legal non-citizens vote

[Trigg]

Hubby and I disagree on this. He thinks it's fine to let them vote on things that are going to affect them locally. I think people who want to vote should be legal citizens of THIS country.


Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it.

Noncitizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it's only fair they be allowed to vote, Rwaganje said.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/states-weigh-letting-noncitizens-vote/

[Libertarian94]

I think its fine If they want to allow their local non citizens to vote. I could really care less it really has no affect on anyone outside of those localities so if they are fin with it I am.

[Kathianne]

Hubby and I disagree on this. He thinks it's fine to let them vote on things that are going to affect them locally. I think people who want to vote should be legal citizens of THIS country.






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/states-weigh-letting-noncitizens-vote/

I'm with you. Now if it were a non-binding issue say within a school, such as theme of a dance or something? Even textbooks if parents are being consulted? Sure. But actual elections? Nope, take the test after time period and get the paper.

[hjmick]

It must be hard living with a man who is so wrong...

[Pagan]

Nope, I highly disagree. If you're not a Citizen you don't vote, if you wanna vote become a Citizen.

[Libertarian94]

Nope, I highly disagree. If you're not a Citizen you don't vote, if you wanna vote become a Citizen.

Pagan its just local elections like mayor, should trash be picked up on tuesdays or wednesdays.

[Pagan]

Pagan its just local elections like mayor, should trash be picked up on tuesdays or wednesdays.

So, they're not Citizens. Show me another country that let's none citizens vote.

[Libertarian94]

So, they're not Citizens. Show me another country that let's none citizens vote.

Show me a country as great as this one. We are not other countries what other countries do should have no effect on how we govern we are a sovereign nation. So if our cities want to allow all of their legal resident to participate in local elections I wouldnt mind them doing so. If we did what other some of the other countries did you would have been stoned in the streets for some of the things you have said in this forum.

[SassyLady]

If the circumstances of you living here affects your daily life so much that you should be voting to help control the outcome, then you should be willing to become a citizen.

My first thought was, and how long do they intend to reside in that community. Are legal residents, permanent residents? And, if they are permanent residents, why not become a citizen?

I really do have a hard time with people who hate their own country so much that they leave it (instead of fighting for it) and come here and then refuse to give up citizenship in the country they couldn't/wouldn't live in.

If you want to participate in our civics then become a citizen.

[SassyLady]

Trigg, what does he think about allowing prisoners to vote?

[NightTrain]

Bad idea.

If you're not a legal resident of the USA, you should have no say until you are. And you shouldn't be able to receive any public assistance unless you're a legal resident, either, IMHO.

That makes as much sense to me as getting advice from Mexico about our illegal alien problem.

[Libertarian94]

Bad idea.

If you're not a legal resident of the USA, you should have no say until you are. And you shouldn't be able to receive any public assistance unless you're a legal resident, either, IMHO.

That makes as much sense to me as getting advice from Mexico about our illegal alien problem.
:lol:

Read the title then slap yourself.

[Pagan]

Bad idea.

If you're not a legal resident of the USA, you should have no say until you are. And you shouldn't be able to receive any public assistance unless you're a legal resident, either, IMHO.

That makes as much sense to me as getting advice from Mexico about our illegal alien problem.

I say if you're a "legal" resident you shouldn't qualify for public assistance either. No that doesn't mean services like hospitals, I'm referring to welfare, subsidized housing, etc.

[Nukeman]

Ok in my defense I am going to say this once. IF and I mean IF the LEGAL RESIDENT (not not illegal) is here on a work visa or student visa or any other reason they are here LEGALLY they should be allowed to vote in their LOCAL elections IF they are going to be here the time that the person is in office. If there is a referendum put forth that is going to affect them economically then they should have a say in how THEIR money is going to be spent and appropriated!

Those of you who disagree should think about this, IF the person in question is on a work visa for 5-10 years why would you not want them to have a say in how their tax monies are spent?? Why would you not want them to have a say in how their children are taught in the local school?

A lot of people who are here LEGALLY on a work or student visa apply for citizenship and thats how it should be..... Why not let them have a taste of what it means to hold your life in your won hands and have a say in their community!!!!!!

[Kathianne]

Ok in my defense I am going to say this once. IF and I mean IF the LEGAL RESIDENT (not not illegal) is here on a work visa or student visa or any other reason they are here LEGALLY they should be allowed to vote in their LOCAL elections IF they are going to be here the time that the person is in office. If there is a referendum put forth that is going to affect them economically then they should have a say in how THEIR money is going to be spent and appropriated!

Those of you who disagree should think about this, IF the person in question is on a work visa for 5-10 years why would you not want them to have a say in how their tax monies are spent?? Why would you not want them to have a say in how their children are taught in the local school?

A lot of people who are here LEGALLY on a work or student visa apply for citizenship and thats how it should be..... Why not let them have a taste of what it means to hold your life in your won hands and have a say in their community!!!!!!

Because they are our 'guest' for a long period. That means they get what we have to offer. If they don't like it, they can go home. If we don't, too bad for us.

[NightTrain]

:lol:

Read the title then slap yourself.

Enlighten me as to how it wasn't relevant.

