Replies

Dear member: There is no way to politely say this. You are simply wrong. Immigrants can't vote until and unless they become naturalized citizens.

Non sequitur.

As I have stated in multiple posts, the fact that someone is an immigrant and their current citizenship status are two totally separate legal issues.

**********

FROM POST 38:

.....the adjectives deal with place of birth and citizenship status that are separate legal issues and can yield several different combinations of legal status.

Immigrant + illegal entry = Illegal Alien not eligible to vote

Immigrant + legal entry = Resident Alien not eligible to vote

Immigrant + legal entry or amnesty + naturalization = U.S. citizen eligible to vote after age 18 but not eligible to be President of the United States

Native born = U.S. citizen eligible to vote after age 18 and eligible to be President of the United States

The only "types of persons" that are "distinct" and mutually exclusive are "native born" and "illegal".

The Immigrant, however, can be anything from an illegal alien not eligible to vote to a legal resident not eligible to vote to a U.S. Senator or a Governor of California eligible to vote but not eligible to become President of the United States.

38 posted on 10/21/2006 10:02:19 AM PDT by Polybius

I recognize that the arguments are based on the tradional, common use of the term immigrant, a noun without sunset. But this discussion is about the legal use of that term under the prevailing Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Immigrant + legal entry or amnesty + naturalization = U.S. citizen eligible to vote after age 18 but not eligible to be President of the United States.

That is accurate, but not the point causing confusion in this discussion. The point causing the confusion is the insistence that, for the purpose of determining federal voting rights, a citizen may also be an immigrant. By definition of the Act, a citizen can not be an immigrant.

As I implied before, ignorance of, or refusal to acknowledeg the implications of, the law is not helping this discussion and the apparently stubborn defense of that ignorance or refusal is hurting the discussion.

I understand the motive, tradition, but that stance does not shed light on the veracity of the contents of the letter in a legal arena, which is the subject of this thread : allegations of a hate crime.