Political Crossfire Forums

[Vexed Veteran]

I love our country, but there are some things that need to change.

The debate of Voting as a right/privilege=useless.

The debate of Voting for felons is right on!

I would also make voting dependent upon AT LEAST the following conditions:

1) Born and Raised in the good old USA .
2) Born of parents that worked and PAID TAXES here.
3) Can Read/Write & Speak/Understand the ENGLISH language!

The only residents that would EVER qualify for full (voting) citizenship would have to meet all of the above requirements.

Born and Raised means just that, born here in America, go to all grades k-12 in American schools.

Born of working parents means your mom and dad worked for a living, paid their share of taxes, and raised their kids WITHOUT public assistance. Welfare moms would not vote, nor would ANY of their children(the only exception would be for military service).

Literacy speaks for itself.

No more foreigners getting to vote.
No more welfare moms getting a vote.
No more welfare kids getting to vote.

Looking forward to a lively debate! And to defending my criteria/explaining them in greater detail.

PS. sorry for the typos, new to the spell check feature. My bad.

[bigstick61]

Besides being a law-abiding citizen, I think that one should own property to vote. This is the surest way to eliminate te stupid, apathetic, and the coveting, as well as the easily manipulated, from voting. It also ensures a higher degree of virtue among the electorate, and also results in the electorate having a greater stake in society and government, which is very important. The voting age should also be 21 again, so that the voter has a couple more years of wisdom under their belt. Due to the job of a serviceman, they should be gven the privilege of voting regardless of whether they own land or not. I also think that for the highly educated, there should be an exception to the land ownership requirement, so long as they could afford it in their county of residence.

[Vexed Veteran]

Ah!

That was quick indeed!

I have to agree with the military service exempting all other requirments.

As for education/land ownership:

Education basically says that you had the time/money to go to collage, not that you are smart/wise.

Land owernship likewise (IMO) is also not something that should determine voting rights. Keep in mind that back in the old days there were far fewer people per square mile, and that as our modern nations populations rapidly expand, the landless will (sooner or later) outnumber the land owners.

I do respect your opinion(s) and would enjoy debating these two points in greater detail!

Thanks for the speedy reply!

[bigstick61]

Land ownership is an excellent way to limit suffrage. It's the reason why most republics use this form of limited suffrage. It includes equality of opportunity, as anyone has the potential to own land and thus to vote. Owning land gives one a much greater stake in both government and society than non-landowners, which helps in terms of knowledge of government, careful consideration during voting, etc. It also implies that one has the virtues needed to become and remain a landowner, which are definitely things which a good voter should have; having these virtues also means that one is generally not stupid, apathetic, ignorant, and such. Also, those who have property tend not to covet that of others, and the laws reflect this; this helps to eliminate socialist tendencies.

For education to supplant the land ownership requirement, I think that one should have a doctorate and be potentially able to afford to own and maintain land in the county in which they reside. This means they are educated, and have many of the virtues which a landowner has, but are not landowners by choice or circumstance, such as working in the city where land ownership can be difficult to come by. The only thing missing is having a greater stake in society, but generally, most such people own land anyways.

Being in the military gives one a great stake in government, as it can directly affect your life; also, people should be rewarded for choosing to serve. These are the two main reasons why I think the age and land ownership requirements should be waived for servicemen on active duty; also, servicemen are generally instilled with high moral values, which helps on the side of virtue, and tend not to be ignorant or apathetic.

[Vexed Veteran]

bigstick61 wrote: Land ownership is an excellent way to limit suffrage. It's the reason why most republics use this form of limited suffrage.

Why limit suffrage in the first place(I missed that, i think)?

bigstick61 wrote: It includes equality of opportunity, as anyone has the potential to own land and thus to vote.

As i cannot afford to buy land(and I am not alone), it again comes down too having money.

bigstick61 wrote: Owning land gives one a much greater stake in both government and society than non-landowners, which helps in terms of knowledge of government, careful consideration during voting, etc. It also implies that one has the virtues needed to become and remain a landowner, which are definitely things which a good voter should have; having these virtues also means that one is generally not stupid, apathetic, ignorant, and such. Also, those who have property tend not to covet that of others, and the laws reflect this; this helps to eliminate socialist tendencies.

I can see that owning land would tend to make one have a greater 'stake' in government/voting, but do not see that this can/should help with knowledge of government. As for implying that someone has the 'virtues' for land ownership, think about the people that have money NOT from working but from family. While landowners definitely have more (property) too loose, they are not necessarily better able to make informed decisions. If only the rich were educated enough to make informed decisions, then i would have to say that such a society was an abject failure already in this day and age!

bigstick61 wrote: For education to supplant the land ownership requirement, I think that one should have a doctorate and be potentially able to afford to own and maintain land in the county in which they reside. This means they are educated, and have many of the virtues which a landowner has, but are not landowners by choice or circumstance, such as working in the city where land ownership can be difficult to come by. The only thing missing is having a greater stake in society, but generally, most such people own land anyways.

Again, it all comes back too having the money. Having money doesn't mean anything except that you have it. Answer me this:

How would your opinion change if it could be shown that many if not most people that you would describe as 'qualified' (By your two conditions)were to be shown to be no better than those without land/doctorate?

You strike me as someone with intelligence, and so i wish to understand your opinions. Also, the subject of having children has not yet entered the discussion. What are your feelings in this regard?

[agentkgb]

Why would voting rights be dependent on one's parents? Whether your parents went to school or worked or whatever isn't something their kid should be punished or rewarded for.

[perdidochas]

Vexed Veteran wrote: I love our country, but there are some things that need to change.

The debate of Voting as a right/privilege=useless.

The debate of Voting for felons is right on!

I would also make voting dependent upon AT LEAST the following conditions:

1) Born and Raised in the good old USA .
2) Born of parents that worked and PAID TAXES here.
3) Can Read/Write & Speak/Understand the ENGLISH language!

The only residents that would EVER qualify for full (voting) citizenship would have to meet all of the above requirements.