[NightTrain]

I say if you're a "legal" resident you shouldn't qualify for public assistance either. No that doesn't mean services like hospitals, I'm referring to welfare, subsidized housing, etc.

Yep, I agree completely.

[SassyLady]

Ok in my defense I am going to say this once. IF and I mean IF the LEGAL RESIDENT (not not illegal) is here on a work visa or student visa or any other reason they are here LEGALLY they should be allowed to vote in their LOCAL elections IF they are going to be here the time that the person is in office. If there is a referendum put forth that is going to affect them economically then they should have a say in how THEIR money is going to be spent and appropriated!

Those of you who disagree should think about this, IF the person in question is on a work visa for 5-10 years why would you not want them to have a say in how their tax monies are spent?? Why would you not want them to have a say in how their children are taught in the local school?

A lot of people who are here LEGALLY on a work or student visa apply for citizenship and thats how it should be..... Why not let them have a taste of what it means to hold your life in your won hands and have a say in their community!!!!!!

I see your point Nuke, about people being involved in their civic duty ... but the 15th Amendment is pretty clear that the right to vote is for citizens.

If I move to Japan on a job assignment for five years, do you think I should be voting in their local elections? Where would you place the cutoff for how long they have to have lived here, legally, before they are allowed to vote. And, how long do they have to live here after they have voted?

[NightTrain]

Ok in my defense I am going to say this once. IF and I mean IF the LEGAL RESIDENT (not not illegal) is here on a work visa or student visa or any other reason they are here LEGALLY they should be allowed to vote in their LOCAL elections IF they are going to be here the time that the person is in office. If there is a referendum put forth that is going to affect them economically then they should have a say in how THEIR money is going to be spent and appropriated!

Those of you who disagree should think about this, IF the person in question is on a work visa for 5-10 years why would you not want them to have a say in how their tax monies are spent?? Why would you not want them to have a say in how their children are taught in the local school?

A lot of people who are here LEGALLY on a work or student visa apply for citizenship and thats how it should be..... Why not let them have a taste of what it means to hold your life in your won hands and have a say in their community!!!!!!

Not until they're a U.S. Citizen. No way.

If I took a job building a cellular network in Canada for a couple of years, I wouldn't even think about trying to vote in any election - it's not my country and it's none of my business what they do.

If I decided to stay and become a legal citizen, I shouldn't be influencing anything until I am one.

[SassyLady]

Heck, women weren't even considered citizens that could vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. We waited a hell of a long time, and we were natural born citizens, before we could vote...so I'm not inclined to let non-citizens vote. Sorry Nuke.

[Kathianne]

Because they are our 'guest' for a long period. That means they get what we have to offer. If they don't like it, they can go home. If we don't, too bad for us.

Sorry for linking my own post, but I see this analogous to having a guest in your home, one that's there for many years. They would not have a say in how the family spends its money or what the rules of the house will be. If they tried to, even if paying something for room & board, they'd cease being a welcomed guest.

[Libertarian94]

Enlighten me as to how it wasn't relevant.

Dont worry your post was plenty irrelevant. We are talking about apples(legal non citizen here on work/ visa student visa, etc..) here no one said a thing about any oranges(people we have no documentation of entering this country).

[DragonStryk72]

Ok in my defense I am going to say this once. IF and I mean IF the LEGAL RESIDENT (not not illegal) is here on a work visa or student visa or any other reason they are here LEGALLY they should be allowed to vote in their LOCAL elections IF they are going to be here the time that the person is in office. If there is a referendum put forth that is going to affect them economically then they should have a say in how THEIR money is going to be spent and appropriated!

Those of you who disagree should think about this, IF the person in question is on a work visa for 5-10 years why would you not want them to have a say in how their tax monies are spent?? Why would you not want them to have a say in how their children are taught in the local school?

A lot of people who are here LEGALLY on a work or student visa apply for citizenship and thats how it should be..... Why not let them have a taste of what it means to hold your life in your won hands and have a say in their community!!!!!!

I agree with Nukeman here. It's serves a dual purpose as well, giving them more exercise of rights that they would have if they became full citizens. These are local elections only, so they are effecting them directly, and will not have much, if any, repercussions beyond that.

[NightTrain]

Dont worry your post was plenty irrelevant. We are talking about apples(legal non citizen here on work/ visa student visa, etc..) here no one said a thing about any oranges(people we have no documentation of entering this country).

I guess your reading comprehension is about zero.

You're quite an obnoxious little bastard, let me help you out with more Neg Rep - I can see why you have the rep you do.

[Libertarian94]

I aggree with the pair of ya Nuke & Dragon.

[Libertarian94]

I guess your reading comprehension is about zero.

You're quite an obnoxious little bastard, let me help you out with more Neg Rep - I can see why you have the rep you do.

Not my fault you didnt bother to read the title.

[Kathianne]

Ok in my defense I am going to say this once. IF and I mean IF the LEGAL RESIDENT (not not illegal) is here on a work visa or student visa or any other reason they are here LEGALLY they should be allowed to vote in their LOCAL elections IF they are going to be here the time that the person is in office. If there is a referendum put forth that is going to affect them economically then they should have a say in how THEIR money is going to be spent and appropriated!

