United States As NYC allows foreigners to vote in local elections Ohio lawmakers advance constitutional amendment to ban noncitizens from voting

DarthOne

DarthOne

☦️
Ohio lawmakers advance constitutional amendment to ban noncitizens from voting
justthenews.com

Ohio lawmakers advance constitutional amendment to ban noncitizens from voting

Vote comes as several localities in other states allow foreigners to vote in local elections, including New York City.
justthenews.com justthenews.com

Vote comes as several localities in other states allow foreigners to vote in local elections, including New York City.

hio voters moved a step closer to deciding if noncitizens can vote in local elections after the House on Wednesday approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would put the issue on the November ballot.

Supporters said House Joint Resolution 4 would close a loophole that could allow noncitizens to vote on local candidates and tax issues in cities and villages. If it passes the Senate, it could appear before voters in November.

“With our vote today, we are giving Ohio’s voters a very clear choice,” said Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Green Township. “They can either decide that Ohio should imitate New York and San Francisco by allowing noncitizens to vote, or that Ohio reserves its voting rights only to qualified citizens. I am confident in their judgment.”

The Ohio Constitution allows home rule to municipalities and chartered counties and supporters said that could potentially be misused to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

“This is about the integrity of our elections,” said Rep. Jay Edwards, R-Nelsonville. “Citizenship matters. We are being proactive to ensure our election laws are clear and unambiguous. I believe this is an issue most Ohioans, regardless of party affiliation, will support.”

Critics argued the resolution, if passed, would take away the ability for local communities to make their own decisions.

“This legislation is about taking away local government control. It is an effort to tap into fear and promote the myth that our elections are unsafe,” Rep. Michele Lepore-Hagan, D-Youngstown, said on the House floor.

Rep. Mike Skinner, D-Lakewood, said the resolution promotes taxation without representation.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose, in a recent news release, said the village of Yellow Springs tried to allow noncitizens to vote in a local election in 2020. At the time, LaRose directed the Greene County Board of Elections to reject noncitizen voter registration and put measures in place to make sure only citizens could vote.
Click to expand...


Allowing non-citizens to vote but also at the same time screeching about Russian interference. WTF is even going on in places like NYC?
 
1 - Isn't it up to States to decide who gets to vote? I do understand the idea for an Ammendment, though.
2 - local elections and having non-citizens vote. These are tax-paying residents, right? I can see both sides of the argument here ...

BTW - just as Cato ended his speeches in same manner, I could end my posts with "there should be wealth based qualifications for voting". If you have property owning, tax paying non-citizens voting for the City Council, they'd be expected to be more reasonable than riff-raff transients on all sorts of charity handouts.
 
Buba said:
local elections and having non-citizens vote. These are tax-paying residents, right?
Click to expand...
They pay those taxes for the privilege of being allowed to stay. The right to vote -- to have a voice in decisions of state -- should require far more. It should be utterly impossible for any migrant to ever gain such a right within a mere life-time. To illustrate: I can vote in my country because I am a citizen, which I am because every single one of my ancestors has demonstrably lived in the region since the fifteenth century (and probably much earlier, but records were spotty then). Across those ages, they have built the country, they have fought for the country, they have in short contributed.

For centuries.

So how dare any johnny-come-lately immigrant just walk up, say "well, I'm paying taxes, so I have the same rights"...? Buddy, you owe us at least six centuries of back taxes before your contribution remotely equals the one with which my ancestors have bought me my inheritance.

At the very least, I think you should only ever be eligible for citizenship anywhere if all your direct ancestors were born there, lived there, and helped to build the place up for, say, the three generations before yours. Preferably more than that, even. Because by then, at least your fucking blood-line has paid into the common treasury to a bit of a reasonable degree, and you've all been around long enough to grow some fucking roots in the soil.

Naturally, non-citizens should under no circumstance be eligible for any kind of tax-funded aid. The point is that for the several generations that newcomers and their offspring are "buying their way in", they actually contribute. Consider it a multi-generational trial period. And if you don't measure up... off you go. Back to where you and/or your kinsmen came from.

This is the proper way. Citizenship should be a prize of inestimable value, to be won only after a great effort lasting multiple generations. Thus, it will be reserved exclusively to the worthy.

Polticians who would give citizenship to just anybody, or who would grant the rights of a citizen to non-citizens, are nothing short of traitors, and quite frankly deserve the noose for it.
 