Born and Raised means just that, born here in America, go to all grades k-12 in American schools.

Born of working parents means your mom and dad worked for a living, paid their share of taxes, and raised their kids WITHOUT public assistance. Welfare moms would not vote, nor would ANY of their children(the only exception would be for military service).

Literacy speaks for itself.

No more foreigners getting to vote.
No more welfare moms getting a vote.
No more welfare kids getting to vote.

Looking forward to a lively debate! And to defending my criteria/explaining them in greater detail.

PS. sorry for the typos, new to the spell check feature. My bad.

So much for the idea of us being a nation of immigrants.

Actually, most naturalized citizens I know (i.e. the ones that, although born foreign citizens, came to this country and underwent years of scrutiny and bureacratic nonsense to become a citizen) are better and more informed citizens than most native born citizens. In order to become a naturalized citizen, you have to know English and have to pass a test on American history and civics. That is much more rigorous than what I needed to do to get the right to vote. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers realized that provisions had to be made to naturalize citizens (hence one of the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress is to pass laws involving naturalization)

[LostSoul3412]

Grandfather clauses was struck down... I'm sure "father clauses" would follow suit.

[Vexed Veteran]

agentkgb wrote: Why would voting rights be dependent on one's parents? Whether your parents went to school or worked or whatever isn't something their kid should be punished or rewarded for.

I believe that the right too vote should be reserved for the children of those who paid for their child's needs out of their own pockets(and NOT out of yours and mine). Right now, any welfare scum can breed over and over and guess what all their children get the right too vote! Wrong!

If you don't pay for your child's needs AND pay your share of the tax burden then that means your not doing your part. Working people here in this country cannot afford to have 8 kids nowadays, but guess what? Welfare scum actually get PAID too have more children.

Do you really think that as a nation we need to reward the children born into the welfare abuse system? What about all the second-4th generation of welfare abusers? Keep the vote for those whose whose parents did their share, not those who created children too get more misappropriated tax dollars! More on this later...

perdidochas wrote: Vexed Veteran wrote: I love our country, but there are some things that need to change.

The debate of Voting as a right/privilege=useless.

The debate of Voting for felons is right on!

I would also make voting dependent upon AT LEAST the following conditions:

1) Born and Raised in the good old USA .
2) Born of parents that worked and PAID TAXES here.
3) Can Read/Write & Speak/Understand the ENGLISH language!

The only residents that would EVER qualify for full (voting) citizenship would have to meet all of the above requirements.

Born and Raised means just that, born here in America, go to all grades k-12 in American schools.

Born of working parents means your mom and dad worked for a living, paid their share of taxes, and raised their kids WITHOUT public assistance. Welfare moms would not vote, nor would ANY of their children(the only exception would be for military service).

Literacy speaks for itself.

No more foreigners getting to vote.
No more welfare moms getting a vote.
No more welfare kids getting to vote.

Looking forward to a lively debate! And to defending my criteria/explaining them in greater detail.

So much for the idea of us being a nation of immigrants.

Actually, most naturalized citizens I know (i.e. the ones that, although born foreign citizens, came to this country and underwent years of scrutiny and bureaucratic nonsense to become a citizen) are better and more informed citizens than most native born citizens. In order to become a naturalized citizen, you have to know English and have to pass a test on American history and civics. That is much more rigorous than what I needed to do to get the right to vote. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers realized that provisions had to be made to naturalize citizens (hence one of the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress is to pass laws involving naturalization)
If that were generally true(and i do not believe it), I think that you and i would have to agree that that would be a failure of our society/education system. I do agree that we are a nation that have been 'kept in the dark' about a great many things. This however is something that needs fixed, and in no way should this pave the way for foreigners(and their kids) to be able to further mess up our system.

Can anyone offer facts that we NEED welfare system abusers kids too have the same voting rights as the(far fewer) kids of legitimate hard working parents? I think not.

Can anyone demonstrate that we NEED foreigner's kids voting in this countries elections? Again, no.



LostSoul3412 wrote: Grandfather clauses was struck down... I'm sure "father clauses" would follow suit.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the 'grandfathers clause' was quite different both in intent and focus. Basically, it was an attempt by white racists to keep black(freed slaves) from exercising their right to vote, and to do so in perpetuity.

My plan allows the right to vote to foreigner's children, not perpetually forbidding it. The same applies to deadbeats/welfare abusers. If you mother(fathers can't get welfare) abused the welfare system and had 8 kids, they cannot vote BUT THEIR OWN KIDS CAN. Provided that they themselves do not make their children public burdens as well. The buck (and the free ride) has to stop here.

I feel that no 'new' immigrants should EVER just be handed our most powerful tool of self government. In addition, why should the children of parents that abused our welfare system(or were wrongfully allowed 'tax incentives' too move to America), be allowed such power?

[agentkgb]

While I certainly wouldn't agree with it I guess I can see why someone might say that we should take the right to vote from people who take more money from the government than they give. But I still have no idea why you think we should punish the children of people on welfare, since it's definitely not the kids' fault.

[perdidochas]

Vexed Veteran wrote: perdidochas wrote: So much for the idea of us being a nation of immigrants.

Actually, most naturalized citizens I know (i.e. the ones that, although born foreign citizens, came to this country and underwent years of scrutiny and bureaucratic nonsense to become a citizen) are better and more informed citizens than most native born citizens. In order to become a naturalized citizen, you have to know English and have to pass a test on American history and civics. That is much more rigorous than what I needed to do to get the right to vote. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers realized that provisions had to be made to naturalize citizens (hence one of the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress is to pass laws involving naturalization)
If that were generally true(and i do not believe it), I think that you and i would have to agree that that would be a failure of our society/education system. I do agree that we are a nation that have been 'kept in the dark' about a great many things. This however is something that needs fixed, and in no way should this pave the way for foreigners(and their kids) to be able to further mess up our system.

Can anyone offer facts that we NEED welfare system abusers kids too have the same voting rights as the(far fewer) kids of legitimate hard working parents? I think not.

