Eric Arthur Blair
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2015
- 25,955
- 15,961
- 1,415
Wow! I'm hardly surprised a leftist city, from top to bottom and filled with illegals of all sorts, would vote for such an amendment. That's not the point and hardly germane except in a strictly perfunctory way.I did leave out the word "that" in my opening sentence (I don't believe that the election that San Francisco allowed...) but that hardly makes your criticism of my English skills, which are superlative, valid.I don't believe that the election San Francisco allowed anyone and everyone to vote in, a school board election, and spent so much money on to promote (when San Francisco has so many other more urgent needs to address),The city of San Francisco has sunk over $300,000 into a pilot program aimed at registering non-citizens and illegal aliens to vote in upcoming November 6th elections.
San Fran Spends Over $300,000 Registering 49 Non-Citizens to Vote
---------------------------
Now this is capital of the idiots and it's so bad there but you won't see msm reporting how filthy and trashy this place is either.
The danger is these scum can filter out into other parts of the country because the gawd dam fkn idiots in CA. let them all in.
WHEN IN THE FK DID IT BECOME LEGAL FOR NON CITIZENS TO VOTE
CAN YOU GO TO CHINA AND JUST UP AND VOTE
CAN YOU GO INTO RUSSIA AND JUST VOTE
ARE YOU GAWD DAM MORONS OR WHAT YOU LEFTIST PUKES.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Libertarian Critique of Birthright Citizenship
5 COMMENTS
TAGS Decentralization and SecessionLegal SystemPolitical Theory
1 HOUR AGOMurray N. Rothbard
One vexing current problem centers on who becomes the citizen of a given country, since citizenship confers voting rights.
The Anglo-American model, in which every baby born in the country's land area automatically becomes a citizen, clearly invites welfare immigration by expectant parents. In the U.S., for example, a current problem is illegal immigrants whose babies, if born on American soil, automatically become citizens and therefore entitle themselves and their parents to permanent welfare payments and free medical care. Clearly the French system, in which one has to be born to a citizen to become an automatic citizen, is far closer to the idea of a nation-by-consent.
It is also important to rethink the entire concept and function of voting. Should anyone have a "right" to vote? Rose Wilder Lane, the mid-twentieth century U.S. libertarian theorist, was once asked if she believed in womens' suffrage. "No," she replied, "and I'm against male suffrage as well." The Latvians and Estonians have cogently tackled the problem of Russian immigrants by allowing them to continue permanently as residents, but not granting them citizenship or therefore the right to vote. The Swiss welcome temporary guest-workers, but severely discourage permanent immigration, and, a fortiori, citizenship and voting.
Let us turn for enlightenment, once again, to the anarcho-capitalist model. What would voting be like in a totally privatized society? Not only would voting be diverse, but more importantly, who would really care? Probably the most deeply satisfying form of voting to an economist is the corporation, or joint-stock company, in which voting is proportionate to one's share of ownership of the firm's assets. But also there are, and would be, a myriad of private clubs of all sorts. It is usually assumed that club decisions are made on the basis of one vote per member, but that is generally untrue. Undoubtedly, the best-run and most pleasant clubs are those
A Libertarian Critique of Birthright Citizenship | Murray N. Rothbard
San Francisco’s effort to get noncitizen parents to the ballot box is pretty much a bust the first time out, with only 49 signing up to vote in the Nov. 6 election.
Back in July, the city began registering noncitizens — including undocumented immigrants — to vote in school board
elections.
LIES BY OMISSION ARE THE MOST DAMN LIES USED TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC!
MINDWARS CAN AND SHOULD NEVER BE TRUSTED TO POST THE WHOLE TRUTH.
makes the principle of non citizens voting with San Francisco's politburo's blessings any more valid, or legal considering illegal immigrants were included in the come one come all election.
If I understood the awkward syntax in your post, and only because you used "Politburo" and "come one come all) in the election, it is my opinion that you don't know a damn thing about the issue or writing English.
a) Immigtation is a Federal Responsibility, read COTUS and maybe you'll understand;
b) Many non citizens are employed by the private sector live, work and raise their children here
c) Allowing non citizens with Green Cards to vote in a singular matter - school boards - seems to be a minor issue for any parent of any ethnicity.
d) Nowhere in the lie by omission did Mindwars post make the claim that the 49 were all in SF illegally. Likely, and from my experience, those who are here illegally are young men who traveled alone to hang out at Home Depot to seek work to earn money to send to their home of origin.
e) Save your outrage for the private contractors - cement, roofing, gardening - who hire them at slave wages, with no benefits; or the home owner who wants cheap labor, or the restaurant owner / managers, hotels and motels or private home cleaning services.
If you want to fix what is broken, repeal and replace the Republican Senator or Member of the House who uses illegal immigration and green card holders as scapegoats for a wedge issue, and do nothing to fix it.
I attribute this petty and impotent slap by you to hostility to a contrary point of view by someone who will attack it on any grounds at all when facts leave him wanting.
Yes, I understand immigration is a federal issue. Thanks for the non news. I also understand that San Francisco lies within the borders of the United States of America and their thumbing of their noses at immigration law is not unlike
the attitudes of the Jim Crow South when they refused to obey federal civil rights laws just because they didn't want to.
You sound like a real descendant of that line of "thinking" and thankfully more people don't agree with you.
I have a friend from Argentina who has lived in this country for decades and who sent two children through our school system. He seems to understand that as a non citizen he has no right to vote in our elections, whether minor or not.
Why can't you? Maybe because he respects our laws whereas you don't seem to.
I don't live in San Francisco anymore, so I am hardly "outraged" by the latest reports of idiocy from that sadly broken city.
I just see one more instance of the fifth columnists trying to normalize people living in this country illegally.
It's wrong and your little diatribe does nothing to change this.
Tissue? The germane issue is this:
[SF Proposition N:
"Shall the City allow a non-citizen resident of San Francisco who is of legal voting age and the parent, legal guardian or legally recognized caregiver of a child living in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote for members of the Board of Education?"
"The amendment would permit non-citizens 18 years of age or older who have children residing in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in the elections for the School Board. The amendment would sunset on December 31, 2022, but could be extended by ordinance"]
Mindwars tired to mislead the reader that all legal and those who are undocumented persons residing in San Francisco would be able to vote on all local issues, State Wide issues, and Federal Issues.
I had no idea what your opinion was, had you not used the two phrases I pointed out. Maybe you ought to find a grammar checker and post your initial comment. If is was wrong post the result and I'll offer a mea culpa.
Yes, it's legal in San Francisco for illegals to vote in local school elections. That's sort of the whole point. Duh!
You'll have to quote exact verbiage where MIndwars extended San Francisco normalizing illegal non citizens
into the mainstream to extend to state and federal elections. I did not see that nor come under that impression except in the sense that the SF politburo intended their act to contribute to the slippery slope the illegal fifth columnists hope to build up. And in that Mindwars is absolutely right.
And maybe you should show me how my original post on the issue was ambiguous, unclear or poorly presented. That would be much more appropriate since it's you who seems to have a problem with an unambiguous post of mine.
Did it confuse you? Were you unsure of my position?