Skallagrim said:
This is the proper way. Citizenship should be a prize of inestimable value, to be won only after a great effort lasting multiple generations. Thus, it will be reserved exclusively to the worthy.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most collectivist, leftist things I've seen on this site.

I could support something like a military service requirement for voting rights. If that law was passed, I'd go sign up tomorrow.

This 'because of what my great-grandparents did' stuff is utter nonsense. Just because your preceding generations live in a country, doesn't mean they contributed positively to its prosperity, security, or growth.

How many of your ancestors being criminals does it take to disqualify you?

What severity of crimes does it take?

Are we going to keep an intergenerational ledger of how much each respective dynasty contributed or damaged?

How are we going to decide who gets how much of Grandpa Joe the war-hero's achievments credited to them among his 16 grandchildren?

Does one of those 16 grandchildren being a serial killer detract from all of the grandchildren's credit received from Grandpa Joe?


Your conception here falls apart as not just immoral and nonsensical, but completely impractical, with just a few minutes thought. You may have decided to base a large portion of your perception of self and nationalistic pride in your ancestry, but that doesn't actually say much about you, just about your ancestors. At best, you're more likely to be a productive member of society, but it is far from a guarantee.

Just look at the intergenerational academics and socialists out there trying to tear western society down.
 
Cherico said:
Your thinking with an American veiw of culture and citizenship skall is European different culture different form of nationalism.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but the fact remains that we're not talking about Europe. We're talking about America, so citizenship requirements need be "adapted" to fit into an American cultural framework, rather than a European one.
 
DarthOne said:
Ohio lawmakers advance constitutional amendment to ban noncitizens from voting
justthenews.com

Ohio lawmakers advance constitutional amendment to ban noncitizens from voting

Vote comes as several localities in other states allow foreigners to vote in local elections, including New York City.
justthenews.com justthenews.com




Allowing non-citizens to vote but also at the same time screeching about Russian interference. WTF is even going on in places like NYC?
Click to expand...
Good on the Buckeye State for cracking down on the bullshit.
 
LordsFire said:
This is one of the most collectivist, leftist things I've seen on this site.

I could support something like a military service requirement for voting rights. If that law was passed, I'd go sign up tomorrow.

This 'because of what my great-grandparents did' stuff is utter nonsense. Just because your preceding generations live in a country, doesn't mean they contributed positively to its prosperity, security, or growth.

How many of your ancestors being criminals does it take to disqualify you?

What severity of crimes does it take?

Are we going to keep an intergenerational ledger of how much each respective dynasty contributed or damaged?

How are we going to decide who gets how much of Grandpa Joe the war-hero's achievments credited to them among his 16 grandchildren?

Does one of those 16 grandchildren being a serial killer detract from all of the grandchildren's credit received from Grandpa Joe?


Your conception here falls apart as not just immoral and nonsensical, but completely impractical, with just a few minutes thought. You may have decided to base a large portion of your perception of self and nationalistic pride in your ancestry, but that doesn't actually say much about you, just about your ancestors. At best, you're more likely to be a productive member of society, but it is far from a guarantee.

Just look at the intergenerational academics and socialists out there trying to tear western society down.
Click to expand...
What I propose has historically preserved societies. What you propose has torn them down.

What I propose respects the efforts and the energy expended to build up a country. What you propose spits on those who did the work, and hands over the fruits of that hard labour to those who only arrived after it had been done.

How can you say that my view is leftist, when your ideas are in practice nothing but re-distribution from those who have earned the reward to those who have not? Let's apply your ideas on a smaller scale. We have a house. We have lived there for many generations, who built that house, maintained it, invested labour and money into it to improve its quality and value. And now someone arrives to rent a room, which we have offered. This is fine. He signs a contract, this entitles him to the room, and obligates him to do no damage. If he does cause harm and misbehaves, he voids the contract, and will be expelled. Now imagine that he suddenly declares that because he pays rent, he is now co-owner of the house, and his children are entitled to inherit the room he lives in, becoming full owners of it, rather than renters.

That is your idea, applied on the house-hold level. Evidently, it is madness. By accusing me of "collectivism", you are implicitly adopting the notorious communist view that inheritance rights should be abolished, and that the property of parents shouldn't go to their children, but should be taken away and re-distributed. I am defending the rights of inheritance.