It is ridiculous to punish people for the sins of their parents. If I'm a taxpayer and work hard, why in the world should I not get a right to vote if my parents got welfare? Totally ridiculous idea. I can see denying someone on welfare the right to vote, but not their kids.

Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone demonstrate that we NEED foreigner's kids voting in this countries elections? Again, no.

Well, I'm a foreigner's kid (and a citizen's kid). Should I only get half a vote?

My mother didnt' get naturalized until she was 60 yrs old and had lived here for 30 yrs. Interestingly, she is a better citizen than most people I know. America should be proud to have such a woman decide to become an American citizen and vote.

Basically, all you offer is bigotry and hate. Why don't you go back to your trailer park, and get off the library computer.


Vexed Veteran wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Grandfather clauses was struck down... I'm sure "father clauses" would follow suit.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the 'grandfathers clause' was quite different both in intent and focus. Basically, it was an attempt by white racists to keep black(freed slaves) from exercising their right to vote, and to do so in perpetuity.

My plan allows the right to vote to foreigner's children, not perpetually forbidding it. The same applies to deadbeats/welfare abusers. If you mother(fathers can't get welfare) abused the welfare system and had 8 kids, they cannot vote BUT THEIR OWN KIDS CAN. Provided that they themselves do not make their children public burdens as well. The buck (and the free ride) has to stop here.
Wait, you just said the opposite.

Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone offer facts that we NEED welfare system abusers kids too have the same voting rights as the(far fewer) kids of legitimate hard working parents? I think not.

The above says that you don't think welfare abuser's kids should have the right to vote. So which is it. Do you want the welfare abusers to lose the vote, or the abusers and their kids. Or are you too drunk to know what the hell you wrote.

Vexed Veteran wrote: I feel that no 'new' immigrants should EVER just be handed our most powerful tool of self government. In addition, why should the children of parents that abused our welfare system(or were wrongfully allowed 'tax incentives' too move to America), be allowed such power?

Its not "handed out." Also "new" immigrants can't apply for citizenship. A legal immigrant (i.e. a green card holder, who has the right to live and work here as a permanent resident) has to live here for 5 yrs before they can begin the process of citizenship. At that point, it takes at least a year of bureacratic processes (i.e. fingerprints, interviews, tests of American civics/history and English proficiency) to get their citizenship. My mother had lived in America for almost 30 yrs, had raised three law-abiding productive citizens, and had a perfectly clean record. It took her almost 3 yrs (and a lawyer) to go through the bureacratic mess to get her citizenship. It is much harder than what I had to go through to become a citizen (which is simply to have been born as my father's son).

So, what happened? Did some Mexican take your job, because he works harder for less pay?

[TNBiologist]

Vexed Veteran wrote: I love our country, but there are some things that need to change.

I would also make voting dependent upon AT LEAST the following conditions:

1) Born and Raised in the good old USA .
2) Born of parents that worked and PAID TAXES here.
3) Can Read/Write & Speak/Understand the ENGLISH language!


I agree with you on being able to read/write and speak english as a requirement. This you get a ballet in your native tongue is BS. I however disagree with your idea of having to be born in the US to vote. We are a nation of immigrants, I think you must be a citizen to vote but many people that are now citizens were not born here. For the most part, the immigrants that become citizens are law-abiding, god-fearing people that work hard and deserve teh right to vote.


Quote: Born of working parents means your mom and dad worked for a living, paid their share of taxes, and raised their kids WITHOUT public assistance. Welfare moms would not vote, nor would ANY of their children(the only exception would be for military service).

The parents should not effect a childs voting rights when they are an adult. I agree that people recieving welfare, felons and those not paying taxes should not be allowed to vote. By including a parents status you have just made it so an immigrant family could not vote until the 3rd generation in this country.


Quote: Literacy speaks for itself.

No more foreigners getting to vote.
No more welfare moms getting a vote.
No more welfare kids getting to vote.

I agree with the first two points (asuming foreigners means foreign born but not US citizens) here but see above concerning the kids. Children should not be punished for their parents sins.

Quote: Looking forward to a lively debate! And to defending my criteria/explaining them in greater detail.

PS. sorry for the typos, new to the spell check feature. My bad.

I would add that anyone in the military be allowed to vote. People with green cards can join the military although they are not technically US citizens yet. However sense they are fighting for the country they should be allowed to vote.

[bigstick61]

Quote: Why limit suffrage in the first place(I missed that, i think)?

The reason is to prevent much of what we see in politics today. Once suffrage becomes universal, the republican institutions inevitably are removed, with democratic ones taking their place. This ultimately is bad for the country. A problem which I doubt you'll dismiss is that people often vote how others tell them to, or vote because someone promises something, like benefits and such, or simply vote out of complete ignorance. The effects this has had on politics has become rather obvious, and has been discussed many a time on this board. Most political philosophers of the time we became a countryknew what would happen; limited suffrage is a tool to prevent this, and also to prevent the erosion of a republics republican institutions, which include many which serve as checks on the people. It always proved successful in this regard, and is one of the vital checks and balances which makes a republic. Ultimately, the path of democracy leads to tyranny, and this to me is unacceptable; tyranny of the majority is a tyranny nonetheless.


Quote: I can see that owning land would tend to make one have a greater 'stake' in government/voting, but do not see that this can/should help with knowledge of government. As for implying that someone has the 'virtues' for land ownership, think about the people that have money NOT from working but from family. While landowners definitely have more (property) too loose, they are not necessarily better able to make informed decisions. If only the rich were educated enough to make informed decisions, then i would have to say that such a society was an abject failure already in this day and age!

