http://wcbs880.com/pages/35754.php

How about this fellow: http://sun.yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_24044.php

Well now, if I were to simply decide to hop a container ship to Sweden, slip into the country without showing any identification to anyone, and show up to a prospective employer, could I reasonably expect a job?

If he wishes to hire you.

Could I reasonably expect to be fed, given health care, and educated, all without being in Sweden with at the least a passport to show who I am?

Yes. One doesn't need to be a citizen, or have a passport, to get access to health care or compulsory education or food for that matter.

Would I be able to demand that the classes I took in school be translated into Swahili because that was the only language I understood?

Actually, yes. In dealing with the government, one does have the right to request an interpreter. And the government is quite good at supplying them. If you happen to speak one of the five minority languages, your rights are even stronger, and you can demand that all paperwork be done in one of them.

Then, again, you could just speak English in Swedish schools as most exchange students do before they've learnt Swedish, so I think you'd be quite OK. Or, if you want Swahili, you could go to a "friskola" run by an African committee.

Could I expect to live in Sweden for the rest of my life without proving my identity and going through whatever process I need to become a citizen?

Probably, but after a while, say 5-10 years, hiding wouldn't be necessary, as you'd in most cases be able to apply for a residency permit on humanitarian grounds.

Could be a religious right also. Or the right to participate in union organization, or promote the legalization of just about anything or promote a political candidate or position. So no, it is not specifically a political right.

All the things you mentioned are political rights, you know, right? Especially the ones about demonstrating, promoting legalisation or a policy, and the right to industrial action. Those are all political rights.

If he wishes to hire you.

Yes. One doesn't need to be a citizen, or have a passport, to get access to health care or compulsory education or food for that matter.

Actually, yes. In dealing with the government, one does have the right to request an interpreter. And the government is quite good at supplying them. If you happen to speak one of the five minority languages, your rights are even stronger, and you can demand that all paperwork be done in one of them.

Then, again, you could just speak English in Swedish schools as most exchange students do before they've learnt Swedish, so I think you'd be quite OK. Or, if you want Swahili, you could go to a "friskola" run by an African committee.

Probably, but after a while, say 5-10 years, hiding wouldn't be necessary, as you'd in most cases be able to apply for a residency permit on humanitarian grounds.

Sounds like a lot of http://wally.wa.funpic.de/4images/data/media/19/bullshit.jpg I have little doubt the authorities would arrest and deport you if they found you had entered the country illegally and did not apply for political asylum. But, who of us knows enough about the law in Sweden to refute what Fass is saying?

Sounds like a lot of http://wally.wa.funpic.de/4images/data/media/19/bullshit.jpg I have little doubt the authorities would arrest and deport you if they found you had entered the country illegally and did not apply for political asylum. But, who of us knows enough about the law in Sweden to refute what Fass is saying?

Children of illegal immigrants go to Swedish schools, and the government may not use them to get at their parents. As you could see before, schooling is a fundamental right granted to all within the Realm, not just citizens or legal residents. Why? Because these children and their education and development are more important than stupid issues of where their parents were born.

I myself have treated several illegal immigrants. While they are not covered by health care insurance, many can pay out of their pockets, or we just waive the fees. And, no, we are under no obligation to turn them in - doctor/patient privilege is more important, again, than where they were born. There are several programmes under way to offer health care to illegal immigrants.

And, it is not uncommon at all for hidden people to be granted residency permits after they've spent a long while in the country - if it involves children, the time required and difficulties to get one are alleviated.

Oh, and my cousin works as a translator for the government, and I often have foreign patients who require translators, so I know a lot about what sort of services they are offered. Not to mention that most of my literature at uni is in English, and my entire next semester will be in English as we will be receiving exchange students from China, the UK and Saudi Arabia... Not to mention, of course, that there are several "English only" courses given, and those "friskolor," such as the Arabic one I used to live next to. And so on, and so on...

So, BS? Whatever. Not all societies see being humane as a negative, or are spooked by a foreign language...

snip...
So, BS? Whatever. Not all societies see being humane as a negative, or are spooked by a foreign language...

