The Republic is dead, long live the Republic of Mexico. </sarcasm>
Posted on 05/29/2015 11:36:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Of course they do. They know which party will benefit, handsomely, if that’s permitted.
Why, if it weren’t for non-citizens voting illegally in federal elections, we probably wouldn’t have ObamaCare.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.
Women are more supportive than men of letting tax-paying illegal immigrants vote, but the two are in general agreement that the size of voting districts should be determined by counting only the number of eligible voters.
Voters under 40 are twice as likely as their elders are to favor allowing illegal immigrants to vote, but they, too, draw the line at counting illegal immigrants when setting up legislative districts.
Between this and the latest hate-speech polling, Democrats (especially younger ones) are brimming with good ideas these days. If you want to be charitable, you can tell yourself that maybe some Dems would insist on a lengthy residency requirement in lieu of citizenship before letting them vote — say, 10 years minimum in the U.S. to prove they’re committed to having a stake in the country’s future. But Rasmussen’s question didn’t ask about that; the only conditions were residence of some unspecified duration and paying taxes. Presumably, in the Democratic utopia, an illegal who came across the border a year ago and is having FICA taken out of his pay before remitting a chunk of it to family in Mexico would/should have just as much influence over who controls the U.S. government as you do.
Nor is this an idle hypothetical. Because Obama’s DACA and DAPA amnesties provide Social Security numbers to eligible illegals (which in turn will help them obtain driver’s licenses), and because local election boards rarely demand proof of citizenship before handing out ballots, it’s a cinch that some DACA/DAPA enrollees will end up voting in federal elections even though it’s illegal to do so. If you thought Bush v. Gore was a legal and political clusterfark, imagine if Hillary wins the presidency thanks to a razor-thin margin in Ohio or Florida and there’s statistical evidence to support the belief that illegal votes were the difference. And don’t forget that Hillary’s already vowed, if elected, to go farther than Obama did in amnestying illegals through executive action. DACA and DAPA each require five years of continuous residency for eligibility and, in the case of DAPA enrollees, either U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status held by their child. Will President Hillary try to out-pander O by reducing that residency requirement? Will she lift the “child citizen” requirement for DAPA applicants and open it up to all adult illegals, compounding the risk of illegal votes being cast by many millions?
Exit question: If, as Jorge Ramos (disingenuously) argues, illegal immigration is simply an “economic situation” in which a supply of labor comes forward to meet a demand, why should Democrats support granting an irrevocable right to those laborers to determine the composition of the federal government? And if the answer to that is “because federal policies affect the labor market,” then why shouldn’t laborers abroad who want to come here but are unwilling to do so illegally also have voting rights to influence those policies? There are a lot of workers in Mexico, I’d bet, who’d like to see America’s legal immigration process streamlined. Why should one’s willingness to defy American law by crossing the border illegally earn him the right to vote in the U.S. but not the law-abiding laborer in Mexico City who’d also like a say in shaping U.S. law?
These ProgMorons want to commit suicide and take the rest of us with them.
Not surprising in the least. The country is toast.
Or at least it will be if the Dems win this next election (and I expect they will buy it with Student Loan Forgiveness)
The ignorant ones with no knowledge of the founding principles of this nation.
Ok, let’s load up and go vote in the New Hampshire primary next spring, fellow Freepers. . . .
The stupidity is mind-boggling. You know they wouldn’t much like my suggestion, but it is the functional equivalent.
Yeah, but they CAN tell you who got kicked off The Survivor Island last week, though. Sooooo, there's that.
Ask if they think they should be allowed to vote Republican, and you’ll learn new words....
They ought to have the right to vote . . . in their own countries.
There! Fixed it.
And I believe that all democrats should have their citizenship revoked, their party outlawed, and all of them deported like the loyalists who supported the crown after the revolutionary war.
The illegals; cut them off from everything that draws them here, jail those who employ them, help them, or otherwise support them and treat them as loyalists as well. Give them 30 days, all of them, to include their anchors, to depart across the nearest border or be subject to arrest and hard labor building a wall across the southern border. After any barrier is complete they are put on the other side with nothing.
Give them the vote or illegal citizenship and I will be one of those out front in calling for a second revolution.
i’d like to say “you can kiss this republic good bye” but I think that’s already a foregone conclusion. this tells me we are ahead of schedule
If illegal aliens were voting Republican, the Democrats would militarize every inch of the border.
Is anyone really surprised by this?
Good point!
Why is this a surprise? They are already registering them through MotorVoter at the time they get their illegals drivers licenses.
That was the purpose of JFK’s immigration dream to replace us.
“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s.
In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960.
In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin.
After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.” Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”
Just keep giving me more facts that support my belief that females are the number one most destructive force in this country. Who voted overwhelmingly for 0dumbo in 2008?
The Republic is dead, long live the Republic of Mexico. </sarcasm>
I’m not surprised.
I’m only surprised that other people are surprised by this.
At the end of the REV I, the torys in NY were deported.
I believe anyone who is a registered dem should be deported today to a country of my choice from the following group: Libia, Yemen, Somolia, Iran, or N Korea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.