Having a greater stake increases the importance of having a knowledge of the laws, an education, and keeping up with current events and politics. Also, while there are always exceptions to the rules, most landowners who stay landowners tend to be wise with their money, tend to have a higher degree of knowledge, and often education as well, and tend to have other attributes which contribute to their success. Also, since these take time to develop, it generally increases the average age of the electorate, which results in a greater degree of wisdom among them, one of the highest virtues. Also, such people do not tend to covet the property of others like many of the poor do; by limiting suffrage thus, one prevents certain socialist tendencies from arising, socialism being inherently unjust and contrary to the principles which promote freedom, justice, and limited government. As to one not having enough money due to starting a family, if he were smart, he would not have started a family until he could adequately support them while advancing himself, to both his and their benefit, for being able to save money to own land and invest in things like education, capital, and such will have obvious benefits to their family. In any case, a smart person can still do this in spite of having a family. My grandfather did it, and he started out dirt poor; now he owns sizeable amounts of land.

Quote: How would your opinion change if it could be shown that many if not most people that you would describe as 'qualified' (By your two conditions)were to be shown to be no better than those without land/doctorate?

Although an interesting question, such a situation would be unrealistic, as it defies human nature, and the overall nature of things as well. Realism is the basis of my philosophy, which is a conservative one.

[Vexed Veteran]

Wow! I wanted a lively debate and i got one! :-D

Before i expound further, can I ask a favor? Lets not take too the habit of pasting entire previous posts(maybe the short ones), but choose to limit quotes to pertinent portions!

agentkgb wrote: While I certainly wouldn't agree with it I guess I can see why someone might say that we should take the right to vote from people who take more money from the government than they give.

The welfare people i am thinking of don't put anything in. Keep in mind, if you work and pay taxes and pay for all your kids needs out of your pocket you have done your fair share(and i and everyone else thank you).

I think that we can differentiate between those who 'fall on hard times' (layoffs, injured, death of spouse, etc...) and those whose parents were unemployed/on welfare, and then had kids of their own(while unemployed themselves), went on welfare...

Now you have people that are unemployed/work part time(just enough to keep the welfare checks coming). These people are not honest, good-intentioned, hard workers that fell upon hard times. These people would fit my definition of "welfare scum".

Basically; either you were born of welfare parents and then went on welfare yourself, or you were on welfare, and had a second kid WHILE ALREADY ON WELFARE. This is a good working definition of "welfare Scum"

It is an ongoing wrong, and each new generation outnumbers the last(because they are getting PAID to have more kids). And where do you think the govt is getting the money to pay for these kids? You guessed it, from misappropriating tax dollars of those who are working and paying taxes!

agentkgb wrote: But I still have no idea why you think we should punish the children of people on welfare, since it's definitely not the kids' fault.

I do not view children born as a public burden(generation after generation/just to get more money) as deserving the vote. If you still feel that 'welfare scum' kids should somehow still be allowed to vote, consider the number of kids in their home vs. the number of kids in honest, hard working-tax paying homes. You will undoubtedly come to realize that in a system were the majority rules, allowing welfare scum kids the vote is national suicide. Consider that they don't come from the hard working background, but the get-over crowd. Are they going to have a good work ethic? I think not!

TNBiologist wrote: I agree with you on being able to read/write and speak English as a requirement. This you get a ballet in your native tongue is BS. I however disagree with your idea of having to be born in the US to vote. We are a nation of immigrants, I think you must be a citizen to vote but many people that are now citizens were not born here. For the most part, the immigrants that become citizens are law-abiding, god-fearing people that work hard and deserve the right to vote.

The parents should not effect a child's voting rights when they are an adult. I agree that people receiving welfare, felons and those not paying taxes should not be allowed to vote. By including a parents status you have just made it so an immigrant family could not vote until the 3rd generation in this country.

I agree with the first two points (assuming foreigners means foreign born but not US citizens) here but see above concerning the kids. Children should not be punished for their parents sins.

See above for why welfare kids should NOT get the vote(again, except for welfare kids that serve in the military). In any case, welfare kids can earn the right to vote FOR THEIR CHILDREN once they do their fair share(work and pay taxes/raise their own kids at their own expense, and not at that of their fellow taxpayers).

For both foreign immigrants/welfare kids, they would not vote(again unless they served in the military) but nothing would stand in their children's way of gaining the vote except as noted above. So 1st generation immigrants could work and pay taxes and their children (born and raised here) would get the vote, that's 2ND generation, not third. Sorry for the confusion.









perdidochas wrote: It is ridiculous to punish people for the sins of their parents. If I'm a taxpayer and work hard, why in the world should I not get a right to vote if my parents got welfare? Totally ridiculous idea. I can see denying someone on welfare the right to vote, but not their kids.

Not a totally ridiculous idea! A right and proper idea! See above and below for why. Glad we can agree on denying the welfare vote. :) Hope i can persuade you to my point of view about the kids.

perdidochas wrote: Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone demonstrate that we NEED foreigner's kids voting in this countries elections? Again, no.

Well, I'm a foreigner's kid (and a citizen's kid). Should I only get half a vote?

My mother didn't get naturalized until she was 60 yrs old and had lived here for 30 yrs. Interestingly, she is a better citizen than most people I know. America should be proud to have such a woman decide to become an American citizen and vote.

perdidochas wrote: Basically, all you offer is bigotry and hate. Why don't you go back to your trailer park, and get off the library computer.


perdidochas wrote: Vexed Veteran wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Grandfather clauses was struck down... I'm sure "father clauses" would follow suit.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the 'grandfathers clause' was quite different both in intent and focus. Basically, it was an attempt by white racists to keep black(freed slaves) from exercising their right to vote, and to do so in perpetuity.

My plan allows the right to vote to foreigner's children, not perpetually forbidding it. The same applies to deadbeats/welfare abusers. If you mother(fathers can't get welfare) abused the welfare system and had 8 kids, they cannot vote BUT THEIR OWN KIDS CAN. Provided that they themselves do not make their children public burdens as well. The buck (and the free ride) has to stop here.
Wait, you just said the opposite.

Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone offer facts that we NEED welfare system abusers kids too have the same voting rights as the(far fewer) kids of legitimate hard working parents? I think not.

The above says that you don't think welfare abuser's kids should have the right to vote. So which is it. Do you want the welfare abusers to lose the vote, or the abusers and their kids. Or are you too drunk to know what the hell you wrote.

