Criticizing the use of language (in either language) is hardly the principal issue ... that is being a lawyer. Sufficiently precise text that would satisfy any lawyer would likely be turgid to the point of being unreadable to any average reader (whatever their language).
Might it be assumed that the specifics of voter eligibility among citizens is not the issue of the letter?
The issue of the letter is to remind non-citizens (some of which have recently been told they CAN vote or that they have a "moral right" to break our laws) that they do not have the right to vote no matter their legal status.
As for threatening citizens ... any naturalized citizen may be assumed to have a bit better grasp of the laws governing voting than the average native IF ONLY because they have had to demonstrate that knowledge before gaining citizenship––at least to some degree. I would contend that a naturalized citizen who is not plagued by the American Disease––Offensensitivity––would likely recognize the distinction that I pointed out ... the letter first addresses "citizens" and encourages them to vote.
To do so doesn't imply that all citizens CAN vote ... only that it is citizens that can vote in federal elections.
As for the law, you are right to point out that voting is a privilege and not an automatic right. While I'm not aware of every point of law (who could be?) and I am concerned that numerous "civil rights" have been enumerated under the abuse of the Commerce Clause: I fully recognize that the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment was designed to empower Congress to enumerate defined civil rights which the several States cannot disparage (and by extension those civil authorities under the States).
But the burden on a state, elected or civic official ACTING as such, and the burden on a Person are not one and the same. No aspect of the Constitution empowers Congress to enumerate civil rights which Persons cannot disparage––which was the subject of the landmark Civil Rights Act Cases decision.
Now, that decision was the right one; however, the opinion is lamentable and abominable.
Simply, Justice Bradley's opinion lacked the nuance to recognize that Persons ACTING as officials of a State (be they administrators, legislators, judges, or law enforcement) are in fact agents of the same and cannot disparage civil rights enumerated by Congress in their official capacity.
Had Justice Bradley's opinion had even that much nuance––rather than being an ideological bag-o-hammers––then the very worst of Segregation and Jim Crow––in matters of public accommodations like schools––would have ALWAYS been illegal since there IS a limited and yet important domain in which the Civil Rights Act of 1875 is––or should have always been––constitutional.
However, to say that federal law can restrict what an official may do––as in this case––and what a private Person can do is entirely two different things. It is just as unlawful for certain individuals to have encouraged illegal aliens TO VOTE as it would be for an official to discourage ("intimidate" to use your term) legal voters from exercising their right.
However, the same IS NOT true of private Persons PROVIDED they do nothing beyond spreading misinformation or the like. This is because a private Person encouraging someone who can't legally vote to vote is encouraging the commission of a crime while his counterpart is simply being a reprehensible JERK.
The Constitution essentially protects the right of private citizens to be jerks ... which is probably good news for many of us folks obsessed with politics. ^_^
Criticizing the use of language (in either language) is hardly the principal issue ... that is being a lawyer. Since we are a nation of the rule of law, falsifying what the law actually says and telling immigrants that their immigrant status makes voting a crime is indeed the principal issue. So much so that propagation of that information constitutes voter intimidation as defined by the Voting Rights Act.
It is the same as a Democrat dirty-trickster flooding U.S. Army bases with letters addressed to junior enlisted men fresh out of boot camp and telling them that voting absentee in the November elections in their home state is illegal and could get them jailed or dishonorably discharged.
Whether or not the junior enlisted men should know better than to fall for that is irrelevant to the fact that such conduct constitutes voter intimidation and is a crime.
Sufficiently precise text that would satisfy any lawyer would likely be turgid to the point of being unreadable to any average reader (whatever their language).
What part of "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal, voting in a federal election is a crime" AND LEAVING IT AT THAT is "turgid"?
Once you add "OR are an immigrant" or "are black" or "are a serviceman no longer living in your own home state" or "are Jewish" or "are over 80 years of age" or "your grandfather was not born around these parts" you have crossed the line into voter intimidation and you have violated federal voting right laws.
Might it be assumed that the specifics of voter eligibility among citizens is not the issue of the letter?
Well, you know what happens when you ASS/U/ME.
Whatever the intended "specifics" were, the letter specifically told U.S. citizens that happened to be immigrants that, if they were immigrants and voted in a Federal election, they could be jailed and deported.
The issue of the letter is to remind non-citizens (some of which have recently been told they CAN vote or that they have a "moral right" to break our laws) that they do not have the right to vote no matter their legal status.
Yeah, too bad it went way beyond that and told U.S. citizens that happened to be immigrants that, if they were immigrants and voted in as Federal election, they could be jailed and deported.
As for threatening citizens ... any naturalized citizen may be assumed to have a bit better grasp of the laws governing voting than the average native IF ONLY because they have had to demonstrate that knowledge before gaining citizenship––at least to some degree.
Yeah and, in theory, blacks could freely vote in the Deep South in the 1950's and the local justice system was supposed to guarantee them that right.
In practice, however, it was made clear to blacks that, at least in that neck of the woods, what the law said and what local justice would do were two different things.
Try sending a letter to a black neighborhood stating that "You are advised that if you are a convicted felon or you are black, voting in a federal election is a crime."
Try telling the Judge that you just used "black' and "convicted felons" interchangeably as everybody knows that they mean the same thing.
Try telling the Judge that you "assumed" that every black recipient of that letter knew exactly what you meant and that he should not be criticizing your use of language and see how far you get.