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

[WolfBear]

Ah, here we go with you pushing facistic crap again.

When it isn't eugenics, it's trying to find ways to limit the franchise of natural-born citizens or similar bullshit.

No one here cares what fringe loons on VDare or similar WN/WS gathering places say, and you should stop importing thier debates/ideas to this forum.

If he actually debated the ideas he might be accomplishing something constructive. But as it is, he's ignored people pointing out the holes in the eugenicist positions, and just keeps repeating the same crap again and again.

The idea would be that if voters would be more informed about how government works, then they could make more informed decisions, no? Also, the proposal here actually is egalitarian: It would have one set of rules for voting for both natural-born and naturalized Americans.

You're acting as if having a more informed electorate is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Bacle]

The idea would be that if voters would be more informed about how government works, then they could make more informed decisions, no? Also, the proposal here actually is egalitarian: It would have one set of rules for voting for both natural-born and naturalized Americans.

Yes, yes, keep trying to sell that line of BS; it only shows more of your fascistic streak.

What you call 'informed how the gov works' is also very much a 'poll tax' by most US legal definitions, and would never make it through judicial review or challenge.

Also, removing the franchise from natural born citizens to be more 'fair' to foreign nationals who want to move to the US is not 'egalitarian', it is ignoring that the reason we have birthright citizenship and an immigration system and not pure open borders.

Maybe stop taking debates/ideas from VDare and AmRen as 'serious' ideas and trying to force us to deal with the dumb shit they think. You want to discuss this short of shit, then do it in those cesspits, not here.

 

[WolfBear]

For all of your talk denouncing me as evil, it appears that some US states have adopted similar legislation, but not in regards to voting, but rather in regards to high school graduation:

Gov. Stitt signs bill requiring Oklahoma high school students to pass US citizenship test

Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed a bill into law that will require Oklahoma high school students to pass the United States citizenship test in order to graduate.

www.koco.com

As in, you need to pass a civics test in order to graduate from high school.

Ultimately, this boils down to the question of whether one believes that a more informed voter pool is a bad thing or not.

Yes, yes, keep trying to sell that line of BS; it only shows more of your fascistic streak.

What you call 'informed how the gov works' is also very much a 'poll tax' by most US legal definitions, and would never make it through judicial review or challenge.

Also, removing the franchise from natural born citizens to be more 'fair' to foreign nationals who want to move to the US is not 'egalitarian', it is ignoring that the reason we have birthright citizenship and an immigration system and not pure open borders.

Maybe stop taking debates/ideas from VDare and AmRen as 'serious' ideas and trying to force us to deal with the dumb shit they think. You want to discuss this short of shit, then do it in those cesspits, not here.

How exactly would it be a poll tax if no one is actually forced to pay any money in order to vote?

 

[Bacle]

For all of your talk denouncing me as evil, it appears that some US states have adopted similar legislation, but not in regards to voting, but rather in regards to high school graduation:

Gov. Stitt signs bill requiring Oklahoma high school students to pass US citizenship test

Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed a bill into law that will require Oklahoma high school students to pass the United States citizenship test in order to graduate.

www.koco.com

As in, you need to pass a civics test in order to graduate from high school.

Ultimately, this boils down to the question of whether one believes that a more informed voter pool is a bad thing or not.

A more informed voter base does not need to equal removing the franchise, it requires cleaning up the media and school systems of the corruption and bad actors.

You are going after and removing the franchise over a symptom of a serious societal issue, and not addressing the root cause of any 'low information voters'. And I care more about making sure that votes are secure and trustworthy, than about trying to socially engineer a 'better' electorate, which is what a lot of your shit seems to biol down to.

When it's not eugenics, it's social engineering to create a 'better' populace.

The OK highschool test is something that is not a 'one shot' thing, people can retake it as many times as needed from 8th grade on it seems, and people with disabilities and such are exempt.

Your idea of using the same test for voting rights runs right smack into those exemptions, and still run afoul of the poll tax issue.

How exactly would it be a poll tax if no one is actually forced to pay any money in order to vote?

Poll taxes mean tests or impediments to voting created specifically to remove people's ability to vote based on criteria other than status if they are a felon or not, which is the only real legal way someone's ability to vote goes away.

Poll tax case are not some random thing either; shit like 'tests to make sure they are informed voters' were abused by the Dixiecrats and KKK in the American South for decades to keep American blacks from voting down there. You try to push that sort of thing these days, and no one is going to look kindly at it.

So again, maybe stop trying to push this sort of shit and acknowledge why it is not looked upon favorably by much of the US public on both sides.

 

[WolfBear]

The OK highschool test is something that is not a 'one shot' thing, people can retake it as many times as needed from 8th grade on it seems, and people with disabilities and such are exempt.

Your idea of using the same test for voting rights runs right smack into those exemptions, and still run afoul of the poll tax issue.