You choose very well. I have little doubt the authorities would arrest and deport an illegal immigrant who did not apply for amnesty and was single with no children or were both husband and wife were in the country illegally, did not apply for asylum and had no children.

By the way, illegal immigrants in the US get the schooling for the kids, healthcare, etc.

You choose very well. I have little doubt the authorities would arrest and deport an illegal immigrant who did not apply for amnesty and was single with no children or were both husband and wife were in the country illegally, did not apply for asylum and had no children.

If the government finds them, of course, but that was not what Katganistan was asking. She asked if she could expect several things, and, yes indeedy, she can, seeing as evading the government is also something one can expect to do, too. Personally, I think the government should be looking for actual criminals, but, then again, they did try to shut down The Pirate Bay...

By the way, illegal immigrants in the US get the schooling for the kids, healthcare, etc.

Then Katganistan's questioning of what she could and could not expect seems even more strange, if she's to be expected to know that.

If the government finds them, of course, but that was not what Katganistan was asking. She asked if she could expect several things, and, yes indeedy, she can, seeing as evading the government is also something one can expect to do, too. Personally, I think the government should be looking for actual criminals, but, then again, they did try to shut down The Pirate Bay...



Then Katganistan's questioning of what she could and could not expect seems even more strange, if she's to be expected to know that.

So, there is little difference between how the US and Sweden treat immigrants, both legal and illegal. One exception is voting. In your country, legal immigrants are provided voting rights in local elections, but not Swedish national elections, after three years. In the US, you must be a citizen to vote.

In both countries, both legal and illegal immigrants are provided education for their children, medical care, equality with citizens in the justice system, and social services. Both countries can deport illegal immigrants, but the US government seldom does.

So, Fass, our countries are more alike than either of us thought.
:fluffle:

So, Fass, our countries are more alike than either of us thought.
:fluffle:

What a mean thing to say. ;)

What a mean thing to say. ;)

Good night Fass, and have a super day tomorrow. :)

He is wrong if he states something wrongful. Fortunately for him, he didn't mention anything about funds, and thus was not wrong, even "partially," as he may very well have meant immaterial contributions solely. That how I understood him, at least.

So let me see if I get this right - you want to argue that giving funds to political parties is NOT political activity??

LOL... You make it so easy.

Actually, they do. (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx) Psst, read article 22.


You'll have to be more specific than that silly. Most of the articles begin with the word 'citizen' or include it as the subject and the entire page does not include the word immigrant.

Face it - your argument is void of any content - illegal immigrants have no political rights anywhere - even Sweden - and your continued attempts to argue they do is more than pathetic - it is fucking hilarious! Please - go on!

So let me see if I get this right - you want to argue that giving funds to political parties is NOT political activity??

"Political participation" were the words he used.

LOL... You make it so easy.

Is it too much to ask that you at least get correct the words you're trying to misrepresent and yank out of context?

You'll have to be more specific than that silly. Most of the articles begin with the word 'citizen' or include it as the subject and the entire page does not include the word immigrant.

Face it - your argument is void of any content - illegal immigrants have no political rights anywhere - even Sweden - and your continued attempts to argue they do is more than pathetic - it is fucking hilarious! Please - go on!

Which part of "Art. 22. A foreign national within the Realm is equated with a Swedish citizen in respect of" did you not understand? Or are you gonna use a made up dyslexia like you did in the other thread once more?

Really, is it too hard to expect you to actually read? The homosexality thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084374&postcount=17), coupled with your goofs here seem to indicate that.

Amendment XXVI - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History

1. 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.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Note the words "citizens."
This what I'm getting at. As opposed as I am to non-citizens voting in governmental elections, I'm not sure the Constitution does anything other than guarantee the right to citizens. I don't think states are prohibited from giving non-citizens the privilege to vote in their elections. Moreover, I don't think states are prohibited from using votes from non-citizens to determine how the electors will vote in a Presidential election.

As nuanced as some want to make the Constitution, I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as it ought to be.

Sounds like a lot of http://wally.wa.funpic.de/4images/data/media/19/bullshit.jpg I have little doubt the authorities would arrest and deport you if they found you had entered the country illegally and did not apply for political asylum. But, who of us knows enough about the law in Sweden to refute what Fass is saying?