Vexed Veteran wrote: I feel that no 'new' immigrants should EVER just be handed our most powerful tool of self government. In addition, why should the children of parents that abused our welfare system(or were wrongfully allowed 'tax incentives' too move to America), be allowed such power?

Its not "handed out." Also "new" immigrants can't apply for citizenship. A legal immigrant (i.e. a green card holder, who has the right to live and work here as a permanent resident) has to live here for 5 yrs before they can begin the process of citizenship. At that point, it takes at least a year of bureaucratic processes (i.e. fingerprints, interviews, tests of American civics/history and English proficiency) to get their citizenship. My mother had lived in America for almost 30 yrs, had raised three law-abiding productive citizens, and had a perfectly clean record. It took her almost 3 yrs (and a lawyer) to go through the bureaucratic mess to get her citizenship. It is much harder than what I had to go through to become a citizen (which is simply to have been born as my father's son).

So, what happened? Did some Mexican take your job, because he works harder for less pay?

Having re-read the quotes of my previous posts, it comes to my attention that there are (at least) two typos that i missed. My apologies for the confusion.

The clarifications follow:

#1
Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone demonstrate that we NEED foreigner's voting in this countries elections? Again, no.

The only 2 cases where foreigner's kids(that were born and raised here) would NOT get the vote is if
1) Their parents either were on welfare(why allow foreign welfare kids the vote after all, if not domestic welfare kids?) or
2) Their parents received some kind of 'tax deferment'(NOT available to regular US citizens) and thus were not paying their fair share.

#2
Vexed Veteran wrote: My plan allows the right to vote to foreigner's children, not perpetually forbidding it. The same applies to deadbeats/welfare abusers. If your mother(fathers can't get welfare) abused the welfare system and had 8 kids, then YOU cannot vote BUT your own kids can. Provided that you do not make your children public burdens as well.

The buck (and the free ride) has to stop here.


I think that now my reasoning is more clear. One last thing:

perdidochas wrote: Basically, all you offer is bigotry and hate. Why don't you go back to your trailer park, and get off the library computer.

perdidochas wrote: The above says that you don't think welfare abuser's kids should have the right to vote. So which is it. Do you want the welfare abusers to lose the vote, or the abusers and their kids. Or are you too drunk to know what the hell you wrote.

perdidochas wrote: So, what happened? Did some Mexican take your job, because he works harder for less pay?

These last three quotes are along an unacceptable line, sir! If my beliefs conflict with yours, then let us agree to disagree like gentlemen. :-D

I do look forward too hearing from you and the others who have posted responses to my topic.

[Vexed Veteran]

So far, i have achieved the following results;

Most people who have responded to this thread agree with me that welfare abusers should not vote.

Also, no one has objected to having to speak/understand(and read/write) the English language.

The majority of posters(myself included) also seem to feel that military service should gain the right too vote regardless!

I would however qualify military service as active duty, regular. Reserve and National Guard service(other than active duty) would not be sufficient to gain the vote. Also, i would not want a 2-4 year enlistment too qualify either. Put in your 20 yrs, or until disabled.

The idea of keeping welfare abuser's kids from voting has sparked a lively debate, with just myself for and everyone else against. I would like to take this opportunity to give an example that may sway people to my point of view:

100 regular couples go out, get jobs, pay taxes, and have kids!
100 welfare abusers stay home and have kids! Lots of kids!

Regular working couples are having to pay 100% of their share of taxes. They also pay for all of their kids needs out of their own pockets, as well as their own cost of living.

Welfare abusers pay 0% of their share of taxes, 0% of the cost of living, and 0% of their kids needs. So where does the money come from? The regular working couples! In effect, they are paying 100% of their taxes AND 100% of the welfare abusers taxes, plus 100% of the cost of living, plus 100% for the welfare abusers kids needs.

Because of this, the opposite of normal is occurring. Instead of a nation made up of primarily hard working people, we are setting our path to becoming a nation of lazy good for nothings!

If the hard working couple can only afford to have 2 kids(on average), that means no growth in the working class families. Now look at the welfare abusers that have 8 kids(on average). This means explosive growth among the good for nothing population.

Is this really a trait that ANY nation can afford? Absolutely NOT!
Now lets look at this problem in the second generation.

100 regular couples go out, get jobs, pay taxes, and have kids.
400 welfare abusers stay home and have kids! Lots of kids!

Do you see where this is going now? Do you see why it is absolutely imperative too stop this atrocity immediately?

Now add to this the issue with foreigners coming to this country and getting 'tax deferments'. Buy a business in the USA, get several years of operations without paying ANY taxes! Sell the business to a relative, and repeat the process!

Now put the two factors together and what do you come up with?
You tell me.

[Vexed Veteran]

Heh heh, i didn't mean too keep you waiting! I think we can summarize our views along these lines:

Should everyone, regardless of weather or not they or their parents pulled their own weight get to vote? NO.

Should the right to vote be withheld for only those who had pulled their own weight? Yes.

Where we disagree:

Everyone who pulls their own weight vs. Only those who own land/have a doctorate.

Correct so far?

[perdidochas]

Vexed Veteran wrote: Wow! I wanted a lively debate and i got one! :-D

Before i expound further, can I ask a favor? Lets not take too the habit of pasting entire previous posts(maybe the short ones), but choose to limit quotes to pertinent portions!

agentkgb wrote: While I certainly wouldn't agree with it I guess I can see why someone might say that we should take the right to vote from people who take more money from the government than they give.

The welfare people i am thinking of don't put anything in. Keep in mind, if you work and pay taxes and pay for all your kids needs out of your pocket you have done your fair share(and i and everyone else thank you).

I think that we can differentiate between those who 'fall on hard times' (layoffs, injured, death of spouse, etc...) and those whose parents were unemployed/on welfare, and then had kids of their own(while unemployed themselves), went on welfare...