My proposal is that eventually, new-comers who are well-behaved and well-liked can become "part of the family", as it were. That they can buy their way in, and thus come to own their new "room" in their new "house" on terms that we -- the original owners -- offer them. My proposal is that they may, in time, join us. But that does have to be earned.

Your idea does not stay coherent when it is scaled down to a smaller lever. My idea stays coherent across all scales.
 
Last edited:
Skallagrim said:
What I propose has historically preserved societies. What you propose has torn them down.

What I propose respects the efforts and the energy expended to build up a country. What you propose spits on those who did the work, and hands over the fruits of that hard labour to those who only arrived after it had been done.

How can you say that my view is leftist, when your ideas are in practice nothing but re-distribution from those who have earned the reward to those who have not? Let's apply your ideas on a smaller scale. We have a house. We have lived there for many generations, who built that house, maintained it, invested labour and money into it to improve its quality and value. And now someone arrives to rent a room, which we have offered. This is fine. He signs a contract, this entitles him to the room, and obligates him to do no damage. If he does cause harm and misbehaves, he voids the contract, and will be expelled. Now imagine that he suddenly declares that because he pays rent, he is now co-owner of the house, and his children are entitled to inherit the room he lives in, becoming full owners of it, rather than renters.

That is your idea, applied on the house-hold level. Evidently, it is madness. By accusing me of "collectivism", you are implicitly adopting the notorious communist view that inheritance rights should be abolished, and that the property of parents shouldn't go to their children, but should be taken away and re-distributed. I am defending the rights of inheritance.

My proposal is that eventually, new-comers who are well-behaved and well-liked can become "part of the family", as it were. That they can buy their way in, and thus come to own their new "room" in their new "house" on terms that we -- the original owners -- offer them. My proposal is that they may, in time, join us. But that does have to be earned.

Your idea does not stay coherent when it is scaled down to a smaller lever. My idea stays coherent across all scales.
Click to expand...
Yet another failing of the Right, and not just the American Right it seems; not every situation a nation-state faces can be neatly scaled down to work with 'household' level logic, nor is that necessarily a bad thing.

The US is barely 250 years old, and while I may not like how easy it is to abuse the US immigration system, your idea of 'must have generations of 'work' before you can vote' as a citizen is farcical.
 
Bacle said:
Yet another failing of the Right, and not just the American Right it seems; not every situation a nation-state faces can be neatly scaled down to work with 'household' level logic, nor is that necessarily a bad thing.

The US is barely 250 years old, and while I may not like how easy it is to abuse the US immigration system, your idea of 'must have generations of 'work' before you can vote' as a citizen is farcical.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't really expect you to understand. Although you're a nice enough chap, you have this atomised view of society, where all context gets dropped and everything is treated as if it exists in isolation. This doesn't work. Once more, I take the long view -- to which you close your eyes so persistently.

All decent policy should be considered across multiple generations. This is not a failing; it is a necessity for long-term stability.

I strike the balance between those who would open the borders like madmen, and those who would close them completely (which is like-wise mad). Citizenship should be earned, and it should have value. If you cannot understand this, then you do not appreciate that value. In itself, that betrays how the body politic in the modern West is decaying.


P.S. -- Yes, the United States are indeed very young still. In time, you will learn these lessons. History will teach them to you.
 
Skallagrim said:
I wouldn't really expect you to understand. Although you're a nice enough chap, you have this atomised view of society, where all context gets dropped and everything is treated as if it exists in isolation. This doesn't work. Once more, I take the long view -- to which you close your eyes so persistently.

All decent policy should be considered across multiple generations. This is not a failing; it is a necessity for long-term stability.

I strike the balance between those who would open the borders like madmen, and those who would close them completely (which is like-wise mad). Citizenship should be earned, and it should have value. If you cannot understand this, then you do not appreciate that value. In itself, that betrays how the body politic in the modern West is decaying.


P.S. -- Yes, the United States are indeed very young still. In time, you will learn these lessons. History will teach them to you.
Click to expand...
I look at things in the context of 'how the modern world actually works' and 'does an idea or standard from antiquity actually have much use as a practical modern standard'.

Also, generational policy making simply is not how any gov really operates, anywhere in the world at this point.

Not to mention, the sort of Old World thinking you are pushing for what it means to be a 'citizen' has never held true for the US, partly because the US was founded I large part on rejecting the 'dictates/traditions/assumptions' of the Old World and build something new.
 