Those of you who disagree should think about this, IF the person in question is on a work visa for 5-10 years why would you not want them to have a say in how their tax monies are spent?? Why would you not want them to have a say in how their children are taught in the local school?

A lot of people who are here LEGALLY on a work or student visa apply for citizenship and thats how it should be..... Why not let them have a taste of what it means to hold your life in your won hands and have a say in their community!!!!!!

Well I agree with way too much of what you post to consider you on the defense. I want you to take a breath though, look who's agreeing with you. Dragon and the new, annoying kid. Think about it. ;)

[NightTrain]

Well I agree with way too much of what you post to consider you on the defense. I want you to take a breath though, look who's agreeing with you. Dragon and the new, annoying kid. Think about it. ;)

Yeah, Nuke, I can't think of anything else you've ever posted that I disagree with... we're pretty much on the same page with our ideas.

Now, if you'll just drop this silly notion, listen to your wife, we'll all go along happier! :laugh:

[Nukeman]

I will give a anecdote here. Trigg's sister lives in Finland she pays 51% TAX on everything she makes to help pay for all the socialist programs. She has lived there for more than 10 years. She is married to a Fin, has 2 children by a Fin, Built a house in Finland, Lives and breaths Finish air. Yet she does not want to give up her US citizenship, so she has NO SAY in how her money will be spent in the Local or "Federal" level. Hell she can't even inherit the house she built due to non-citizen status. She should have some say if for no other reason then her children

I am by no means a bleeding heart when it comes to rights of non-citizens, however; I will say that in some instances or circumstances we should welcome the views of others especially when they have a vested interest in their community and are here LEGALLY!!!!

[Nukeman]

Well I agree with way too much of what you post to consider you on the defense. I want you to take a breath though, look who's agreeing with you. Dragon and the new, annoying kid. Think about it. ;)

Shoot Kathy I even occasionally agree with Bully and *gasp* Agnapostate. I lean very conservative in my beliefs but not always ;)

[SassyLady]

I will give a anecdote here. Trigg's sister lives in Finland she pays 51% TAX on everything she makes to help pay for all the socialist programs. She has lived there for more than 10 years. She is married to a Fin, has 2 children by a Fin, Built a house in Finland, Lives and breaths Finish air. Yet she does not want to give up her US citizenship, so she has NO SAY in how her money will be spent in the Local or "Federal" level. Hell she can't even inherit the house she built due to non-citizen status. She should have some say if for no other reason then her children

I am by no means a bleeding heart when it comes to rights of non-citizens, however; I will say that in some instances or circumstances we should welcome the views of others especially when they have a vested interest in their community and are here LEGALLY!!!!

I guess my take on this is that if she married a Fin, lives in Fin, her children are Fin, she cannot inherit unless she is Fin, and she plans to live in Finland for the rest of her life, then why is she hanging onto her US citizenship? Seems to me that she has decided that all things Fin are better for her.

[Nukeman]

I guess my take on this is that if she married a Fin, lives in Fin, her children are Fin, she cannot inherit unless she is Fin, and she plans to live in Finland for the rest of her life, then why is she hanging onto her US citizenship? Seems to me that she has decided that all things Fin are better for her.

Because you never know!!!!! :salute:

[SassyLady]

Because you never know!!!!! :salute:

Well, this I understand completely. Always good to have a backp-up plan.

[Noir]

I like the idea, seems to make sense and there is a link for taxation and a small amount of representation.

[Gaffer]

Because you never know!!!!! :salute:

She is a US citizen, she doesn't give up that status just because she becomes a Fin. It's just a duel citizenship.

[BoogyMan]

I think its fine If they want to allow their local non citizens to vote. I could really care less it really has no affect on anyone outside of those localities so if they are fin with it I am.

This is just a stepping stone. Incrementalism has gotten us where we are today in so many areas where we really don't want to be.

I cannot object to this idea forcefully enough.

[Kathianne]

Because you never know!!!!! :salute:

and she has every right to hold onto US citizenship and vote in US. I don't know if there's dual citizenship between US and Finland, if yes I suppose she could do that?

While legals here do pay taxes, they get the benefits from those. If they stay forever, they can inherit property and they will collect SSI, from their own and from their spouse. The only thing they can't do without citizenship is vote.

[Libertarian94]

This is just a stepping stone. Incrementalism has gotten us where we are today in so many areas where we really don't want to be.

I cannot object to this idea forcefully enough.

slippery slope not worth rebutting.

[SassyLady]

A slippery slope is still a slippery slope.....

[NightTrain]

Because you never know!!!!! :salute:

I guess in her case, "Plan B" comes with a hefty price tag.

[fj1200]

I will give a anecdote here. Trigg's sister lives in Finland...

Seems to me the problem lies with Finland and their rules, not ours.

[Nukeman]

Seems to me the problem lies with Finland and their rules, not ours.

Dude it was an anecdote to show how regardless of your country how you can be taxed and have no representation.

If I'm not mistaken that is in the "Decleration of Independence"... You know "No representation with out taxation"

I believe the actual wording is For imposing taxes on us without our consent

[Kathianne]

Dude it was an anecdote to show how regardless of your country how you can be taxed and have no representation.

