Should noncitizens be allowed to vote?

Citizenship means both legal and moral obligations to the nation you are a citizen of. Naturally with obligations and responsibilities imposed the right to have a say in the governing of said nation makes logical sense.

What are those legal and moral obligations?

Yeah...moral I get, but what are the legal obligatiions?

Because when you are a citizen, you are a member of the class of people for whom the government works. And Dayton's legal and moral obligations, etc. It does not work for those who are not.

In the definition of a government, it numbers them among the people whose government it is. Without citizenship, they are not.

Because among all the people resident in any place, there are those who are among the owners of that place, and those who are not. It is a form of property, if nothing else.

To err toward enfranchisement of one person is to err toward disenfranchising another. To grant franchise only to those who qualify disenfranchises nobody.

No, people who own the government, and the country, have a voice. Everyone else has the freedom to leave.

You can be drafted. You can be taxed. Your property can be taken. Jury duty. Depending on the country, it can be much, much worse.

Non-citizens can be drafted. Non-citizens can be taxed. Non-citizens can have their property taken. You are generally correct on jury duty.

Non citizens are taxed, their property can be taken away and they must register for Selective Service.

In other words, ya got Jury Duty.

I find it very telling that the arguments regarding the transformative nature of citizenship put forward by @Dayton3 and @cpurick revolve around obligation. A citizen allegedly has obligations to the US that a non-citizen does not have. This is stupid argument put forth by stupid people.

A better argument would be something along the lines of: "Obtaining citizenship is a rigorous process. Applications must be filed, intentions must be declared, and, most importantly, knowledge about the US itself must be demonstrated. A prospective citizen must learn about the history of the nation as well as its mechanisms for governing. The rigorous process weeds out those who are not truly serious about becoming a citizen. The naturalization test ensures that those who do become citizens are educated on the workings of the nation that the wish to join".

No it is not. The Constitution only requires that citizens are allowed to vote by the state. It does not require citizenship in order to vote.

So Jury Duty then? Fair enough.

In other words, Meesa scared to click the link no examples. Thank you for playing.[/quote]

Or is it that you don't know how?

And you never encountered a fellow grunt trying for citizenship? Remarkable.

And you still don't know the meaning of mercenary. Not at all remarkable. By your definition, you were a mercenary, too.

Fuck off, baby killer. No wonder your brain is broken.

It is pretty telling that every time it mentions voting it has citizen or citizenship in the same section and normal in the same sentence. As if the two go together or something.

Normal is relative. There was a time when women being illiterate was normal. Things change, often for the better.

I think the same thing every time I see one of you pigfuckers defend the for-profit abortion industry.

Maybe to a moron. But anyone who knows how to read laws and constitutions understands that by its express language, voting rights were not limited to only citizens; rather, states had the authority to set voting criteria.

Otherwise, why did it take until 1996 to enact a federal law limiting federal voting rights to citizens only? Why enact a law that was already in place?

All this post is telling me is that you don’t bother checking the source before spouting off. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments say that citizens can’t be barred from voting on account of XYZ. But the 14th and 17th talk about “male inhabitants” and “electors”, respectively, the former separately providing that citizens can’t be denied the right to vote without costing the states representatives. Article I also pointedly does not mention citizenship as a qualification to vote, as it does mention it as a requirement to be elected.

Interestingly, as per article I and the 17th Amendment, MAoHS is right that the franchise mustn’t be extended to non-citizens at the state level, at least for the state legislature, as it would grant them the right to vote for federal legislators.

Which also likely means that 1996 legislation Chad linked to is facially unconstitutional (unless it applies only to voting for presidential electors), and would be thrown out if any state did decide to let non-citizens vote for state legislature.

Not my definition -- the dictionary definition. And by that definition, as an American citizen I was not a mercenary in our forces. But when those forces served to liberate foreign people we did sometimes recognize our mercenary-like status.

So you enlisted solely for the money (or because you were unemployable) and not for any sense of respect or loyalty for your country. Thank you for admitting it.

I notice you ignored the first part of my post. Went through your hitch with blinders on, hm? Kind of what you do here as well.

Let's try to remember that while you seem to think I'm opposed to earning citizenship through military service, there are no examples of me ever actually saying that. Just you, claiming that I "cleaned up after myself".

I saw it occasionally, noting that the foreign nationals were less useful to the service since they could not get clearances. I thought it was a fair deal, when it was offered to specific demographics to further the needs of the military.

Your brains are apparently made entirely out of shit.

Then what have you been yammering about for days? You don't seem to stand for anything, just against anything that doesn't fit into the narrow end of your telescope.

Why don't we just let them stand jury duty too?

Read more. Write less. Be less confused.

You'd have to be willing to accept them as your peers first.

I believe people are tried all the time by others they do not accept as their peers. What's different here?

You should.

Maybe they should have an emoji that says "I know you are, but what am I?" I think the code would be <garamet>

That's not the issue here. The issue is specifically you. Would YOU accept them as your peers?

See, you don't even know that much.

Not to derail your animus, but apropos something you said in another thread: How long have you been married?