Posted on 05/08/2024 6:20:33 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—
(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.
(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if—
(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and
(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.
Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you, but their sacrifice is not in vain even if we lose what they fought for, and we must fight. They are the martyrs and they have reaped their rewards. And the comfy-cozy types who eschew suffering and pain in this life by selling their souls will face the wrath to come.
We must guard our hearts to be certain we are not among them. Surely my ancestors who fought for this country are resting easy in their graves knowing they are blameless. Would thet we are able to do so as well when our name is called and our number is up.
When Reagan was asked about a speech he gave in Europe near a cemetary that included the graves of Nazi SS troops, his answer was so incisive that it still cuts through me today. The press was trying to create a scandal for him as they always sought to do. He slam dunked them with a one line response that demonstrated his perspective - “Well, they now know the truth.”
It shut down the crazed anti-American press. I never heard them bring the topic up again. RR’s perspective was an eternal unconquorable one. We must strive to have the same. We mourn the dead, but we really mourn ourselves and our mortality. It’s over for the dead. Their mortality is behind them. They now know the Truth.
Thank you.
I would disagree respectfully. I have specifically addressed the issue about the law and the left’s disregard for it. All discussion becomes academic if there is no contract amongst all citizens to obey the law and be subject to it.
The left has abrogated this very contract. Accordingly, while I am adamantly opposed to it, I do not seek it, nor do I advocate for it, I fear and am sorry to have to predict that we will be forced to do battle to reestablish that contract. That is where we seem to be right now, I am sad to observe.
History is witness to this continual oscillation of mankind from civilized to uncivilized.
The issue I would suggest you are grappling with is where you will stand whan the time comes to declare yourself. I predict that decision time is nearer than ever before. I pray it does not come to that. But for the sake of my grandchildren, I know where I will stand.
In the meantime, I will do all I can to forestall such a day of reckoning as it will be very painful and very ugly and I suspect very violent. God save us from that. But it will be up to us all in November to push that day further off into the future. That includes both voting and also preserving and fighting for the integrity of the vote. That is the near-term battle to be joined.
Unfortunately, the law in question contains wiggle room that democrats will attempt to use to grant illegals the right to vote. Would the Supreme Court allow illegals to vote under ‘certain’ conditions? Ya never know.
You may have missed #38.
The states may always be free to do as they please with voting for local candidates and issues, but the federal statue concerning federal issues is, at least for the moment, applicable.
The Special Session following each presidential election is the place to determine whether the states are proceeding in this instance in direct violation of federal law. If they are not, the certificates of those states can be rejected, i.e., its total election results ignored.
All it takes is for a number of uncompromised politicians to rise and enforce the law. It could be done, with compelling evidence, during the session scheduled after the next presidential election.
Here in Arizona they actually prosecuted a former San Luis government official for vote harvesting questionably eligible ballots. That area is full of non-citizens.
Unfortunately, that is a drop in the bucket. Proof of voter eligibility should be required at the poll on the day of the election.
-PJ
All laws and all language contain “wiggle room.”
That is not the problem, I would say. The problem is whether or not those who disagree about the meaning of a law or its application or some other aspect of it are disputing and discussing in good faith.
For example, if one is negotiating with Hamas, one is tilting at windmills. That is futile. They never negtiate in good faith because their faith does not require truth above all else. Their faith requires submission above all else. So, whatever means are employed to obtain the advantage leading to subjecting others to submission to their faith is considered virtuous.
And of course that formulation is nothing more than an elaorate rationalization of might makes right regardless of what is actually right and just and true.
It is simply not possible to write a perfect law. I would invite you to try it.
And this is rendered all the more impossible when 500+ office holders must agree to the language for a law to be instantiated.
So, real life is messy and smelly and ambiguous and fraught with unresolvable dilemmas - just like people are. Plato’s philosopher kings is a flight of fancy. It is not, as we can see clearly, a realistic governing model. Our so-called expert culture that believes all things can be shown to be true (obviously false) demonstrates this.