If I'm not mistaken that is in the "Decleration of Independence"... You know "No representation with out taxation"

I believe the actual wording is For imposing taxes on us without our consent

Here's my deal with your point. 'We' being citizens, have no recourse if the government isn't under our control, other than emigrating or revolting. Legal immigrants choose to come, for whatever reasons. They can choose to return, if they find this country lacking at some point.

The upside for them, if they choose to stay, they may volunteer for military, but not be conscripted-one of the benefits of not being full citizen. The downside, only legal citizens get to vote.

[fj1200]

Dude it was an anecdote to show how regardless of your country how you can be taxed and have no representation.

If I'm not mistaken that is in the "Decleration of Independence"... You know "No representation with out taxation"

I believe the actual wording is For imposing taxes on us without our consent

Your voting position does not address federal taxation of non-citizens. The Fins however are even more restrictive regarding inheritance, property ownership, etc. which is the point I was making.

Your Declaration argument is a non sequitur.

[Nukeman]

Your voting position does not address federal taxation of non-citizens. The Fins however are even more restrictive regarding inheritance, property ownership, etc. which is the point I was making.

Your Declaration argument is a non sequitur.

How do you figure is it or is it not "taxation without representation" ??? it really isn't a grey area. When our forefathers signed that document they were not Citizens of the United States of America either!!!!!!

[fj1200]

How do you figure is it or is it not "taxation without representation" ??? it really isn't a grey area. When our forefathers signed that document they were not Citizens of the United States of America either!!!!!!

This line of thinking is a complete non-starter. They are being taxed Federally and they have no representation because they are NON-CITIZENS. No one is proposing that non citizens be given the right to vote in Federal elections; why are you going on with this?

[Nukeman]

This line of thinking is a complete non-starter. They are being taxed Federally and they have no representation because they are NON-CITIZENS. No one is proposing that non citizens be given the right to vote in Federal elections; why are you going on with this?

ummm...... gee....... let me get this straight YOUR telling me the ONLY taxes the LEGAL non-citizens are paying is FEDERAL??????? Really????????

As for the bolded part..... because I can!!!!! last I checked I do still have that right unless your telling me I don't!!!

[Mr. P]

I oppose Non Citizens voting for so much as dog catcher.

I haven't read one single good reason in this thread to allow it, I have seen many reasons to not. Hell, look at the multi-cultural problem we have in this country now. You think giving the right to vote for legal non-citizens will help solve that problem or make it worse? Why in hell become a citizen if you can vote? And Oh yes over time this would morph into national elections as well...how could it not? Who would have ever guessed we'd be in debate about letting foreign nationals VOTE in any election? Geeezzzzzzzz! :salute:

[Noir]

I oppose Non Citizens voting for so much as dog catcher.

I haven't read one single good reason in this thread to allow it, I have seen many reasons to not. Hell, look at the multi-cultural problem we have in this country now. You think giving the right to vote for legal non-citizens will help solve that problem or make it worse? Why in hell become a citizen if you can vote? And Oh yes over time this would morph into national elections as well...how could it not? Who would have ever guessed we'd be in debate about letting foreign nationals VOTE in any election? Geeezzzzzzzz! :salute:

No taxation without representation?

[Mr. P]

No taxation without representation?
Not for non citizens...they want ALL the benefits they become citizens. Otherwise, Delta is ready when you are.

[fj1200]

ummm...... gee....... let me get this straight YOUR telling me the ONLY taxes the LEGAL non-citizens are paying is FEDERAL??????? Really????????

As for the bolded part..... because I can!!!!! last I checked I do still have that right unless your telling me I don't!!!

I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying it's stupid because you're not even characterizing my post correctly.

You are making a federal argument for non-citizens to be able to make non-federal votes. A bit of a disconnect there.

[NightTrain]

Funny thing, I was reading the paper this morning and read a story about an ex-Marine that served 8 years as a non-US citizen. He got caught up in a bit of trouble with the law, and now he's slated to be deported back to Jamaica.

I was unaware that non-citizens were allowed to serve in the military, so in a case where the person is a veteran of the US Military, I'd say they've earned the right to vote - and should be automatically be given citizenship too.

[Nukeman]

I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying it's stupid because you're not even characterizing my post correctly.

You are making a federal argument for non-citizens to be able to make non-federal votes. A bit of a disconnect there.

How so???? How have I made this a "Federal" argument????? Huh???? How????

[Nukeman]

Funny thing, I was reading the paper this morning and read a story about an ex-Marine that served 8 years as a non-US citizen. He got caught up in a bit of trouble with the law, and now he's slated to be deported back to Jamaica.

I was unaware that non-citizens were allowed to serve in the military, so in a case where the person is a veteran of the US Military, I'd say they've earned the right to vote - and should be automatically be given citizenship too.
:2up::2up::salute:

[BoogyMan]

slippery slope not worth rebutting.

Are you saying that we cannot discuss the problems of incrementalism and the dangers it poses? I would have to argue that if we do NOT consider the dangers the incrementalist approach to this problem presents, we are fools.

