Tim Pool EP70 - Democrats Vote To DEFEND Non-Citizen Voting In Local Elections
Democrats Vote To DEFEND Non-Citizen Voting In Local Elections. Dan Crenshaw sought to reaffirm a bill stating that only US citizens can vote in elections in the US but the Democrats in the house rejected the bill.There is a growing concern among Republicans and conservatives that leftists in the US are encouraging open borders in an effort to get new voters for the Democrats. But Democrats feel that it is unfair to tax some non-citizens without giving them a say in elections.With the calls to abolish ICE, to create sanctuary states and cities, refusal to build a border wall, and now a vote by Democrats in favor of non-citizen voting, man people on the right are having their fears confirmed.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past several months, there have been many stories about local jurisdictions allowing non-citizens to vote in certain circumstances.
Typically, it was school board meetings or school affairs, where they wanted to give non-citizens a say in how their children were being taught or how the institution was being run.
Still, many people on the right found this rather outrageous because you're letting non-citizens, and yes, even illegal immigrants, have a say in a publicly funded institution.
Well, Just the other day, House Democrats at the federal level voted to protect local jurisdictions that will allow non-citizens to vote.
Dan Krenshaw spoke out against this, proposing a resolution to say only U.S.
citizens can vote in elections.
But the Democrats did not support it.
There's actually a really interesting history about non-citizen voting because it hasn't always been the case that they weren't allowed to.
But there absolutely is nuance here.
Our country is very different today than when it was in the 1800s.
So today, let's take a look at the latest news from the House Vote to Protect Local Jurisdictions that would allow illegal immigrants to vote and some of the nuance around the issue.
But before we get started, make sure you follow me over on Mines at Mines.com slash TimCast.
We're also setting up a distributed newsroom at Mines.com slash Subverse where you can get involved and share stories you think aren't getting enough attention.
If you want to support these videos, just share them and help spread the message.
The first story from The Washington Times.
House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting.
House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections, turning back a GOP attempt to discourage the practice.
The vote marks a stunning reversal from just six months ago, when the chamber, then under GOP control, voted to decry illegal immigrant voting.
We are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in," Rep.
John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and hero of the civil rights movement, told colleagues as he led opposition to the GOP measure.
The 228-197 vote came as part of a broader debate on Democrats' major legislative priority this year.
HR1, the For the People Act, which includes historic expansions of voter registration and access, as well as a major rewrite of campaign finance laws.
The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed.
Illegal immigrants, and indeed non-citizens as a whole, are not legally able to participate in federal elections.
But Republicans had hoped to send a message to localities such as San Francisco, where non-citizens are now allowed to vote in school board elections.
It sounds like I'm making it up.
What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens and replace it with non-citizens, said Representative Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican.
He pointed to last year's vote, when 49 Democrats joined the GOP to decry non-citizen voting.
On Friday, just six Democrats voted in favor.
A 1996 federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, but there is no prohibition on localities, and indeed, a number of jurisdictions allow it to some extent.
Famously liberal Tacoma Park, a small jurisdiction in Maryland, has for several decades allowed non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections.
Experts say as many as 40 states or territories allowed non-citizen voting back to the nation's founding.
San Francisco in July began allowing non-citizens to vote in school board elections, though they must be parents or legal guardians of students.
In response to this, Dan Crenshaw tweeted, Today I offered a motion to recommit H.R.
1 reaffirming that only U.S.
citizens should have the right to vote.
Democrats rejected it.
Next time you go to the ballot box, keep that in mind.
The future of their party is in cities like San Francisco, where illegals can vote.
Let that sink in.
This story in January was very alarming to many people from USA Today.
Texas top elections officer.
95,000 non-citizens found on state voter rolls.
Texas officials are contacting county election authorities statewide to determine whether people who are not U.S.
citizens are registering and illegally voting.
The announcement was decried by Voting Rights Advocate as a thinly veiled effort to purge the registration rolls and to discourage participation at the ballot box.
Texas Secretary of State Whitley, the state's top election official, said his office had been working with the Texas Department of Public Safety seeking to determine whether non-citizens are participating in Texas elections.
Through this evaluation, the Texas Secretary of State's office discovered that a total of approximately 95,000 individuals identified by DPS as non-U.S.
citizens have a matching voter registration record in Texas, approximately 58,000 of whom have voted in one or more Texas elections.
However, there was some pushback.
Beth Stevens, voting rights legal director with the Texas Civil Rights Project, called Whitley's move alarming.
There is no credible data that indicates illegal voting is happening in any significant numbers,
and the secretary's statement does not change that fact, Stevens said.
Notably, Texas has one of the largest numbers of naturalizations in the United States, with
about 50,000 Texas residents becoming naturalized citizens each year, she added.
Whether updates to the legal status of the persons on the secretary's list has been
taken into account is unclear, and based on the number of naturalizations in Texas every
month, highly suspect.
Now here's the conundrum.
Many people on the right feel that there are illegal immigrants voting, especially in federal elections as well as local elections.
They're concerned because it has been reported that newly naturalized immigrants tend to vote Democrat.
The idea is, if you allow non-citizens to vote, they will support the rival party, but more importantly, they will vote against the interests of actual citizens.
Think about it.
If you did allow non-citizens to vote, they will vote for their best interest.
It's the only thing they can do.
Everyone would.
Well, non-citizens would continue to vote to empower non-citizens, which would just open the door for anyone to come in and vote, and it would essentially destabilize the system of voting in its entirety.