Now you have people that are unemployed/work part time(just enough to keep the welfare checks coming). These people are not honest, good-intentioned, hard workers that fell upon hard times. These people would fit my definition of "welfare scum".

Basically; either you were born of welfare parents and then went on welfare yourself, or you were on welfare, and had a second kid WHILE ALREADY ON WELFARE. This is a good working definition of "welfare Scum"

It is an ongoing wrong, and each new generation outnumbers the last(because they are getting PAID to have more kids). And where do you think the govt is getting the money to pay for these kids? You guessed it, from misappropriating tax dollars of those who are working and paying taxes!

agentkgb wrote: But I still have no idea why you think we should punish the children of people on welfare, since it's definitely not the kids' fault.

I do not view children born as a public burden(generation after generation/just to get more money) as deserving the vote. If you still feel that 'welfare scum' kids should somehow still be allowed to vote, consider the number of kids in their home vs. the number of kids in honest, hard working-tax paying homes. You will undoubtedly come to realize that in a system were the majority rules, allowing welfare scum kids the vote is national suicide. Consider that they don't come from the hard working background, but the get-over crowd. Are they going to have a good work ethic? I think not!

TNBiologist wrote: I agree with you on being able to read/write and speak English as a requirement. This you get a ballet in your native tongue is BS. I however disagree with your idea of having to be born in the US to vote. We are a nation of immigrants, I think you must be a citizen to vote but many people that are now citizens were not born here. For the most part, the immigrants that become citizens are law-abiding, god-fearing people that work hard and deserve the right to vote.

The parents should not effect a child's voting rights when they are an adult. I agree that people receiving welfare, felons and those not paying taxes should not be allowed to vote. By including a parents status you have just made it so an immigrant family could not vote until the 3rd generation in this country.

I agree with the first two points (assuming foreigners means foreign born but not US citizens) here but see above concerning the kids. Children should not be punished for their parents sins.

See above for why welfare kids should NOT get the vote(again, except for welfare kids that serve in the military). In any case, welfare kids can earn the right to vote FOR THEIR CHILDREN once they do their fair share(work and pay taxes/raise their own kids at their own expense, and not at that of their fellow taxpayers).

For both foreign immigrants/welfare kids, they would not vote(again unless they served in the military) but nothing would stand in their children's way of gaining the vote except as noted above. So 1st generation immigrants could work and pay taxes and their children (born and raised here) would get the vote, that's 2ND generation, not third. Sorry for the confusion.









perdidochas wrote: It is ridiculous to punish people for the sins of their parents. If I'm a taxpayer and work hard, why in the world should I not get a right to vote if my parents got welfare? Totally ridiculous idea. I can see denying someone on welfare the right to vote, but not their kids.

Not a totally ridiculous idea! A right and proper idea! See above and below for why. Glad we can agree on denying the welfare vote. :) Hope i can persuade you to my point of view about the kids.

perdidochas wrote: Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone demonstrate that we NEED foreigner's kids voting in this countries elections? Again, no.

Well, I'm a foreigner's kid (and a citizen's kid). Should I only get half a vote?

My mother didn't get naturalized until she was 60 yrs old and had lived here for 30 yrs. Interestingly, she is a better citizen than most people I know. America should be proud to have such a woman decide to become an American citizen and vote.

perdidochas wrote: Basically, all you offer is bigotry and hate. Why don't you go back to your trailer park, and get off the library computer.


perdidochas wrote: Vexed Veteran wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Grandfather clauses was struck down... I'm sure "father clauses" would follow suit.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the 'grandfathers clause' was quite different both in intent and focus. Basically, it was an attempt by white racists to keep black(freed slaves) from exercising their right to vote, and to do so in perpetuity.

My plan allows the right to vote to foreigner's children, not perpetually forbidding it. The same applies to deadbeats/welfare abusers. If you mother(fathers can't get welfare) abused the welfare system and had 8 kids, they cannot vote BUT THEIR OWN KIDS CAN. Provided that they themselves do not make their children public burdens as well. The buck (and the free ride) has to stop here.
Wait, you just said the opposite.

Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone offer facts that we NEED welfare system abusers kids too have the same voting rights as the(far fewer) kids of legitimate hard working parents? I think not.

The above says that you don't think welfare abuser's kids should have the right to vote. So which is it. Do you want the welfare abusers to lose the vote, or the abusers and their kids. Or are you too drunk to know what the hell you wrote.

Vexed Veteran wrote: I feel that no 'new' immigrants should EVER just be handed our most powerful tool of self government. In addition, why should the children of parents that abused our welfare system(or were wrongfully allowed 'tax incentives' too move to America), be allowed such power?

Its not "handed out." Also "new" immigrants can't apply for citizenship. A legal immigrant (i.e. a green card holder, who has the right to live and work here as a permanent resident) has to live here for 5 yrs before they can begin the process of citizenship. At that point, it takes at least a year of bureaucratic processes (i.e. fingerprints, interviews, tests of American civics/history and English proficiency) to get their citizenship. My mother had lived in America for almost 30 yrs, had raised three law-abiding productive citizens, and had a perfectly clean record. It took her almost 3 yrs (and a lawyer) to go through the bureaucratic mess to get her citizenship. It is much harder than what I had to go through to become a citizen (which is simply to have been born as my father's son).

So, what happened? Did some Mexican take your job, because he works harder for less pay?

Having re-read the quotes of my previous posts, it comes to my attention that there are (at least) two typos that i missed. My apologies for the confusion.

The clarifications follow:

#1
Vexed Veteran wrote: Can anyone demonstrate that we NEED foreigner's voting in this countries elections? Again, no.

The only 2 cases where foreigner's kids(that were born and raised here) would NOT get the vote is if
1) Their parents either were on welfare(why allow foreign welfare kids the vote after all, if not domestic welfare kids?) or
2) Their parents received some kind of 'tax deferment'(NOT available to regular US citizens) and thus were not paying their fair share.