[Mr. P]

Funny thing, I was reading the paper this morning and read a story about an ex-Marine that served 8 years as a non-US citizen. He got caught up in a bit of trouble with the law, and now he's slated to be deported back to Jamaica.

I was unaware that non-citizens were allowed to serve in the military, so in a case where the person is a veteran of the US Military, I'd say they've earned the right to vote - and should be automatically be given citizenship too.
Non-citizens do serve and are granted citizenship for doing so ..This guy must have been in BIG trouble vs a bit of trouble.

[Pagan]

Funny thing, I was reading the paper this morning and read a story about an ex-Marine that served 8 years as a non-US citizen. He got caught up in a bit of trouble with the law, and now he's slated to be deported back to Jamaica.

I was unaware that non-citizens were allowed to serve in the military, so in a case where the person is a veteran of the US Military, I'd say they've earned the right to vote - and should be automatically be given citizenship too.

It's very common and it is used as a route to citizenship which they usually obtain while serving.

So in your opinion foreign Nationals that we hire like for example "Merc's" should have the right to vote eh?

Nope, disagree.

[NightTrain]

It's very common and it is used as a route to citizenship which they usually obtain while serving.

So in your opinion foreign Nationals that we hire like for example "Merc's" should have the right to vote eh?

Nope, disagree.

Mercenaries are not US Military Veterans.

[NightTrain]

Non-citizens do serve and are granted citizenship for doing so ..This guy must have been in BIG trouble vs a bit of trouble.

Yeah, Mr. P, he got caught up in drugs - coke, specifically.

But his situation made me think of this discussion and the fact that there's non-citizens serving in our military.

[fj1200]

How so???? How have I made this a "Federal" argument????? Huh???? How????

Here at the Finnish "Federal" level:


... to help pay for all the socialist programs...
... she has NO SAY in how her money will be spent in the Local or "Federal" level.

Here in a founding document of the Federal government:


... in the "Decleration of Independence"...

Here referencing the forefathers of our Federal government:


When our forefathers signed...

Here referencing taxes paid to the Federal government:


... the LEGAL non-citizens are paying is FEDERAL?

[fj1200]

So in your opinion foreign Nationals that we hire like for example "Merc's" should have the right to vote eh?

Nope, disagree.

I think they're saying they can vote after they obtain citizenship. At least that's how I read it... which I would agree with.

[Nukeman]

Here at the Finnish "Federal" level:



Here in a founding document of the Federal government:



Here referencing the forefathers of our Federal government:



Here referencing taxes paid to the Federal government:No shit Sherlock, they do pay those I have not said they should have the right to vote in FEDERAL elections but Local ones where their money has a direct imput and result. YOU have a reading comprehension problem or what. They also pay federal however I have not stated they should be allowed to vote for FEDERAL elections

What I did do is point out they NOT only pay local but federal taxes as well, so tell me ohh enlightend one how that is making this a FEDERAL argument!!!!!!!!?????????

here I also said this

Ok in my defense I am going to say this once. IF and I mean IF the LEGAL RESIDENT (not not illegal) is here on a work visa or student visa or any other reason they are here LEGALLY they should be allowed to vote in their LOCAL elections IF they are going to be here the time that the person is in office. If there is a referendum put forth that is going to affect them economically then they should have a say in how THEIR money is going to be spent and appropriated!

and this


so she has NO SAY in how her money will be spent in the Local or "Federal" level. Hell she can't even inherit the house she built due to non-citizen status. She should have some say if for no other reason then her children

I said this

ummm...... gee....... let me get this straight YOUR telling me the ONLY taxes the LEGAL non-citizens are paying is FEDERAL??????? Really????????

you responded with

You are making a federal argument for non-citizens to be able to make non-federal votes. A bit of a disconnect there.

No where have I made a "federal" case for local voting rights NO WHERE. I brought up the federal taxes as well only to show they not only pay local but federal as well.

As for the founding fathers.... They did not have a FEDERAL government at the time of the singing!!! Last I checked, so my argument is quite valid!!!

[fj1200]

No shit...

Then don't use a "Federal" anecdote that references Socialist taxes, rights of inheritance, and property ownership where one has chosen NOT to pursue citizenship.

[Pagan]

Mercenaries are not US Military Veterans.

Really?

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

So what do you define those "Hired for service in a foreign army"?

[Pagan]

I think they're saying they can vote after they obtain citizenship. At least that's how I read it... which I would agree with.

Well if they're "Citizens" then it's a non issue

[fj1200]

Yes.

[NightTrain]

Really?

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

So what do you define those "Hired for service in a foreign army"?


Do you get a thrill up your leg by being obtuse?

Fine. Link me an article supporting your claim that U.S. paid mercenaries that are now U.S. Military Veterans with military benefits deriving from their duty as mercs.

Thanks in advance.

[Trigg]

I see no one here has succeeded in changing hubbies mind on this.

To bad, I hate to see him be so wrong and not admit it :slap:

I've chosen to agree to disagree here at the house, makes a happier home that way:salute:

[Indy]

Not a US citizen, no vote period.If voting in this country, be it city state or national, is important to you, then you should be willing to become a us citizen. You give them and inch, they will want the whole nine yards. This also leads to people with forged papers being able to vote. This is just an attempt to justify them voting in national elections with the same lame excuses. Don't fall for it.
Dealing with ACORN and their illegal tactics is bad enough.