You don't need - he must support his own argument the same as the rest of us - and so far he has not done so. Obviously there are rights in Sweden for citizens - and there are rights for legal immigrants as he has demonstrated. He has, however, not given any evidence yet of any rights for illegal immigrants there. His argument is empty.

You don't need - he must support his own argument the same as the rest of us - and so far he has not done so. Obviously there are rights in Sweden for citizens - and there are rights for legal immigrants as he has demonstrated. He has, however, not given any evidence yet of any rights for illegal immigrants there. His argument is empty.

Again, "A foreign national within the Realm is equated with a Swedish citizen in respect of". Doesn't restrict it to "legals" at all, does it? Seriously, please, start reading already.

This what I'm getting at. As opposed as I am to non-citizens voting in governmental elections, I'm not sure the Constitution does anything other than guarantee the right to citizens. I don't think states are prohibited from giving non-citizens the privilege to vote in their elections. Moreover, I don't think states are prohibited from using votes from non-citizens to determine how the electors will vote in a Presidential election.

As nuanced as some want to make the Constitution, I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as it ought to be.
It doesn't. States are alowed to do whatever the futters they want with their voting, including giving the vote to 16 year olds or allowing non-citizens to vote. They can even technically infringe upon voting rights, so long as their representation in congress is notched back by that amount (or at least, they could).

Again, "A foreign national within the Realm is equated with a Swedish citizen in respect of". Doesn't restrict it to "legals" at all, does it? Seriously, please, start reading already.

If things were so good for them then why do they collect 70% or so of the social services (handouts) from your government? Apparently employers in Sweden feel differently than your government..

You are right however, since you provided no quote in your link I presumed the entire link was what you considered relevant. I stand corrected.

(and lets see you reald all that shit with three kids running around while you're also cooking dinner)

If things were so good for them then why do they collect 70% or so of the social services (handouts) from your government?

Ah, so this is what a red-herring with unsubstantiated numbers looks like?

You are right however, since you provided no quote in your link I presumed the entire link was what you considered relevant. I stand corrected.

"Psst, read article 22." I directed you to read the pertinent article, but you failed reading once more.

(and lets see you reald all that shit with three kids running around while you're also cooking dinner)

Yeah, blame your offspring for not managing the enormity of "psst, read article 22."

Ah, so this is what a red-herring with unsubstantiated numbers looks like?



"Psst, read article 22." I directed you to read the pertinent article, but you failed reading once more.



Yeah, blame your offspring for not managing the enormity of "psst, read article 22."
Lol, this coming from someone who missed the link to Sweden and thought it was about the US.

Lol, this coming from someone who missed the link to Sweden and thought it was about the US.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084409&postcount=80

That's 56 posts ago. What is it with you illiterates tonight?

Maybe after all the electronic voting machines in every state in the union are made one-hundred-percent secure and reliable we can start to worry about the handfull of undocumented immigrants willing to brave La Migra to write in Hugo Chavez, or whatever.

Maybe.

If non-citizens from the EU, then yes. If non-citizens not from the EU, no, but there is significant opinion that parliamentary voting should be opened up as well. Again, just goes to show there is nothing "common sense" about restricting voting rights to citizens only.



If one isn't here legally, one isn't registered with the government, which means they can't send you "röstkort" which means you can't vote. However, the person who asked, asked about "non-citizens" - not "illegals."

Illegal immigrants are non-citizens in the United States. They have illegally immigrated and therefore do not have the rights of US citizens.

umm, not exactly. Legal immigrants (guests, green card, etc.) are - illegal immigrants are not - they really have no political rights whatsoever - not even in Sweden... :)
Umm, not exactly. There is no residency requirement to demonstrate, collect petition signatures, buy political ad time on television, or hire a lobbyist. There is no mechanism in US law to prevent non-citizens, even people residing outside the US, from participating in our political system. They cannot expect to have as much influence as voting citizens, of course. Unless they are Vincente Fox, that is.

