should we allow noncitizen
- Thread starter 1inamillion
- Start date
I'm sure a lot of people would like that minimum threshold to be like $1 million in taxes paid so that they and people like them can control everything.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,109
- 201,215
- 113
It's an anti-American and anti-democracy concept.
Well a combination of Soros, Musk, Bezos, Gates etc.
A minimum threshold would be one where the wealthy would love to just set that threshold very high so they can vote themselves more money and more power.
That was the last part of that post - we'd have to have a way to capture who's paying those other kinds of taxes, and how much - if there was a system that could be implemented fairly.
Maybe a little but most likely it just means the wealthy rule everything. Welcome back to feudalism!!!
Also if we are going to do this than I demand that those not getting a vote lose all civic responsibilities as well. They can't be called for jury duty and they can't be drafted.
My 92 year old mother hasn’t filed an income tax return in a couple of decades.
Any requirement other than being a citizen would not only be unfair, but unwieldy to enforce.
You are overthinking this because you know that the number of adults who pay NO taxes at all is insanely low.
Like it would be mostly limited to really old people in nursing homes.
You want to take away some 100 year old WW2 vet's right to vote because he's not currently paying any taxes due to being 100 years old and needing constant care?
With the evolving history of voting rights in America, I think it's hard to say what is or isn't anti-American or anti-democracy.
Against the current set of rules? Maybe, but not at a different point in time. And maybe not in the future as things continue to evolve.
I think that's certainly fair.
Gotta be careful though - taking away all civil responsibilities gets you pretty close to taking away all civil benefits - like roads, police and fire, etc.
I don't hang around people that live off the welfare system.
So I don't know anyone.
It's almost impossible to pay zero total tax. But there are many that pay very little which would be sales. If you are living off of welfare you don't have much money to buy things.
I guess that was the intent when I added about filing for different exemptions. There'd have to be a way to capture the 100yo WW2 vet in the nursing home.
Man, I'm just spitballing out thoughts and hypotheticals as we go!
Maybe the change happens with how one becomes a "citizen" versus a "resident". Make citizenship contingent on civil service - Starship Troopers-style - rather than just birth. Not necessarily ONLY military service, but some kind of time spent in civil service for this country. Complete your time and get your citizenship, which comes with the right to vote (and the right to complain about the things that you don't like).
As I read it, here’s what the law would require in order to register to vote. I have a passport but many do not. The rest of the documentation requirements could be a pain for a lot of people. It will definitely kill motor vote registration and registration drives, which I’m sure is the point.
The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) by introducing a requirement for individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. Eligible documents include a REAL ID-compliant identification indicating U.S. citizenship; a valid U.S. passport, military ID and service record; a government-issued photo ID showing U.S. birthplace; or a government-issued photo ID that does not indicate birthplace or citizenship and a valid secondary document.
The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) by introducing a requirement for individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. Eligible documents include a REAL ID-compliant identification indicating U.S. citizenship; a valid U.S. passport, military ID and service record; a government-issued photo ID showing U.S. birthplace; or a government-issued photo ID that does not indicate birthplace or citizenship and a valid secondary document.
Which would be impossible to enforce and make no sense.
I mean one of the reasons we have fire departments is so that a fire at your house doesn't spread to your neighbor's house.
So why don't we just let everyone have one vote, they all pay the taxes the law says they owe, they all have the same civic responsibilities the law says they have and civic benefits the law says they are due.
Everything else is getting close to either feudalism or a starship troopers type of society where only certain types of people vote.
Has worldwide democracy not trended towards more people voting and not less? Going back and saying only certain types of adults get a say looks like a step backwards not just in America but world wide.
Is there any country we want to compare ourselves to that does this kind of thing?
Are you saying that under current federal law non citizens can vote in a federal election? I was not aware of that if true.
I guess that was the intent when I added about filing for different exemptions. There'd have to be a way to capture the 100yo WW2 vet in the nursing home.
Man, I'm just spitballing out thoughts and hypotheticals as we go!
Maybe the change happens with how one becomes a "citizen" versus a "resident". Make citizenship contingent on civil service - Starship Troopers-style - rather than just birth. Not necessarily ONLY military service, but some kind of time spent in civil service for this country. Complete your time and get your citizenship, which comes with the right to vote (and the right to complain about the things that you don't like).
It amazes me that you think any system which has 2 classes of citizenship could EVER be a good thing.
The first class would ALWAYS exploit and take advantage of the 2nd class. That is what always happens throughout history.
Letting everyone vote has gotten us to our current state: unsustainable debt, politics-based hatred and violence, politicians that exist only for their personal gain - often to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be representing, "corporations as people" being able to influence policy, foreign governments actively influencing elections, etc. Exactly how much further would it need to deteriorate before the current system is seen as broken and in serious need of repair?
There is major difference between paying your share and thr vote goes to the highest bidder. If you put your minimum in to the difference buckets, that's what I'm talking about.
You have gone from
Voting Rights
The U.S. Constitution refers to the election of members of Congress and of the President, but the document adopted in 1787 does not define who may cast those votes. Amendments to the Constitution extended the right to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting...
www.archives.gov
Voting Rights
The U.S. Constitution refers to the election of members of Congress and of the President, but the document adopted in 1787 does not define who may cast those votes. Amendments to the Constitution extended the right to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting...
www.archives.gov
None of this is about what I *think*. I admitted up front that I'm spitballing my way through this as a thought-exercise to distract myself and others from doing work, and from other threads.
But do you not think there are already two different classes of citizenship in this country, and that one's not currently taking advantage of the other?