[Pagan]

Do you get a thrill up your leg by being obtuse?

Fine. Link me an article supporting your claim that U.S. paid mercenaries that are now U.S. Military Veterans with military benefits deriving from their duty as mercs.

Thanks in advance.

Well 10 years in the Marines I served with a number of them, but hey here's a link discussing how "fewer" are now serving.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/17/fewer_foreign_nationals_enlisting_in_us_military_s ervices/

Now here's a link from the U.S. Navy -

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/questions/foreign.html


Joining the U.S. Navy by non-U.S. citizens

Enlistment into the U.S. Navy, or any branch of the U.S. military, by citizens of countries other than the United States is limited to those foreign nationals who are legally residing in the United States and possess an Immigration and Naturalization Service Alien Registration Card (INS Form I-151/551 — commonly known as a "Green Card"). Applicants must be between 17 and 35; meet the mental, moral, and physical standards for enlistment; and must speak, read and write English fluently.
Note: The U.S. military branches cannot assist foreign nationals in obtaining admittance into the United States. Questions concerning immigration to the United States should be asked of the U.S. Embassy. Only after immigration procedures are completed and an applicant is legally residing in the United States may an application for enlistment be accepted.
Furthermore, in order to be commissioned an officer in the U.S. Navy, one must be a native-born or naturalized United States citizen.
The U.S. government agency which is responsible for immigration and naturalization is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Their web site is at http://uscis.gov/graphics/index.htm

Now from a "legal" site -

http://www.uslaw.com/bulletin/foreign-nationals-in-the-armed-services.php?p=18


Foreign Nationals In The Armed Services
In July 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order specifying that foreign nationals who serve in the United States armed forces during a period of hostility would be eligible for expedited U.S. citizenship. The period of hostility began on September 11, 2001, and ends on a date that has yet to be specified by the President.

According to the White House, this executive order has allowed non-citizens to immediately become U.S. citizens. So far, more than 13,000 foreign-born members of the armed forces have applied for U.S. citizenship since the order took effect.

For those foreign nationals who are stationed overseas, the Immigration Services now allows naturalization ceremonies to be held at U.S. military bases, embassies, and consulates around the world. This makes it easier for the foreign-born military personnel to obtain their citizenship quickly.

Under current immigration laws, non-citizens must serve in the U.S. military for at least one year before they are eligible to apply for citizenship. This new executive order, however, will remove the three year service requirement. Additionally, the filing fees associated with an application for naturalization will be waived for those meeting the above-mentioned requirements.

A survey released in May 2006 indicated that there are more than 68,000 foreign-born serving in the armed forces, and this represents approximately 5% of the total on active duty.

[NightTrain]

Well 10 years in the Marines I served with a number of them, but hey here's a link discussing how "fewer" are now serving.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/17/fewer_foreign_nationals_enlisting_in_us_military_s ervices/

Now here's a link from the U.S. Navy -

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/questions/foreign.html



Now from a "legal" site -

http://www.uslaw.com/bulletin/foreign-nationals-in-the-armed-services.php?p=18

Seems to me that you're talking about regular U.S. Military forces.

Got the link to the mercenaries we employ?

[SassyLady]

Really?

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

So what do you define those "Hired for service in a foreign army"?

Those that are hired for any army other than that of their country of citizenship?

[Pagan]

Seems to me that you're talking about regular U.S. Military forces.

Got the link to the mercenaries we employ?


mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/questions/foreign.html


Enlistment into the U.S. Navy, or any branch of the U.S. military, by citizens of countries other than the United States is limited to those foreign nationals who are legally residing in the United States and possess an Immigration and Naturalization Service Alien Registration Card (INS Form I-151/551 — commonly known as a "Green Card"). Applicants must be between 17 and 35; meet the mental, moral, and physical standards for enlistment; and must speak, read and write English fluently.

Comprehension problems I see :lame2:

[Pagan]

Those that are hired for any army other than that of their country of citizenship?

That's the definition of Mercenary

[SassyLady]

That's the definition of Mercenary

So, our soldiers are not mercenaries, then. Unless, you are classifying those who enlist before they become citizens....then, I'm assuming, you would refer to them as mercenaries....which I disagree with. I think they join for more than just monetary...which is one of the definitions.

[Pagan]

So, our soldiers are not mercenaries, then. Unless, you are classifying those who enlist before they become citizens....then, I'm assuming, you would refer to them as mercenaries....which I disagree with. I think they join for more than just monetary...which is one of the definitions.

A lot join for becoming citizens, a lot also join and retire back to their own country. That's "monetary" and "material" reasons.

For the record I hold absolutely zero animosity towards them, served with a number of them and they are my brothers. But facts are the facts.

Mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

[SassyLady]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/24/decide-noncitizens-vote/

Vote on whether to allow voting.

[NightTrain]

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/questions/foreign.html



Comprehension problems I see :lame2:

You, as a former Marine, should know that there is a huge difference between a non U.S. Citizen serving in the U.S. Military and an outright mercenary.