So, allow people to retake this test as many times as necessary (I'd approve similar criteria for the US citizenship exam, BTW) and create an exception for disabled people. As for the definition of poll tax:

Definition of POLL TAX

a tax of a fixed amount per person levied on adults and often linked to the right to vote… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

: a tax of a fixed amount per person levied on adults and often linked to the right to vote

There's no taxation involved here. Obstacles to voting, sure, but no taxation itself.

Poll taxes mean tests or impediments to voting created specifically to remove people's ability to vote based on criteria other than status if they are a felon or not, which is the only real legal way someone's ability to vote goes away.

Poll tax case are not some random thing either; shit like 'tests to make sure they are informed voters' were abused by the Dixiecrats and KKK in the American South for decades to keep American blacks from voting down there. You try to push that sort of thing these days, and no one is going to look kindly at it.

So again, maybe stop trying to push this sort of shit and acknowledge why it is not looked upon favorably by much of the US public on both sides.

The risk of abuse would go way down if the only permissible tests for such a purpose would have been the very same test that would be used for the US citizenship exam and for high school graduation, no? Literacy tests were indeed abused in the Dixiecrat South, but AFAIK, the problem with them was that they sometimes/often lacked impartial grading criteria and of course were also very hard:

The Louisiana Literacy Test - 2012 - Question of the Month - Jim Crow Museum

www.ferris.edu

Some of the literacy tests were unnecessarily difficult; for example, a would-be-voter might be asked to recite the entire Declaration of Independence or the entire United States Constitution from memory. Such tasks were assigned at the whim of the registration official. Even if the applicant recited the document correctly they might be told that they had failed the test. Please remember that during the Jim Crow period blacks could not argue with whites; therefore, the black person taking the literacy test could not dispute the claims of the white person serving as the registration official.

So, Yeah:

-Way too difficult
-Arbitrary discretion
-Arbitrary grading

But if the tests were identical to those used for the US citizenship exam, then these problems would go away, no? I haven't heard of excessive difficulty, arbitrary discretion, or arbitrary grading being a complaint on the US citizenship exam, after all.

 

[Bear Ribs]

For all of your talk denouncing me as evil, it appears that some US states have adopted similar legislation, but not in regards to voting, but rather in regards to high school graduation:

Gov. Stitt signs bill requiring Oklahoma high school students to pass US citizenship test

Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed a bill into law that will require Oklahoma high school students to pass the United States citizenship test in order to graduate.

www.koco.com

As in, you need to pass a civics test in order to graduate from high school.

And do you need this "high school diploma" to vote?

Ultimately, this boils down to the question of whether one believes that a more informed voter pool is a bad thing or not.



How exactly would it be a poll tax if no one is actually forced to pay any money in order to vote?

Time is money. Imagine instead that they required you to work a full-time job, unpaid, for the government for six months every year in order to vote and you will see the issue there. The difference is one of scale, not of type.

 

[WolfBear]

And do you need this "high school diploma" to vote?


Time is money. Imagine instead that they required you to work a full-time job, unpaid, for the government for six months every year in order to vote and you will see the issue there. The difference is one of scale, not of type.

Interesting approach.

 

[Typhonis]

Do you want an egalitarian way to grade the test? Assign each test a number and have the number match the person taking it. Send it to a third party to be graded with only the number being shown on the test. Thus the people grading the test do not know who took the test.

 

[WolfBear]

Do you want an egalitarian way to grade the test? Assign each test a number and have the number match the person taking it. Send it to a third party to be graded with only the number being shown on the test. Thus the people grading the test do not know who took the test.

Yep, that seems like a good way to do this. BTW, the 24th Amendment only prohibits poll taxes in federal elections, though SCOTUS has subsequently (in 1966, in a 6-3 decision) interpreted the 14th Amendment as prohibiting poll taxes in state elections as well. In theory, this precedent can be overturned in the future, though the odds of this ever actually occurring is probably extremely low.

 

[gral]

Do you want an egalitarian way to grade the test? Assign each test a number and have the number match the person taking it. Send it to a third party to be graded with only the number being shown on the test. Thus the people grading the test do not know who took the test.

This is standard procedure in public exams for government posts here.

 

[49ersfootball]

Good. We do want illegal immigrants to drive, after all. Public transit in the US isn't very good, after all.

I'll keep you posted on further developments on the Dem-controlled MA State Legislature likely overriding Baker's veto.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Time is money. Imagine instead that they required you to work a full-time job, unpaid, for the government for six months every year in order to vote and you will see the issue there. The difference is one of scale, not of type.

My dude. You already do that, it's called the income tax. Not to vote, but to stop the government from literally kicking down your door and arresting you.

 

[Bear Ribs]

My dude. You already do that, it's called the income tax. Not to vote, but to stop the government from literally kicking down your door and arresting you.