We already know that the whole presidential election comes down to a handful of key districts around the country, and the rest of the votes don't really matter. And we know that the people elected, once elected, are only going to do the things that their party and their rich donors want done, and the rest is just window-dressing (like proposing bills they know will get defeated, so they can show they're "trying").
So if voting, in its current form, doesn't much matter, then what else could we do that would make a difference in improving the country, and the people in it?
Here is another thing, pretty much everyone I know sacrifices something on behalf of the state no matter if they know it or not. Nearly everyone pays some sort of tax or something, does a civic duty, etc etc. It's nearly impossible to avoid it all, especially for an entire lifetime.
Once we start to parse through and say "I'm sacrificing more than you, therefore I get more say than you." you are inviting a government of fewer and fewer people.
The people who pay more taxes say they are sacrificing more so if you don't pay a certain amount you get no vote. Than the vets say "wait a minute, I spent 5 years of my life in the military so I sacrificed more than both of you. Now we are ruled by just military vets. But then the military vets who served in war say "Wait I sacrificed more than the military vets who just operated in peacetime" So now we are only ruled by war vets . . . Then the war vets who saw combat say "Wait these guys just drove a supply truck during the war, I fought" So now we are only ruled by combat vets. Then the combat vets who were wounded say "I sacrificed more than them, they fought but they walked out completely physical able. . . I lost my legs in combat!" So now we are only ruled by wounded in action combat vets.
That's how this works if we go down this road. Explain to me why it wouldn't go that way. Because if you use the logic of he who sacrifices more gets more say than that logic can be drawn to the point where we are ruled by only wounded combat vets or billionaires.
Once we start to parse through and say "I'm sacrificing more than you, therefore I get more say than you." you are inviting a government of fewer and fewer people.
The people who pay more taxes say they are sacrificing more so if you don't pay a certain amount you get no vote. Than the vets say "wait a minute, I spent 5 years of my life in the military so I sacrificed more than both of you. Now we are ruled by just military vets. But then the military vets who served in war say "Wait I sacrificed more than the military vets who just operated in peacetime" So now we are only ruled by war vets . . . Then the war vets who saw combat say "Wait these guys just drove a supply truck during the war, I fought" So now we are only ruled by combat vets. Then the combat vets who were wounded say "I sacrificed more than them, they fought but they walked out completely physical able. . . I lost my legs in combat!" So now we are only ruled by wounded in action combat vets.
That's how this works if we go down this road. Explain to me why it wouldn't go that way. Because if you use the logic of he who sacrifices more gets more say than that logic can be drawn to the point where we are ruled by only wounded combat vets or billionaires.
I read your comment to mean that ‘it was in the constitution that they [non-citizens] can’t’, I presumed you meant it was in the Constitution that non-citizens can’t vote.Voting Rights
The U.S. Constitution refers to the election of members of Congress and of the President, but the document adopted in 1787 does not define who may cast those votes. Amendments to the Constitution extended the right to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting...
Voting Rights
The U.S. Constitution refers to the election of members of Congress and of the President, but the document adopted in 1787 does not define who may cast those votes. Amendments to the Constitution extended the right to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 15th Amendment (1870) extended voting...
Is that what you meant, if so, can you clarify where the Constitution says that? Your links didn’t touch that subject.
We could just make it a popular vote.
I will give you some leniency in that you are just throwing stuff out there without a great deal of thought. I just think when you think about it, it all leads to a bad place. Read my previous post. Once you start the line of thinking of "He who sacrifices more gets more say" you can easily move to a place where very very few people get a say. As far as I can tell it's either wounded combat vets or billionaires who would be voting. Given how things tend to trend it would most likely be the billionaires.
The majority of citizens don't even get an actual say given the manner in which we elect presidents.
BTW, this goes for "illegal" and "legal" immigrants (which aren't actual legal terms used in US Code. No non citizens can vote.
What if it wasn't gross dollars paid in income taxes, but the percentage of your gross wages paid in as income taxes? The higher the percentage of your income you pay, the more invested you are, so the more say you should have.
It doesn't make it equal because 50% of $1M still leaves you with $500k, whereas 50% of $100k makes it so you'll have a hard time surviving.
Ehh - I think Starship Troopers-style might still be the way to go.
I was mistaken - was thinking it was in the constitution itself; but they’ve since passed 3 different amendments regarding voting rights, and the voting rights act specifically mentions citizens.
I've seen a whole lot of really dumb, atrocious, horrible ideas on HROT. This is right up there with all of them.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,109
- 201,215
- 113
The movie that was a warning about the dangerous appeal fascism has for some people?
Nazis in space: how Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers brilliantly skewered fascism
A Hollywood studio is rumoured to be remaking the Dutch director’s 1997 space epic. But will it, like so many others, miss the irony behind the film’s pseudo-fascist bombast?
That's what I'm here for!
My ideas in this thread aren't even half-baked. If anything, they're un-baked!
Martha’s Vineyard claims a population of 15,000.
Should we dump a few days worth of immigrant arrivals on them and let them take over the school board?
Assuming they don’t ship them all out in less than 48 hours…
I woulda guessed you were slightly baked.That's what I'm here for!
My ideas in this thread aren't even half-baked. If anything, they're un-baked!
Yeah, but were you more a Dizzy or a Carmen fan?The movie that was a warning about the dangerous appeal fascism has for some people?
Nazis in space: how Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers brilliantly skewered fascism
A Hollywood studio is rumoured to be remaking the Dutch director’s 1997 space epic. But will it, like so many others, miss the irony behind the film’s pseudo-fascist bombast?www.theguardian.com
