Should noncitizens be allowed to vote?

DUDE! That story on the hispanic Marine? I was right up highway 1 when that happened, not too far away. Yeah March 21 (BTW my birthday, that's my birthday, gonna party like it's my birthday!) was fucking CRAZY! A-10's and Apaches fucking up some power generation station just ahead of our unit. Tanks and shit rolling past us when we were pulled over to let combat units get through......hold on a minute! WTF was my unit doing further into enemy territory than the combat units were? I didn't sign up for this shit......or did I? Behind the wheel of my truck for 34 hours at that point, because I'm not letting the boys do a man's job, and since I'm the oldest guy in my unit I'm the fucking man, so I won't take a sleep break. You had to be there.....some wild shit to say the least! Sadly, some pay the ultimate price when the dice are rolled.

So, even if I take @garamet 's statement at face value, I'm still with @Dayton3.

So what? They served, knowing that military service wouldn't win them the right to vote. They chose to serve for other reasons.

Once again, garamet introduces an irrelevant red herring to the discussion.

Non-citizens aren't allowed to vote. A citizen of Spain or France can't fly over and legally vote in the 2020 election.

Of course, we all know why the Dems and their progressive supporters want to push this agenda. They see future Democrat voters in every illegal that floats to America on a piece of plywood. These illegals will be poor and dependent on the State for welfare to survive. And that's the Democrat bread & butter. Every Hispanic illegal trying to raise a family of 15 anchor babies on welfare is a potential voter for Gavin Newsom in 2020.

To reiterate: They enlisted because it would fast-track them to citizenship (unless they were killed, that is). And when you're an American citizen, guess what you get to do?

Take your time. We can always repeat this a few more times until you get it. If you work hard enough, you can prove that you're not as dim as @cpurick. Everyone should have a goal.

It's interesting that everyone here who has served - regardless of political persuasion - grasps the concept.

Only the armchair generals like you and @Dayton3 and @cpurick remain as dumb as a bag of hammers.

BTW, @oldfella1962, haven't heard "dumb as a bag of hammers" in a while. That made me

You have actual evidence that getting on the fast track to citizenship was their only or even primary motive to enlist?

You're right, they could also have been motivated by things like a desire to serve their new country. Damn those shifty foreigners!

What difference does that make?

Because that is effectively what garamet claimed.

Are you under the delusion that I know all of these people? Or perhaps that I can read minds? You may be right. Some of them probably thought "I want to get sent to the Sandbox for lousy pay so I can get blown up by an IED."

Here you go, @Dayton3 - another link you can ignore because I'm the one who posted it: https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-military-service

I don't think anyone is arguing that people should be able to just fly over on election day and vote. However, if it can be shown that a person has some sort of vested interest in the politics of the nation (citizenship, residency, etc etc) then perhaps they need to be given a voice. We're already at the point where corporations are considered people and money is considered speech. But we can't see residents as voters?

I get so very tired of people claiming that Citizens United meant that "corporations are considered people".

Soldiers sent to the "Sandbox" get combat pay. Five of my cousins served over there.

And I'm aware you do not know "all of these people". But you are claiming to know the motives of at least some.

I'd be fine with Green Card Holders (legal permanent residents, no? or am I mixing my categories?) voting but otherwise you get too far into the weeds

Then you need to take issue with Mittens Romney. Or explain what you think Citizens United is.

I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm stating the facts, as presented in the link you're afraid to click on.

So you can see that the popular vote isn't what wins the presidency, but you can't quite understand it well enough to move on.

In other words, no examples. Thank you for playing.

I served, moron.

And I do find it amusing that your inability to understand conservatives makes us dumb.

It's amusing because we do understand you -- perfectly. Think of the implications: people who truly understand both sides choose conservatism.

But I'm sure if you understood both you would still be liberal.

You are probably talking about the house not the Senate. The house is gerrymandered to hell and back while the Senate cannot be gerrymandered as every seat is a state wide election.

No. Only citizens vote. You want to vote? Then become a citizen.

What is so transformative about citizenship that the right to vote absolutely must depend on that status?

It means you have sworn your first loyalty to the US and not some where else. It is also what the constitution requires.

So, a non-citizen resident signing a loyalty oath or a declaration of intent would do the same thing for you, then?

Nope. Citizenship gets them a vote. Nothing else. Not a citizen? No vote for you.

When you look at government, citizenship should define that class of people for whom the government works.

It is citizens whose rights should be protected, citizens who should come first, citizens whose welfare should be the prime concern of all policy. It is citizens for whom we contribute to welfare and Social Security, citizens whose jobs and homes we want to protect, and citizens to whom we extend the offer of the American Dream.

When citizens of other countries seek to come here, the ONLY consideration their request should receive is: How will this person's entry affect the lives of our citizens? Period.

And if you can observe that we already offer pretty much all of that to noncitizens as you wonder why they shouldn't also be permitted to vote, then your curiosity has been misdirected. A successful decades-long, and openly anti-American propaganda campaign has taught you to look at the inconsistencies and ask the wrong question.

You want to know why noncitizens can't vote. We want to know why noncitizens enjoy all the benefits of citizenship at our expense. At the expense of citizens.

And the difference isn't because you are somehow "enlightened". It is because you are compliant, brainwashed pawns who will pretty much believe anything your leaders present to you as "politically correct". Truth be damned.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you also keep failing to explain your reasoning behind it aside from "That's how it is".

If this got them the vote, then what would remain as the difference between citizens and noncitizens?

Because I believe your question hints at an end-run around the law, to bestow citizenship without legally granting it.

But more importantly, what is your purpose for seeking citizenship for noncitizens? Specifically, what do you propose as the benefit, to existing citizens, of conferring citizenship upon these aliens?

Because it sounds like what you mainly seek is a way to pit these new citizens politically against your opponents who currently enjoy the reins of power.

But I'm willing to hear your good-faith rationalizations of why you think these people should have the vote. It's always worth some yucks to hear what the propaganda machine has been putting into your soft heads.

Corporations are not considered people and money is not considered speech.

Some actions of a corporation are considered to be actions of the people who own it. There is sound reasoning behind this.

And the effort to limit money as an influence on politicians does not translate to limiting free speech by placing caps on its dollar value.

The truth only hurts because you've been lied to for so long.

Why must there be a difference? What is transformative about becoming a citizen?

No. I am asking what it is about citizenship that transforms someone into having the right to vote bestowed upon them.

I'm not advocating for that at all. I'm positing that there may be a case to give voting rights to people who have skin in the game in some form and that citizenship may not be the end-all be-all of skin in the game. You seem to want to elevate citizenship to some kind of Jedi level status. Why? Yet again, I ask, what is transformative about citizenship?

Actually, I believe that we should err towards enfranchisement rather than disenfranchisement and let the policies pushed by either party speak for themselves for anyone who has some kind of skin in the game. It sounds to me that you know that Republicanism is a dying platform soon to be left on the dustbin of history and you're desperately trying to keep it alive.

Because government works for the people and people who have an interest in how government works for them should have a voice.

Oh whatever, Mr. MAGA. Have another sip of kool-aid.

Your voice changes.
You find hair where there was no hair before.