Or at least you should know the difference.

Enjoying your clever little game of semantics?

[Pagan]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/24/decide-noncitizens-vote/

Vote on whether to allow voting.

I voted and I see an overwhelming majority concur -


No -- Voting is a citizen's right. If they want it, then let them first become citizens.97.3%

Allowing non-citizens to vote would effectively render citizenship as worthless.

Question still stand, WHAT country allows foreigners to vote?

[Pagan]

You, as a former Marine, should know that there is a huge difference between a non U.S. Citizen serving in the U.S. Military and an outright mercenary.

Or at least you should know the difference.

Enjoying your clever little game of semantics?

Really?

It's pretty fucking clear, you might wanna use a dictionary once in a while ;)

[NightTrain]

Really?

It's pretty fucking clear, you might wanna use a dictionary once in a while ;)

Okay, dickhead. I gave you a few chances.


The Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77) provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states:
Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

All the criteria (a – f) must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.

Pull your head out of your ass.

[Pagan]

Okay, dickhead. I gave you a few chances.



Pull your head out of your ass.

Really, OK if you say so

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Kathianne]

No taxation without representation?

Here's the difference, they have an alternative, they only need to exercise it.

[NightTrain]

Really, OK if you say so

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Really.


The Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77) provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states:
Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

All the criteria (a – f) must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.

How does it feel to be owned? Next time, do your homework, son.

[Kathianne]

Funny thing, I was reading the paper this morning and read a story about an ex-Marine that served 8 years as a non-US citizen. He got caught up in a bit of trouble with the law, and now he's slated to be deported back to Jamaica.

I was unaware that non-citizens were allowed to serve in the military, so in a case where the person is a veteran of the US Military, I'd say they've earned the right to vote - and should be automatically be given citizenship too.

Only serve voluntarily. Legal aliens can, if the military accepts them.

I will say that imho, if they served every benefit of the doubt should be given. Some of the best in the past 10 years have been legal aliens.

[Kathianne]

It's very common and it is used as a route to citizenship which they usually obtain while serving.

So in your opinion foreign Nationals that we hire like for example "Merc's" should have the right to vote eh?

Nope, disagree.

Only when becoming citizens. I haven't a clue to the number, but many have won silver and gold stars. Many have given up their lives. Yes, the path to citizenship should be 'easier' for them, they paid in blood and treasure. But until citizenship, no votes.

[Kathianne]

No shit Sherlock, they do pay those I have not said they should have the right to vote in FEDERAL elections but Local ones where their money has a direct imput and result. YOU have a reading comprehension problem or what. They also pay federal however I have not stated they should be allowed to vote for FEDERAL elections

What I did do is point out they NOT only pay local but federal taxes as well, so tell me ohh enlightend one how that is making this a FEDERAL argument!!!!!!!!?????????

here I also said this


and this



I said this


you responded with
.

No where have I made a "federal" case for local voting rights NO WHERE. I brought up the federal taxes as well only to show they not only pay local but federal as well.

As for the founding fathers.... They did not have a FEDERAL government at the time of the singing!!! Last I checked, so my argument is quite valid!!!

When they signed the Declaration, they knew they were going to hang for treason or form a new country. Luckily it was the latter. They hoped when they signed, a government would be formed and it was, under the Articles of Confederation.

[Pagan]

Really.

How does it feel to be owned? Next time, do your homework, son.

OK if you say so.

But if you have a problem with the definition take it up with the American Heritage Dictionary.

Here, lodge a complaint to have them change the definition :lol:

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html

[NightTrain]

OK if you say so.

But if you have a problem with the definition take it up with the American Heritage Dictionary.

Here, lodge a complaint to have them change the definition :lol:

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html

I guess the difference between you and I, young Pagan, is that when I'm clearly wrong I will own it, acknowledge it, and move along. That's how a man behaves.

I can see that you, Gabby, Abso and Bully have a lot in common - when confronted with the truth, you blithely ram your head up your ass and claim it ain't so, and to hell with doing the right thing.

I'm done with you, now. Dismissed.

[Pagan]

I guess the difference between you and I, young Pagan, is that when I'm clearly wrong I will own it, acknowledge it, and move along. That's how a man behaves.

I can see that you, Gabby, Abso and Bully have a lot in common - when confronted with the truth, you blithely ram your head up your ass and claim it ain't so, and to hell with doing the right thing.

I'm done with you, now. Dismissed.

OK if you say so, like I said take it up with the American Heritage Dictionary and also you might wanna challange history books also. Since there are numerous references of theme of hiring Mercinaries. Since what you posted -

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

All the criteria (a – f) must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.

renders history books wrong. :lol::lol:

Here from Encyclopedia Britannica -

mercenary (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/375662/mercenary),hired professional soldier who fights for any state or nation without regard to political interests or issues. From the earliest days of organized warfare until the development of political standing armies in the mid-17th century, governments frequently supplemented their military forces with mercenaries.

So according to -


The Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77) provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states:
Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

All the criteria (a – f) must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.

Item (f) they're not "Mercenaries".

