I’m a high school drop out and even I know that you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights. It would NEVER pass constitutional muster.
We cannot afford to adopt the poor of the world all at once.
>> you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights
And even if we could — constitutionally speaking — how the hell would we *enforce* the no-voting sanction, when we can’t even do a decent job of enforcement against illegals, criminals, and dead people now?
No sale. Go home and apply for legal residency like everyone else in the world has to do.
Well, how about 3/5 of a vote? There's precedent, in a way.
What a doofus to propose this.
Obama has built his career on subterfuge and sneaky, back door tactics.
This would play right into his and the democrats hands.
It is just a way to sucker some voters, senators and congressmen into suporting a grant of citizenship to illegals.
Can't this so-called republican see the pitfalls?
It would be sort of like letting the camel's nose under the tent.
Before it is over you have the entire camel in the tent with you.
After the bill was passed and signed the democrats would orchestrate a great outcry that it is not fair and not constitutional to prevent these poor citizens from voting.
Then, either congress would pass a bill granting full voting rights or the courts would do it for them.
PRESTO! A few million more democrat voters!
Actually, you can: we strip felons of voting rights routinely. Offer citizenship on the condition that they acknowledge their felony immigration violation, and sentencing is set to time previously served. But as admitted felons, they lose the right to vote. . . .
Don't be too sure. You probably have never looked at the (unconstitutional as hell) provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but basically, the States of the Old Confederacy can't vote if Eric Holder says they can't. Period.
'Rats tied Texas up in court with a redistricting beef last spring and froze Texas out of the primary race. We were supposed to vote in April. We didn't get to vote until it was all over -- May 29th. Tell me that wasn't a phony lawsuit brought by the 'Rats, making sure Romney won.
They did it in the teeth of the Supreme Court, which prorogated and then slapped the taste out of the forum-shopped federal district Obammy judge who'd told Texas we couldn't vote. They sent the case back down, on fire. But the 'Rats continued, undeterred, brazenly to litigate us out of our voting rights.
So guess who went back to court this month?
Texas is going to be lucky to vote in the general. That seems to be what the 'Rats have in mind.
Sure you can. You just use some term other than “citizen”. Create a legal status for foreigners that allows them to work, remain here, attend school, etc,,,, but simply not to vote.
There is nothing in the constitution prohibiiting such legislation. Call it special guest, foreign worker with benefits, etc. It could be done.
Besides, as Obamacare showed, violation of the constitution is often allowed in some situations.
For 21 years I was a citizen without voting rights. I have a niece who will not be allowed to vote even though she was born in the US and has never committed a crime, merely because, through no fault of her own, she was born after November 6, 1994.
Sure you can. For many years in the early days of the US, only owners of a certain minimum amount of property could vote. Those who had less property were certainly citizens, but they couldn't vote. And, of course, half the population was (and is) female, were citizens, and could not vote until the Constitution was amended (Nineteenth Amendment).
But....permanent residency satisfies the desire for amnesty without negatively impacting our politics. No citizenship for illegals.....
I would allow ONE exception.....any such illegal who serves in the US military and is discharged honorably would be eligible to apply for citizenship. Any others.....no way in hell.
14th Amendment: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
The state would just have its delegation in the House reduced proportionately and therefore in the Electoral College, which in many cases would mean they don't even lose a single seat. No effect on Senate representation, of course.
Would it fly in the Court in fact? Of course not. But that is what the Constitution says.
No it would not.
Do you want to amend the constitution to create a caste system?
I didn’t think so.