#2
Vexed Veteran wrote: My plan allows the right to vote to foreigner's children, not perpetually forbidding it. The same applies to deadbeats/welfare abusers. If your mother(fathers can't get welfare) abused the welfare system and had 8 kids, then YOU cannot vote BUT your own kids can. Provided that you do not make your children public burdens as well.

The buck (and the free ride) has to stop here.


I think that now my reasoning is more clear. One last thing:

perdidochas wrote: Basically, all you offer is bigotry and hate. Why don't you go back to your trailer park, and get off the library computer.

perdidochas wrote: The above says that you don't think welfare abuser's kids should have the right to vote. So which is it. Do you want the welfare abusers to lose the vote, or the abusers and their kids. Or are you too drunk to know what the hell you wrote.

perdidochas wrote: So, what happened? Did some Mexican take your job, because he works harder for less pay?

These last three quotes are along an unacceptable line, sir! If my beliefs conflict with yours, then let us agree to disagree like gentlemen. :-D

I do look forward too hearing from you and the others who have posted responses to my topic.

A couple of different things. 1) There aren't many welfare abusers any more. Before welfare reform (that occurred during the initial Contract with America), I would have agreed more, but welfare isnt' a big problem. Heck, the food stamp programs in many states are having to advertise because not enough people are applying for them. Welfare abuse is a past issue.
2) I still don't understand why you feel naturalized citizens, who go through a heck of a lot of bureacratic nonsense, shouldn't get the right to vote. It is ridiculous.
3) This is a heated place at times. When I see nonsensical ideas, I sometimes react that way. I am a conservative, and I hate it when people who claim to be conservatives post like fools.
4) I also think that the welfare/no vote condition should be temporary. Once somebody gets off welfare, they should regain their voting rights.
5) Children should NEVER be held accountable for their parent's wrongdoings. It is fundamentally wrong, and is against the ideals of this country.

[b.scheller]

Quote: Most people who have responded to this thread agree with me that welfare abusers should not vote.

Well what is the definition of someone who abuses state welfare and those who need it because their is no way that they can find a job? I realize that there are people who receive federal and state welfare subsidies, live in subsidized government housing and so on and so forth as well as working and making money under the table. However the amount of people who work under the table and/or receive welfare is minimal to the amount of people who receive welfare because the government has abandoned them. America being the land of freedom and opportunity forgets that in order to find a job, people need to have an education. Unfortunately education costs a lot of money in America, and sadly in the contemporary society a highschool graduate will not gain entry into most places since a lot more skills and knowledge is needed to operate the most basic of machinery.

Quote: The majority of posters(myself included) also seem to feel that military service should gain the right too vote regardless!

Why should only service in the armed forces be a grant to citizenship or voting rights? The United States of America is not PAX ROMANA, it is not a totalitarian state that a tyrant choses who becomes a citizen, it is a liberal democracy that creates institutions that allow people to become citizens. Why is there such voting apathy? Well, one can blame any factor, neo conservatives are always jumping the gun and blaming any foreigner for creating apathy, or welfare cases as you love to point out, but in all honesty the main problem that I see with America is the two party system. The fact that theirs only a choice of two will dissaude many people and discourage them from voting since their is really very little difference between the two parties. Not only is it that but the media, which always predicts which party will win or the fact that both parties are just as likely to fumble and be investigated for corruption and other such things.

Quote: The idea of keeping welfare abuser's kids from voting has sparked a lively debate, with just myself for and everyone else against. I would like to take this opportunity to give an example that may sway people to my point of view:

100 regular couples go out, get jobs, pay taxes, and have kids!
100 welfare abusers stay home and have kids! Lots of kids!

First off, once again you make up percentages and statistics that are not credible. They come out of your peanut size brain, and only serve the purpose of supporting your bigoted xenophobic tripe. Second of all, can you really prove that every person who is on welfare has more kids than they can afford? What about the Western phenomena of DINKS (Double Income No Kids) or SINKS (Single Income No Kids) that would dispell your finding that every 100 "regular" (what is regular anyway?) has kids, two as you state somewhere in all this jibber.

Quote: Regular working couples are having to pay 100% of their share of taxes. They also pay for all of their kids needs out of their own pockets, as well as their own cost of living.

Welfare abusers pay 0% of their share of taxes, 0% of the cost of living, and 0% of their kids needs. So where does the money come from? The regular working couples! In effect, they are paying 100% of their taxes AND 100% of the welfare abusers taxes, plus 100% of the cost of living, plus 100% for the welfare abusers kids needs.

Well, you have provided no sources of information whatsoever on the amount of taxes that are paid by a person who is on welfare and a person who works legally. The amount of cheating on income tax is not just a phenomena that occurs in 'welfare' cases but also your hard working business people, who write off every single thing they buy for personal use as a business acquisiton thus allowing for the amount of taxes they have to pay to be lowered.

Quote: Now add to this the issue with foreigners coming to this country and getting 'tax deferments'. Buy a business in the USA, get several years of operations without paying ANY taxes! Sell the business to a relative, and repeat the process!

As far as I'm concerned most "foreigners" come from developing states, which means that whatever money they are bringing is relatively nothing worthy of setting up a business or not paying taxes. Becoming a citizen or even gaining a legal entry into the United States makes emigration to your country overtly undesirable, since you need all the pieces of information, documents and grants to even gain an entry visa or a green card let alone finding a place in the United States to work and live.

Overall, I think I've humoured you enough. You provide no evidence, no statistic, no credible source as to prove anything you stated. You seem to be the typical neo-conservative who was born and raised in the West and have very little if no actual knowledge of what it is like to be an immigrant, to be raised in a foreign state and to actual grow up in a family where the parents who are hard-working tax-paying individuals have very little money to spend on their children. Than you blame these people for the fact that they don't have enough time to vote for a candidate because when their not working their attempting to give their children a better life than they had.

However, I'm glad people like you exist. You have no realization of what America is about and yet you believe that flag waving, flag saluting, serving the armed forces, owning a gun and voting is the only thing you need to be a good citizen. I may be a foreigner so I cannot speak of your great land of opportunity, but I realize that the constitution does not equate America as a militaristic nor fascist empire that denotes that its citizens are brainless machines that pull a trigger if it is asked of them. Which just means that you understand nothing of the society you live in and are so ready to die for.