The site he linked to? As I wrote, I get a picture of Condy and her saying something about Iran, or whatnot.

Oh, so the US doesn't let immigrants vote at all? Well, if it doesn't, it's amazingly stupid, as opposed to "common-sensed" as claimed.

Citizens may vote. Non-citizens may not vote.

He is wrong if he states something wrongful. Fortunately for him, he didn't mention anything about funds, and thus was not wrong, even "partially," as he may very well have meant immaterial contributions solely. That how I understood him, at least.
That is precisely how I meant it, thanks. I said they could volunteer to help raise funds. Fundraisers do not actually make contributions. They persuade others to contribute. Anyone on the planet can do that. All that matters is that the money does not pass through the control of non-citizens -- on paper, at least.

Illegal immigrants are non-citizens in the United States. They have illegally immigrated and therefore do not have the rights of US citizens.

Again: the person didn't mention "illegals." He mentioned "non-citizens." That also means legal immigrants, you know. And anyone else who isn't a citizen, basically.

Citizens may vote. Non-citizens may not vote.

Again, there's nothing "common sense" about it, as claimed and as refuted by me.

Why am I repeating myself to someone who responds to something which has already been debated and doesn't seem to want to bother reading the thread before responding? It's too bloody many pages ago, and to too bloody early...

They could also volunteer to make phone calls or hand out literature concerning the issue or supporting the candidate. However, I wonder what the public reaction would be to a political candidate that knowingly used illegal immigrants to help him/her. They might lose big time.
There are a couple of up-coming mid-term elections in which we may find out how it goes.

That is precisely how I meant it, thanks. I said they could volunteer to help raise funds. Fundraisers do not actually make contributions. They persuade others to contribute. Anyone on the planet can do that. All that matters is that the money does not pass through the control of non-citizens -- on paper, at least.

There has been quite a spotty record when it comes to understanding posts tonight for some people for some reason. I found what you were saying quite obvious. Ah, well...

To see what Oklahoma requires please see post #21. In Oklahoma, voter registration is not tied to drivers license or state ID. You must register to be able to vote. If you do not vote in any election during a certain period of time, you are dropped from the rolls and must re-register.
What does registration require? What's the process?

In New York and Vermont, it's the individual's ID, so they use DMV records, which are sort of a not very reliable evidence of residency, too. In Massachusetts, you have to prove residency, but not necessarily ID.

In New York and Mass., you get dropped from the rolls the same way as Oklahoma. I don't remember about Vermont.

Originally Posted by Celtlund
I saw rights in that article, but I didn't see anything I would consider a political right.
You're saying "protection against coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate, freedom of association, the right to industrial action, protection against interventions on grounds of opinion" and so on are not political rights? Right...
Celtlund,

The bolded phrases are political rights in the US. They are the rights that allow political action.

Could be a religious right also. Or the right to participate in union organization, or promote the legalization of just about anything or promote a political candidate or position. So no, it is not specifically a political right.
The right to religious freedom is political in the US.

Just because a thing could be B, doesn't mean it can't be A, also.

Sounds like a lot of http://wally.wa.funpic.de/4images/data/media/19/bullshit.jpg I have little doubt the authorities would arrest and deport you if they found you had entered the country illegally and did not apply for political asylum. But, who of us knows enough about the law in Sweden to refute what Fass is saying?
Wowie! :D That is the most begrudging concession of a point without actually admitting you were wrong that I've heard since my grandfather died. You're not a spirit channeler by any chance, are you?

You choose very well. I have little doubt the authorities would arrest and deport an illegal immigrant who did not apply for amnesty and was single with no children or were both husband and wife were in the country illegally, did not apply for asylum and had no children.

By the way, illegal immigrants in the US get the schooling for the kids, healthcare, etc.
Two in a row -- pow! I love it when people are shown they are wrong, and the only thing they can come back with is, "Well, I still think I'm right, so there."

So let me see if I get this right - you want to argue that giving funds to political parties is NOT political activity??

LOL... You make it so easy.
For the last frigging time: Nobody said anything about non-citizens giving money to politicians or parties. We are talking about encouraging others to make contributions, and that they are perfectly able to do.