Yes, I'm aware. The context was that I was explaining why it would be wrong for the government to require that in order to have the right to vote.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Yes, I'm aware. The context was that I was explaining why it would be wrong for the government to require that in order to have the right to vote.

I see you response and raise you 2 references.

Is Tax Evasion a Felony or Misdemeanor Criminal Offense?

Is Tax Evasion a Felony Criminal Offense? Yes, 26 USC 7201 refers to tax evasion as a felony. IRC 7203 refers to misdemeanors

www.irsstreamlinedprocedures.com

Felon Voting Rights

It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.

www.ncsl.org

I repeat. You already need to do this. It's called the income tax.

Edit: I realize in my previous post I called out door kicking, but the consequences are still relevant.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I see you response and raise you 2 references.

Is Tax Evasion a Felony or Misdemeanor Criminal Offense?

Is Tax Evasion a Felony Criminal Offense? Yes, 26 USC 7201 refers to tax evasion as a felony. IRC 7203 refers to misdemeanors

www.irsstreamlinedprocedures.com

Felon Voting Rights

It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.

www.ncsl.org

I repeat. You already need to do this. It's called the income tax.

Edit: I realize in my previous post I called out door kicking, but the consequences are still relevant.

Yes, I realize some people pay income taxes. That's not in dispute.

What's in dispute is poll taxes, that is specifically a tax levied in order to vote. In the US, this is illegal, there cannot be a "Vote Tax" and I was pointing out that requiring labor in order to vote instead of money was still a form of taxation and would be a poll tax.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Yes, I realize some people pay income taxes. That's not in dispute.

What's in dispute is poll taxes, that is specifically a tax levied in order to vote. In the US, this is illegal, there cannot be a "Vote Tax" and I was pointing out that requiring labor in order to vote instead of money was still a form of taxation and would be a poll tax.

And I'm pointing out that there is both a de jure and de facto poll tax in place in most of the 50 states. (Unless you live in one of the insane states that let felons vote.)

 

[Bear Ribs]

And I'm pointing out that there is both a de jure and de facto poll tax in place in most of the 50 states. (Unless you live in one of the insane states that let felons vote.)

No, income tax is in no way linked to the right to vote, and in fact only around half of the population pays any income tax anyway.

 

[Skallagrim]

No, income tax is in no way linked to the right to vote, and in fact only around half of the population pays any income tax anyway.

The point @posh-goofiness is making that if you don't pay your income tax, you're sent to jail, and in most states, you're not allowed to vote if you're in jail. So you're not allowed to vote because you're in jail, and you're in jail purely for not paying the tax. Logical deduction: you're not allowed to vote because you didn't pay the tax.

This means that in states where you're not allowed to vote if you're in jail, the income tax is de facto (but not de jure, as was incorrectly stated) a poll tax -- applied to everyone who is forced to pay income tax.

It certainly doesn't meet the formal definition of a poll tax, but it does end up having the same effect to the people who are subject to the income tax (in the aforementioned states, which as I understand it is most states).

If you don't pay, you don't get to vote.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The point @posh-goofiness is making that if you don't pay your income tax, you're sent to jail, and in most states, you're not allowed to vote if you're in jail. So you're not allowed to vote because you're in jail, and you're in jail purely for not paying the tax. Logical deduction: you're not allowed to vote because you didn't pay the tax.

This means that in states where you're not allowed to vote if you're in jail, the income tax is de facto (but not de jure, as was incorrectly stated) a poll tax -- applied to everyone who is forced to pay income tax.

It certainly doesn't meet the formal definition of a poll tax, but it does end up having the same effect to the people who are subject to the income tax (in the aforementioned states, which as I understand it is most states).

If you don't pay, you don't get to vote.

I get what he's trying to say, but it makes no sense unless he's redefining basic words to twist their meanings. A poll tax is by definition lobbied at every person regardless of income and (in this context) required to be eligible to vote. You cannot take a tax only about half of the people pay at all, which is based on income, which can in theory influence voting but maybe not, and claim that it's a poll tax to vote unless you're using a completely nonstandard definition of some of those terms. It's like saying a class-A vehicle license to drive a truck is a form of gun control because you need a photo ID to pass a background check and some truckers use their Class-A licenses as ID.

 

[posh-goofiness]

First of all. All people pay income taxes. All. About half of them get refunded their income tax but they still need to pay before hand.

@Skallagrim De jure means by the force of law. You must pay your taxes by law or you go to jail. It's also the law in most states that you are not allowed to vote. De jure.

@Bear Ribs I wasn't redefining the poll tax. I was specifically contesting this hypothetical

Time is money. Imagine instead that they required you to work a full-time job, unpaid, for the government for six months every year in order to vote and you will see the issue there. The difference is one of scale, not of type.

Which was your objection to, from what I understand, a test required to vote... I think. (@WolfBear is sorta incoherent)