[Vexed Veteran]

Wow, you really let me have it! Let me see how best to respond!

b.scheller wrote: Well what is the definition of someone who abuses state welfare?
Read the above posts, that should answer your question nicely!

Quote: The idea of keeping welfare abuser's kids from voting has sparked a lively debate, with just myself for and everyone else against. I would like to take this opportunity to give an example that may sway people to my point of view:

100 regular couples go out, get jobs, pay taxes, and have kids!
100 welfare abusers stay home and have kids! Lots of kids!

b.scheller wrote: First off, once again you make up percentages and statistics that are not credible. They come out of your peanut size brain, and only serve the purpose of supporting your bigoted xenophobic tripe.

I'm sorry, i must have missed the part of my post that claimed these numbers came from some 'credible source' instead of being an EXAMPLE. Guess you must have something less than a 'peanut size brain', yourself then, huh?


Quote: Regular working couples are having to pay 100% of their share of taxes. They also pay for all of their kids needs out of their own pockets, as well as their own cost of living.

Welfare abusers pay 0% of their share of taxes, 0% of the cost of living, and 0% of their kids needs. So where does the money come from? The regular working couples! In effect, they are paying 100% of their taxes AND 100% of the welfare abusers taxes, plus 100% of the cost of living, plus 100% for the welfare abusers kids needs.

b.scheller wrote: Well, you have provided no sources of information whatsoever on the amount of taxes that are paid by a person who is on welfare and a person who works legally.

I'm sorry, what did you say? The amount of taxes that are paid by a person who is on welfare? Did i read that correctly? Must be my 'peanut size brain' playing tricks on me again!

Your painting a picture of good honest people that 'fell on hard times' has no basis in the reality of the welfare abusers. The people you are describing ARE NOT the people i refer to as 'welfare scum'. Please go back and re-read the above posts so i do not have to re-post information again and again and again...

I do not know where you got those ideas of yours(especially your question about the amount of taxes paid by welfare recipients), but i assure you sir, i lived among both the welfare abusers and the working poor.

But for the sake of argument, tell me how many welfare abusers you had to deal with on a weekly basis? Having myself dealt with several hundred over the last 2 decades, i can tell you this without a doubt. The vast majority of those i met/knew were not 1st generation welfare abusers, were unemployed by choice, and were involved in narcotics use/and or sales. Prostitution was another big pastime!

Quote: Now add to this the issue with foreigners coming to this country and getting 'tax deferments'. Buy a business in the USA, get several years of operations without paying ANY taxes! Sell the business to a relative, and repeat the process!

b.scheller wrote: As far as I'm concerned most "foreigners" come from developing states, which means that whatever money they are bringing is relatively nothing worthy of setting up a business or not paying taxes.

As far as your concerned? I'm sorry, what? I know that you said you aren't an American(from Iceland, yes?). Have you ever walked down the street(in any town in the USA) and counted all the foreign owned businesses? I must have missed it, but could you repeat for me when and where YOU lived here in the states? After all, for you to boldly declare that:

b.scheller wrote: However, I'm glad people like you exist. You have no realization of what America is about. Which just means that you understand nothing of the society you live in.

Now really!

b.scheller wrote: Overall, I think I've humored you enough.

Humored? Belittled, slandered, insulted more like!

b.scheller wrote: You provide no evidence, no statistic, no credible source as to prove anything you stated.

You mean, something that you can download/watch on TV? My views are backed up by first person life experiences, I don't watch TV and tell people that i know more about the country they live in than they do!

[Vexed Veteran]

perdidochas wrote: A couple of different things.
1) There aren't many welfare abusers any more. Before welfare reform (that occurred during the initial Contract with America), I would have agreed more, but welfare isn't' a big problem. Heck, the food stamp programs in many states are having to advertise because not enough people are applying for them. Welfare abuse is a past issue.

2) I still don't understand why you feel naturalized citizens, who go through a heck of a lot of bureaucratic nonsense, shouldn't get the right to vote. It is ridiculous.

3) This is a heated place at times. When I see nonsensical ideas, I sometimes react that way. I am a conservative, and I hate it when people who claim to be conservatives post like fools.

4) I also think that the welfare/no vote condition should be temporary. Once somebody gets off welfare, they should regain their voting rights.

5) Children should NEVER be held accountable for their parent's wrongdoings. It is fundamentally wrong, and is against the ideals of this country.

To be honest, i haven't had to work around/with welfare abusers for almost 4 years now(whew). Unfortunately, i do not believe that the problem has been solved. Back as little as 4 years ago, I learned about three girls that went to a party to get pregnant. All three girls had sex with the 12 guys at the party. After confirming her pregnancy, the 15 year old went down too family services and (basically) said "I'm pregnant, pay me". When asked her age and who the father was, she replied that she was 15, and didn't know which of the guys was the father, as she was drunk and high! So what happens? The guys go to jail for CSC, a minor gets a check, and some poor kid gets brought into the world as a paycheck! Although I feel for the kid, I still feel that if i got to pay the taxes that get misappropriated to support them, they should not get the vote on top of that!

It's not that i feel that 'naturalized' citizens are inferior or something, i just don't think there is any reason whatsoever for them to gain the vote. Why should there ever have been the ability for foreign born immigrants to be able to come too this country and gain a vote? I don't see that there is any compelling reason to do so. It's not as if we lack enough voters or something.

:?

If we were talking about them having to pay back all the money they got(treat it as a loan or something and charge interest), i could go for that once it was all paid back.

As long as the welfare abuser keeps and raises the kids(with there no-work ethic), then no way should that kid get to vote against my kid! I think that this is one point you and i will just never agree on. :roll:

If the welfare abuser were to have the child taken away(and raised by the state that is footing the bill), then maybe. Assuming the kid would be raised properly and acquire a good set of moral values/work ethic.