There has been quite a spotty record when it comes to understanding posts tonight for some people for some reason. I found what you were saying quite obvious. Ah, well...
There's been an outbreak of poor reading comprehension around the forum lately. Maybe it's spring time. They're still woozy from all the melting.

people dont seem to understand the concept that there is a reason why only the citizens are alowed to vote.

should the people in England decide the future for America?

democrats want these illegals to vote. because they feel as poor "minorities" these people will be inclined to vote in favor of their party and their "ideals". this also goes because of the infamous image these democrats love putting on republicans as racist.

and this is what the true debate in politics about immigration is truelly about. none of these politicians on either side care about the economy or about the people. it is about who can get the votes and gain the seats. it also has come close to not even matter who has majority control because of all the restrictions they apply to prevent the majority from having true control.

politics and diversity is going to be the end of this country

For the last frigging time: Nobody said anything about non-citizens giving money to politicians or parties. We are talking about encouraging others to make contributions, and that they are perfectly able to do.
You're right... and this thread isn't about non-citizens giving money to politicians and parties.

This thread is about a politician encouraging non-citizens to vote in US elections. Which is illegal.

You're right... and this thread isn't about non-citizens giving money to politicians and parties.

This thread is about a politician encouraging non-citizens to vote in US elections. Which is illegal.


Actually - he's arguing that his statement about there being no restriction on non-citizens (or anyoene elses) political participation being unlimited was not partially wrong. Quite silly given that I demonstrated they cannot give monmey. OF course - it is also silly that there are limits to how much money a CITIZEN can give...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084409&postcount=80

That's 56 posts ago. What is it with you illiterates tonight?


I think his point is that I'm man enough to admit when I made an error - something you are incapable of.

Ah, so this is what a red-herring with unsubstantiated numbers looks like?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22743

In 2001 persons born outside of Sweden on average received seven times more social security than those born in Sweden.

See - I'm nice enough to provide the text instead of just the link.

Really Fass, as you describe it Sweden sounds to me like the mother of all give-aways. Maybe once they experience non-documented immigration on a level comparable with America they will have second thoughts about their giveaways.

Between 2000 and 2005 the US averaged an estimated 1 million illegal immigrants per year. That is - the equivalent of roughly 50% the entire population of Sweden moved here in five years;
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back106.html

While Sweden gets roughly one tenth of one percent that amount of legal immigrants (and no reports but an assumed smaller number of illegals);
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/Sweden.htm
www.chicagofed.org/cedric\cedric_files/immigrant/hansen2003.pdf
Amazing considering all of the free incentives they are giving away, no? Must be Fass isn't giving us the whole picture...

It is also important to note; based on the report of the Human Rights Watch - Sweden is not nearly so accomodating to illegal immigrants as Fass would have us believe... (shock! ... dismay!)



Yeah, blame your offspring for not managing the enormity of "psst, read article 22."

You obviously hve none of your own. I most certainly do blame them! I also blame them for my receeding hairline, my grey hairs, my credit card balance, and my messy yard. If you ever get children of your own you will find that the difficulties with each additional child ( and rewards) are exponential - not arithmatic. (I do have to assume there is a maximum threshold somewhere or else parents of large families would spontaniously combust all the time - I'm just not brave enough to find that point)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22743

In 2001 persons born outside of Sweden on average received seven times more social security than those born in Sweden.

Do you know what a red-herring is? Please, learn. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

Also, to quote you: "70% or so of the social services." That number still remains unsubstantiated, as your link to a "conservative blog" (oooh, the credibility - I like how they call themselves "Frontpagemag" to pretend they're not a blog, and their blog entries as "articles"), which on its front page asks you to support a border fence, has no sources listed, no figures presented, basically no nothing.

See - I'm nice enough to provide the text instead of just the link.

In writing "psst, read article 22." I was sort of expecting you to, you know, read article 22. Silly me, eh?

Really Fass, as you describe it Sweden sounds to me like the mother of all give-always.

To people like you, who read the "Frontpagemag," even the US probably does.

Maybe once they experience non-documented immigration on a level comparable with America they will have second thoughts about their giveaways.