It is what is in a man’s heart that defines his propensity to be civilized. Without a moral framework to which he agrees to subject himself, then no law will ever bridle his passions and impulses. Our laws are being undermined because those who are hired to enforce it and preserve it and protect it do not agree that it proceeds from any point of reference. Despite what the documents say, and despite the clear appeal in those documents to the Metaphysical for underlying authority, they are attempting to have their cake and eat it to. They want to pretend that a law can exist without an Authority beyond and above the police or the courts (i.e., themselves).
That is a doomed and imbecilic notion.
I could go on, but I think I beat this horse to death three paragraphs ago.
I don’t agree with looking to the law to settle arguments, but to men of good faith grounded in immutable principles of integrity. Those men will not be perfect, their laws will not be perfect, but they will, more or less, continue to aspire to do what is right and just. If they do so out of personal conviction that is great. If they do it out of fear of sanctions or punishment for transgressing the laws, that works too. This happens to be called justice. I confess sometimes I am the former camp and sometimes I am in the latter.
I completely agree with you on all statements you made re: my precious Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
But I fear that many of our courts, with an illegal alien charged with voting illegally, might say: “what makes you think you’re a citizen?”
Illegal alien says: “Well, my priest back home told me that as soon as I crossed the border, I’d be a citizen.”
Court: “I see. Well, since it was a priest who told you, the court finds in a reasonable belief. Next case.”
Sadly, nothing is going to happen now to change this.
There are currently two bills introduced in Congress to deal with the issue of dual citizens in elected office:
H.R.946 - Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act
Sponsor Matthew Rosendale, R - Montana
Introduced in House (02/09/2023)
Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act
A BILL
To require that the statement required under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 for a candidate to designate a principal campaign committee include information with respect to whether the candidate is a citizen of any country other than the United States, and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act”.
SEC. 2. Contents of statement of candidacy.
(a) In general.—Section 302(e)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(1)) is amended by inserting “, and shall include, in the case the candidate is a citizen of any country other than the United States, a disclosure with respect to such citizenship” after “principal campaign committee of such candidate”.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/946/text?s=1&r=1
Simple, direct and easy to understand. ✔︎
and the other one...
Sponsor: Tim Burchett, R - Tennessee
H.R. 7484: Dual Citizenship Disclosure Act
A BILL
To require Members of Congress who are foreign nationals to file a statement of their status as a foreign national, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2.
Requiring statement of status as foreign national by Members of Congress
(a) Requirement
Not later than 90 days after taking the oath of office of a Member of Congress for a Congress, a Member who is a foreign national shall file with the appropriate congressional ethics committee a statement describing the Member’s status as a foreign national.
Definition (2)
Foreign national
In this Act, term “foreign national” means a national of a foreign state, as such terms are defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).
A "national of a foreign state" is not the same as a dual citizen. Of course they know this. Smoke and mirrors...and so good at it.
link to bill:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr7484/text
Link below to 8 U.S. C. 1101 which is embedded in the online bill (the link doesn't bring us to a definition of "foreign national" - because there isn't an exact definition of one. It doesn't even bring us to the section where it's alluded to - it brings us to the main Definitions page). The closest it gets to a definition of "foreign national" in the U.S.C. is, "the foreign state of which the alien is a national.“
This conveniently omits the exact circumstance that the bill is supposed to address: a U.S. member of Congress or Senate who is a citizen by birth, deciding to take citizenship of a foreign country, and thereby becoming a U.S.-(country) dual citizen.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
This is a perfect example of the legislative sleight-of-hand used by politicians who want to appear to be dealing with an issue by using a title that sounds right, but when digging deeper into the actual wording we find out that the bill does nothing to address the issue - it just pretends to. Tried and true Uniparty. Works every time.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Burchett’s bill HR 7484 - does ZERO to limit the occupation/intrusion of dual citizens in the U.S. Congress, while Rosendale’s bill does. We don't have to guess which one will get the most attention.
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.