Bacle said:
I look at things in the context of 'how the modern world actually works' and 'does an idea or standard from antiquity actually have much use as a practical modern standard'.
Click to expand...
"Modern, modern, modern!"

This is the exact problem. Learn to look beyond the limits of the modern. "Practical modern standards" aren't practical at all.


Bacle said:
Also, generational policy making simply is not how any gov really operates, anywhere in the world at this point.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The horizon in the USA is typically two years for most things; that's when the next big elections occur, either for the Presidency or for Congress. A horizon hardly worthy of the name.


Bacle said:
Not to mention, the sort of Old World thinking you are pushing for what it means to be a 'citizen' has never held true for the US, partly because the US was founded I large part on rejecting the 'dictates/traditions/assumptions' of the Old World and build something new.
Click to expand...
There is no "Old World thinking". There is just truth and deception.

Those who think themselves outside the rules deceive themselves, first and foremost.

But then, as we said: very, very young. And such self-deception is universal in the time of youth.
 
Skallagrim said:
"Modern, modern, modern!"

This is the exact problem. Learn to look beyond the limits of the modern. "Practical modern standards" aren't practical at all.
Click to expand...
As opposed to what, thinking that Rome was the pinnacle of human society and that it is the standard all western gov need to look to for predicting their own futures?

The modern world's standards and practical reality are what people can actually plan around and operate under the assumptions of, instead of thinking Caesar had all the answers and that all human civs follow Rome's patterns.
Skallagrim said:
Not at all. The horizon in the USA is typically two years for most things; that's when the next big elections occur, either for the Presidency or for Congress. A horizon hardly worthy of the name.
Click to expand...
It's the reality of the modern world, and you can act like 'modern' is a bad word, but it won't change a damn thing.

Deal with the reality of the present day, instead of thinking that people of the past had all the answers and context to deal with today's issues.

Skallagrim said:
There is no "Old World thinking". There is just truth and deception.

Those who think themselves outside the rules deceive themselves, first and foremost.

But then, as we said: very, very young. And such self-deception is universal in the time of youth.
Click to expand...
The USA was created with our own rules, our own view of what it is to be a nation and civilization, and learning from the past is what the Founders did when they rejected just copy/pasting Europe's Old World bullshit onto the US.

Which frankly is something you Euro's can never seem to accept; that the US and US culture/civilization are not and never will follow the same patterns/cycles Europe seems to view as inevitable.
 
Skallagrim said:
I wouldn't really expect you to understand. Although you're a nice enough chap, you have this atomised view of society, where all context gets dropped and everything is treated as if it exists in isolation. This doesn't work. Once more, I take the long view -- to which you close your eyes so persistently.

All decent policy should be considered across multiple generations. This is not a failing; it is a necessity for long-term stability.

I strike the balance between those who would open the borders like madmen, and those who would close them completely (which is like-wise mad). Citizenship should be earned, and it should have value. If you cannot understand this, then you do not appreciate that value. In itself, that betrays how the body politic in the modern West is decaying.


P.S. -- Yes, the United States are indeed very young still. In time, you will learn these lessons. History will teach them to you.
Click to expand...

Are you ok with the idea of people earning citizenship through military service?
 
Bacle said:
Yet another failing of the Right, and not just the American Right it seems; not every situation a nation-state faces can be neatly scaled down to work with 'household' level logic, nor is that necessarily a bad thing.

The US is barely 250 years old, and while I may not like how easy it is to abuse the US immigration system, your idea of 'must have generations of 'work' before you can vote' as a citizen is farcical.
Click to expand...
There is something to be said though, for the sacrifices that members of previous generations made to build and preserve this country for their children and their children's children sake; not some opportunistic parasite who snuck across the Mexico border.
 
Terthna said:
There is something to be said though, for the sacrifices that members of previous generations made to build and preserve this country for their children and their children's children sake; not some opportunistic parasite who snuck across the Mexico border.
Click to expand...
And as I've said, I'm not happy with the way our immigration system is abused.

However, ending birthright citizenship, for people who have at least one parent as a US citizen or national (which is what you need to qualify for birthright citizenship) is not the way to do it, nor is requiring military/gov service for citizenship acceptable.

What we need is actual enforcement of exist immigration laws, not trying to slap on a bunch of new ones as 'feel good' measures for some Roman fanboys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top