But the Democrats view it as unfair because you have some people in this country who are not citizens but still pay taxes.
And they say, no taxation without representation.
Therefore, these people should be allowed to vote.
And we have seen a couple jurisdictions in the news over the past year pushing for new rules to allow non-citizens to vote.
For instance, mayor and council are pushing to give non-citizens the right to vote in Portland.
This is in Maine.
And there was this story, which was referenced by the Washington Times.
San Francisco will allow non-citizens to vote in a local election, creating a new immigration flashpoint.
There was also concern that illegal immigrants were now going to be allowed to vote in California in federal elections.
That's not true, but there is some legitimate concern here, from Snopes.
They ask, California has passed a law allowing undocumented residents to vote, and they call it a mixture, which is really surprising.
California didn't do that, but...
They have implemented a law providing for the automatic voter registration of motorists who obtain or renew driver's licenses.
Critics contend that the law will make it easier for non-citizens to unlawfully vote.
And interestingly, Snopes recognizes that's a legitimate concern from critics.
They called the story a mixture, which was surprising to me.
There is an increasing concern when you have Democratic Socialists becoming Congresswomen.
And these people, these activists, have advocated for open borders.
You're seeing whole states, sanctuary states.
You're seeing many of these politicians refuse to cooperate with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
And you are seeing many of the newly elected far-left Democrats say, abolish ICE.
All of these things are grains of sand that make a heap, to use an analogy I use all the time.
When you put them all together, it really does seem like the Democrats are advocating for open borders.
Now, are they coming out and saying, we don't want any borders?
They're not.
They're actually pushing back against that.
But there is some interesting nuance here.
This article from the National Review, the left's next target, non-citizen voting.
And this article is really interesting because it talks about how it's actually fairly recent that non-citizens can't vote.
But times change, so let's read why they think it's wrong today.
In the story, they say non-citizen voting was actually the status quo for much of U.S.
history.
It wasn't until 1926 that Arkansas became the last state to ban non-citizens from voting, and 1928 that the first federal election without enfranchised aliens occurred.
Since Article 1 of the Constitution provides that those who can vote in elections for the most numerous House of their state legislator may vote in elections for the House of Representatives, many Congresses in our history have seen members elected from constituencies with significant populations of alien voters.
Initially, after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress promoted alien voting, partly as an incentive for the settlement of new territories.
Section 11 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 provided that ownership of 50 acres of land and two years' residence in the district shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative, regardless of citizenship status.
Alien suffrage peaked in the years after the Civil War.
At least 22 states and territories allowed non-citizen voting around 1875.
In my home state of South Carolina, the post-Civil War Constitution of 1865 joined those of a number of other southern states in allowing aliens who had declared their intent to become citizens to vote.
As property qualifications fell away and women won the right to vote, non-citizen voting became more controversial.
The rising tide of nationalist sentiment during World War I ultimately brought the practice to an end.
Meanwhile, voting rights were expanding across the country to varying degrees.
And would further expand later in the 20th century with the rightly celebrated Voting Rights Act of 1965 and bills to provide better access to voting for uniformed service members abroad, among various other civil rights bills.
But throughout the voting rights debates of the civil rights era, alien voting remained a fringe concept, relegated only to the most left-leaning jurisdictions.
New York allowed aliens to vote in certain school board elections in 1968, but few municipalities followed suit.
After the issue was taken up as a left-wing cause in the 1990s, we ended up pretty much where we are today, with around a dozen different jurisdictions across Maryland, California, Illinois, and New York offering non-citizens and even illegal immigrants access to the ballot.
The important point in that story is that while it may be alarming to hear a lot of news about different jurisdictions trying to grant non-citizens the right to vote, it's actually existed in this country basically forever.
Although we've mostly done away with it, as they point out in the National Review, there still are some jurisdictions that do allow it.
Now, it would seem the National Review is very much opposed to the idea, because they point out times are different today.
And I would say I have to agree.
It's very different when you have an open frontier and wide, uncontrolled spaces and you don't know who is or isn't a citizen.
It's also different when, back then, someone could say they were and you didn't really know for sure because you didn't have computers or databases.
Communications technology has made things very, very different.
And also, as population expands and resources become more constrained, it becomes more important to make sure we regulate the flow of people coming into and out of this country.
At least, that's my opinion.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world and I don't have all the answers.
But I have seen many smart people contend, even Bernie Sanders, that unchecked migration is bad for the lower class.
If Bernie Sanders in 2015 says that open borders is a Koch brothers proposal because they just want cheap labor, then I have to wonder where the sentiment has gone today, when you now have democratic socialists actually holding up signs saying no borders, when you actually have activists and politicians Something has definitely changed in this country.
I mean, the fact that Donald Trump got elected when no one thought he would and he's an outlier.
The fact that Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular politicians.
These people aren't the establishment.
They're not the norm.
And something weird is happening between the parties and the culture where we now have people on the left advocating for unpersoning or book burning or censorship.
And it's the right where it's inverted now.
And people on the right are opposing these ideas, and that may not be true.
It may not be true that always the people on the right were opposed to the free flow of information, but at least that's how our culture characterized it when you look at old TV shows like The Simpsons.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
How do you feel about the issue of non-citizen voting?
And do you think the Democrats are wrong to push this bill?
Do you agree with Representative Dan Crenshaw?
Let me know what you think.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4 p.m.
Eastern on this channel, and I will see you at 6 p.m.
Eastern on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, where I'll have more videos.