:lol::lol::lol:

What ever you say there "Kid"

[fj1200]

mercenary (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/375662/mercenary),hired professional soldier who fights for any state or nation without regard to political interests or issues.

It seems to me that they don't fall in the mercenary category UNLESS they would fight for ANY state or nation. I, hope at least, that the foreign nationals joining our military do it for more "patriotic" reasons.

[NightTrain]

Item (f) they're not "Mercenaries".



What ever you say there "Kid"

I'm enjoying watching you squirm.

Dance, Fucker, Dance! :popcorn:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5_LxyhCJpsM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5_LxyhCJpsM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Kathianne]

It seems to me that they don't fall in the mercenary category UNLESS they would fight for ANY state or nation. I, hope at least, that the foreign nationals joining our military do it for more "patriotic" reasons.

Yep, they joined voluntarily to fight for the US, not against 'any state' as they know the US has not picked fights for acquisition. (At least in this century.)

[Pagan]

It seems to me that they don't fall in the mercenary category UNLESS they would fight for ANY state or nation. I, hope at least, that the foreign nationals joining our military do it for more "patriotic" reasons.

Really?

So what do you call those who don't become citizens and go back to their own country?

Bottom line -

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

[Kathianne]

Really?

So what do you call those who don't become citizens and go back to their own country?

Bottom line -

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

Putting on MOD HAT. Stop spamming. If you have nothing new to add, don't.

[Mr. P]

A mercenary does not take an oath to protect and defend the US constitution. They are simply "employed" to fight without obligation, they can go home at will without consequence except maybe forfeit of pay. Can a US service man do that?

You fail on this Pagan.

[Pagan]

I'm enjoying watching you squirm.

Dance, Fucker, Dance! :popcorn:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5_LxyhCJpsM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5_LxyhCJpsM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

So you hold the Geneva Convention as the defining authority on Military terms and actions?

[fj1200]

Really?

So what do you call those who don't become citizens and go back to their own country?

Bottom line -

mercenary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary)

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

Based on the other definition that I quoted, that apparently no longer fits your purpose; No, they are likely not mercenaries but that would require knowing whether the soldier flipped a coin and decided NOT to fight for Al Qaeda.

BTW, isn't a mercenary typically already a soldier and then hires themselves out? Not the case when they enlist but most likely is the case with the private security outfits, but that's a different issue.

So, the Canadians who fought with the US in Vietnam were mercenaries?

[SpidermanTUba]

Hubby and I disagree on this. He thinks it's fine to let them vote on things that are going to affect them locally. I think people who want to vote should be legal citizens of THIS country.






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/states-weigh-letting-noncitizens-vote/

All elections in this nation are no bigger than the state level. The state legislatures get to choose how electors are chosen and if they choose to do it by popular vote, the guidelines for eligibility in the Constitution - 18 years old - are only the minimum suffrage level the state must provide. A state can allow anyone it wishes to vote so long as its not based on sex race religion or age above 18.

[Trigg]

All elections in this nation are no bigger than the state level. The state legislatures get to choose how electors are chosen and if they choose to do it by popular vote, the guidelines for eligibility in the Constitution - 18 years old - are only the minimum suffrage level the state must provide. A state can allow anyone it wishes to vote so long as its not based on sex race religion or age above 18.

The question, in case you missed it, was. Do you agree that non-citizens should have the right to vote in local elections.

I presume, from the article, that they are not talking about congress or even governors. Simply county wide.

[Pagan]

The question, in case you missed it, was. Do you agree that non-citizens should have the right to vote in local elections.

I presume, from the article, that they are not talking about congress or even governors. Simply county wide.

That's where the real power is at and if you don't think that matters then you seriously need to re-evaluate a few things. ;)

[Trigg]

That's where the real power is at and if you don't think that matters then you seriously need to re-evaluate a few things. ;)

which is why I'm against non-citizens having the right to vote. Either become a citizen or deal with not having a voice.

[jimnyc]

Really.

How does it feel to be owned? Next time, do your homework, son.

Thanks for referring me to this thread, was a good read!!

So you are going by the definition of "The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949" and Pagan and his semantics are arguing against that protocol because his online dictionary reference didn't win his debate for him? And continue to argue, I might add, even though the dictionary has jack shit to do with our official regulations and protocols.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[jimnyc]

So you hold the Geneva Convention as the defining authority on Military terms and actions?

Then I guess we can define what a terrorist is or specifically what torture is based on the dictionary, right?

[NightTrain]

Thanks for referring me to this thread, was a good read!!

So you are going by the definition of "The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949" and Pagan and his semantics are arguing against that protocol because his online dictionary reference didn't win his debate for him? And continue to argue, I might add, even though the dictionary has jack shit to do with our official regulations and protocols.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

lol, he's a real piece of work.

From my observations, when he leads off his responses with 'Really?' and throws in the clincher 'OK, if you say so' that means that he's beaten completely but he'll be damned if he admits it.

It's funny, in a sad sort of way. It would suck to go through life interacting with people in that manner and would be quickly ignored in any serious discussion.

[NightTrain]

LOL

Pagan neg repped me for the above post. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Tsk! What I said was 100% accurate. You naughty fella!