As the next paragraph shows, you, my dear, seem to have no understanding of what "comparable" means. I'll give you a hint - it usually means one compares with comparable figures such as normalized percentages, or per capita and so on.

Between 2000 and 2005 the US averaged an estimated 1 million illegal immigrants per year. That is - the equivalent of roughly 50% the entire population of Sweden moved here in five years;
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back106.html

While Sweden gets roughly one tenth of one percent that amount of legal immigrants (and no reports but an assumed smaller number of illegals);
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/Sweden.htm
www.chicagofed.org/cedric\cedric_files/immigrant/hansen2003.pdf
Amazing considering all of the free incentives they are giving away, no? Must be Fass isn't giving us the whole picture...

You're telling me a country roughly 21,5 times the size of ours (that's only counting the 50 states and the District of Columbia), and with a population of 300 million (that's 33,3 times the size of ours), has larger total figures? Get outta town! Next thing you'll tell me you get more total litres of rainwater on those 9,631,420 sq km of yours. Which is, to paraphrase you, shocking.

It is also important to note; based on the report of the Human Rights Watch - Sweden is not nearly so accomodating to illegal immigrants as Fass would have us believe... (shock! ... dismay!)

I would have you believe? I would have you believe the life of an illegal immigrant is easy?

This is where reading comes in again. Katganistan asked "can I expect to bla bla bla," I said, yes, you can expect much of the "bla bla bla." Even Celtlund had to admit that even in the USofA, many, if not all of the things, Katganistan asked about one could expect in the US as well. But don't let what people actually write stand in the way of your red-herrings and the "truthiness" of you what you think you read. It doesn't seem to have done so far...

You obviously have none of your own. I most certainly do blame them! I also blame them for my receeding hairline, my grey hairs, my credit card balance, and my messy yard. If you ever get children of your own you will find that the difficulties with each additional child ( and rewards) are exponential - not arithmatic. (I do have to assume there is a maximum threshold somewhere or else parents of large families would spontaniously combust all the time - I'm just not brave enough to find that point)

Yesterday it was lazy eyes and dyslexia, today it's kids. Such adversity in life. You're breaking my heart, love.

I think his point is that I'm man enough to admit when I made an error - something you are incapable of.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084667&postcount=35

You mean that telling you that I could not access the page and that I assumed I was to be redirected is not admitting I could not access the page and that I assumed I was to be redirected? Right.

Do you know what a red-herring is? Please, learn. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

Also, to quote you: "70% or so of the social services." That number still remains unsubstantiated, as your link to a "conservative blog" (oooh, the credibility - I like how they call themselves "Frontpagemag" to pretend they're not a blog, and their blog entries as "articles"), which on its front page asks you to support a border fence, has no sources listed, no figures presented, basically no nothing.

Ah I see - you cannot refute the info so you retute the source. How utterly European of you. It is much more fun to rant about the political leanings of the author than engage their statements with your cerebrum. You did not refut them because you cannot - you took the cowards way out. (Just like Sweden in WW2)


As the next paragraph shows, you, my dear, seem to have no understanding of what "comparable" means. I'll give you a hint - it usually means one compares with comparable figures such as normalized percentages, or per capita and so on.

You're telling me a country roughly 21,5 times the size of ours (that's only counting the 50 states and the District of Columbia), and with a population of 300 million (that's 33,3 times the size of ours), has larger total figures? Get outta town! Next thing you'll tell me you get more total litres of rainwater on those 9,631,420 sq km of yours. Which is, to paraphrase you, shocking.
What - you can't do your own math? Any way your work it your immigration problems are a fraction of ours. Meanwhile you failed completely to mention the hardships Sweden puts immigrants through. You make it sound like they get welcomed with open arms when in fact they are treated much more harshly than the US treats our legal immigrants.


I would have you believe? I would have you believe the life of an illegal immigrant is easy?
No - You made it sound like immigration is uncontrtolled and virtually unchecked in Sweden - I prooved you to be failing to disclose inportant information contrary to your argument.


