You mean as, for example, a letter that states:
"You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting.
You are advised that if you are a convicted felon or you are black, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported to Africa."
Signed,
Your friendly, local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan
That is exactly the same excuse given by another poster and which, as I pointed out in Post 26, is totally irrelevant as being a U.S. citizen does not automatically give you the right to vote and the letter then proceeds in the very next sentence to specifically state that it is illegal for immigrants to vote and that doing so can result in their imprisonment and deportation.
Being a "citizen" and being an "immigrant" are not mutually exclusive and "immigrant" and "illegal alien" are not synonyms.
No matter what Arnold Scwartzenager otherwise is in regards to citizenship or political party, he will always be an "immigrant" according to Webster's Dictionary and U.S. law which is why the U.S. Constitution specifically disqualifies him from ever being President of the United States.
So, which sentence does the individual who is both a citizen and an immigrant (who maybe has less than a high school education and who comes from a country where local politicians decided what rights you had under the law in their own little fiefdom) pay attention to?
Should he pay attention to Sentence Number One where the letter states that he is cordially invited to vote or should he pay attention to Sentence Number Two where he is told that "You are advised that if ........ you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported" ?
***********
POST 26:
A Strawman argument! The distinction about citizens is made before any mention of immigration status (as you, yourself note in what you quote). "If you are a citizen of the United States," preempts any further considerations in the letter.
Your argument is a non sequitur.
The legal fact of the matter is that simply being a U.S. citizen does not automatically give you the right to vote in a Federal election and being an immigrant and being a citizen are two separate issues under the law.
A convicted felon that is a U.S. citizen does not have the right to vote.
A 17 year old U.S. Marine that is a U.S. citizen does not have the right to vote.
If you advise that 17 year old U.S. Marine that, "If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting" you are advising the 17 year old U.S. Marine to commit a crime.
An immigrant can become a U.S. citizen but the fact that he is an immigrant rather than native born is a point of law that even the Constitution addresses in Article II, Section 1 as a disqualification for ever being President of the United States.
Under U.S. law, the rights of native-born U.S. citizens and immigrant U.S. citizens differ precisely because you can be both an immigrant and a citizen.
"U.S. citizen" and "individual entitled to vote" are not legally synonymous phrases.
In addition, "citizen" and "immigrant" are not legal antonyms.
This man was threatening U.S. citizens who were immigrants about "jail time" and "deportation" if they voted in a Federal election in violation of the intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
If you ever try to intimidate a U.S. citizen from exercising a civil right guaranteed under law by threatening "jail time" or "deportation" or whatever other threat you want to throw in, you had better ensure that your legal wording and your legal logic is impeccable and that you can carry out that threat in a court of law EXACTLY as you phrased it.
If your threats can be excused only by having your attorney explain to the Judge, "what my client actually meant to say", you have a good chance of ending up with jail time yourself.
26 posted on 10/21/2006 8:49:54 AM PDT by Polybius
***********
Nope. I'm just a "Rule of Law" type of guy.
When words have no meaning, the law has no meaning and you have people in power thumbing their nose at the law and then excusing their behavior by arguing that the meaning of the law "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".
I don't tolerate it when some liberals use the time honored word "immigrant" as a synonym for "illegal aliens" to try to tell the American public that illegal aliens have legal rights reserved for legal immigrants and I don't tolerate it when some conservatives use the time honored word "immigrant" as a synonym for "illegal aliens" to try to tell naturalized U.S. citizens that "if ...... you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported."
I don't tolerate making a mockery of the "Rule of Law" by either my political opponents or by my political allies.
Isn't the respect for the "Rule of Law" the greatest legacy that Britain left to America?