This is where reading comes in again. Katganistan asked "can I expect to bla bla bla," I said, yes, you can expect much of the "bla bla bla." Even Celtlund had to admit that even in the USofA, many, if not all of the things, Katganistan asked about one could expect in the US as well. But don't let what people actually write stand in the way of your red-herrings and the "truthiness" of you what you think you read. It doesn't seem to have done so far...
Nobody says they don't get those things in the US. WE say they don't deserve them. The funny part is - you really have no idea of what my opinion of illegal immigrants really is - you only know what I feel their access to public services is.

[/quote]
Yesterday it was lazy eyes and dyslexia, today it's kids. Such adversity in life. You're breaking my heart, love.[/QUOTE]
Yup - nobody here is as perfect as you are - except when it comes to following hypertext links.

Ah I see - you cannot refute the info so you retute the source. How utterly European of you. It is much more fun to rant about the political leanings of the author than engage their statements with your cerebrum. You did not refut them because you cannot - you took the cowards way out. (Just like Sweden in WW2)





Whoaaa nelly, hold up right here, what is this nonsense?

You didnt provide a reliable source for your "info," and until you do, there is noreason to presume the "info" is true or to engage it.

This is "honesty and reason 101" bozzy, shame on you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084667&postcount=35

You mean that telling you that I could not access the page and that I assumed I was to be redirected is not admitting I could not access the page and that I assumed I was to be redirected? Right.


Sorry, Fonz.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11089861&postcount=324

Whoaaa nelly, hold up right here, what is this nonsense?

You didnt provide a reliable source for your "info," and until you do, there is noreason to presume the "info" is true or to engage it.

This is "honesty and reason 101" bozzy, shame on you.
Yes, the source is reliable. The other sources also mention it. So NYEA!

Yes, the source is reliable. The other sources also mention it. So NYEA!


At any rate, attacking the source of information is how people argue honestly, and you have no excuse for criticizing it.

You're right... and this thread isn't about non-citizens giving money to politicians and parties.

This thread is about a politician encouraging non-citizens to vote in US elections. Which is illegal.
Well, that's the problem, right there. The federal Constitution, which is supposed to govern in situations like this, clearly states that only citizens can vote, but organizing elections and establishing standards for qualifying voters has always been a state matter, and thus there is no national standard for making sure that only citizens are voting. The issue centers around what to do about that, and the questions I posed earlier stand.

For the first time, we see large numbers of non-citizens demanding a voice in our political system. How are we going to respond? Are we going to give them what they want and change our laws to be more like what some other nations, such as Sweden, have? This will require a fundamental rethinking of what US citizenship is and what its benefits are.

Or are we going to enforce our existing laws and keep them out? If so, how will we overcome the disconnect between state standards and federal requirements? How will we make sure that only citizens get to vote? This may require citizens to provide a level of personal ID to the government that is against US tradition. If we go that route, it will mean a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between the government and the citizenry.

I have no idea which would be the better way to go. There are pros and cons to both.

Actually - he's arguing that his statement about there being no restriction on non-citizens (or anyoene elses) political participation being unlimited was not partially wrong. Quite silly given that I demonstrated they cannot give monmey. OF course - it is also silly that there are limits to how much money a CITIZEN can give...
No, you're wrong. I never said their participation was "unlimited." You said non-citizens have no political rights, and I was showing that that's not true. They have some political rights. You can't suddenly make yourself look right by misrepresenting my statements.

I think his point is that I'm man enough to admit when I made an error - something you are incapable of.
Oh, good. Then I can expect you to apologize for misrepresenting my statements -- twice, I believe.

No, you're wrong. I never said their participation was "unlimited." You said non-citizens have no political rights, and I was showing that that's not true. They have some political rights. You can't suddenly make yourself look right by misrepresenting my statements.
I think a disconnect happened somewhere... We aren't really talking about non-citizens, we are talking about illegal immigrants.

Non-citizens do indeed have political rights. Non-citizens being legal immigrants, guest workers, what have you.

Illegal immigrants don't really have any political rights. They are not guaranteed any rights what-so-ever other than basic human rights. (What those are is open to interpretation and whatever relevant treaties in effect at the time)