GOP presidential candidate calls for end to US citizens' automatic right to vote at 18
By: David Badash
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Pre-Trump Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wants to dramatically change how America elects its leaders - or rather, who is allowed to elect its leaders.
In a fiery interview with CNN, Ramaswamy, himself the product of two immigrant parents, said people who are born in the United States to one or two undocumented parents should not be automatically granted U.S. citizenship.
Ramaswamy promoted his belief that birthright citizenship - which is in the U.S. Constitution - should end, along with the automatic right of U.S. citizens to vote in elections at the age of 18, both of which would dramatically reshape the electorate, greatly reducing the historically more Democratic, younger voters.
The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
He also wants a constitutional amendment that would require U.S. citizens to "earn" their right to vote, a right that too, technically, is automatic, although Republicans for years have been engineering roadblocks and methods to dilute to power of the vote, especially via gerrymandering.
He would raise the minimum voting age to 25, from 18, unless U.S. citizens passed a citizenship test, or served in the military.
"I don't think someone just because they're born in this country, even if they're a sixth-generation American, should automatically enjoy all the privileges of citizenship until they've actually earned it," Ramaswamy, a biotech businessman with a Yale law degree, told CNN (video below). "So one of the things I've said is that every high school student who graduates from high school should have to pass the same civics test that every immigrant has to pass in order to become a citizen of this country."
"I believe that there are civic duties attached to citizenship, so much so that I don't think you should automatically get your right to vote at age 18. Unless you have passed that same citizenship test that immigrants have had to pass, or else have served the country."
On social media he expounded upon his beliefs, saying, "no one born in this country - whether 1st generation or 5th generation - should automatically inherit the full privileges of citizenship until they *earn* those privileges: every 18-year-old should have to pass the same civics test required of naturalized citizens, or else serve the country for 6 months in a military or first responder role, before earning the full privileges of citizenship."
Ramaswamy, who is a U.S. citizen, has not served in the U.S. Armed Forces, although in an interview last week with The Breakfast Club he claimed to have "volunteered" for this country, at a local hospital in high school, as Mediaite reported.
"If I'm being really honest, why did I do that in high school? A part of the motivation, I'll be just brutally honest with you, was that's actually what allows you to get into a good college when you graduate," he said.
He also admitted that the first time he voted was in 2020, when he would have been 35 years old.
He also wants a constitutional amendment that would require U.S. citizens to "earn" their right to vote, a right that too, technically, is automatic, although Republicans for years have been engineering roadblocks and methods to dilute to power of the vote, especially via gerrymandering.
He would raise the minimum voting age to 25, from 18, unless U.S. citizens passed a citizenship test, or served in the military.
"I don't think someone just because they're born in this country, even if they're a sixth-generation American, should automatically enjoy all the privileges of citizenship until they've actually earned it," Ramaswamy, a biotech businessman with a Yale law degree, told CNN (video below). "So one of the things I've said is that every high school student who graduates from high school should have to pass the same civics test that every immigrant has to pass in order to become a citizen of this country."
"I believe that there are civic duties attached to citizenship, so much so that I don't think you should automatically get your right to vote at age 18. Unless you have passed that same citizenship test that immigrants have had to pass, or else have served the country."
On social media he expounded upon his beliefs, saying, "no one born in this country - whether 1st generation or 5th generation - should automatically inherit the full privileges of citizenship until they *earn* those privileges: every 18-year-old should have to pass the same civics test required of naturalized citizens, or else serve the country for 6 months in a military or first responder role, before earning the full privileges of citizenship."
Ramaswamy, who is a U.S. citizen, has not served in the U.S. Armed Forces, although in an interview last week with The Breakfast Club he claimed to have "volunteered" for this country, at a local hospital in high school, as Mediaite reported.
"If I'm being really honest, why did I do that in high school? A part of the motivation, I'll be just brutally honest with you, was that's actually what allows you to get into a good college when you graduate," he said.
He also admitted that the first time he voted was in 2020, when he would have been 35 years old.
In May, The New York Times profiled Ramaswamy, calling him "a long-shot 2024 contender," who "is lavishly wealthy and astoundingly confident. He also promises to exert breathtaking power in ways that Donald Trump never did."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Young people vote for me and I will take away your vote...
A winning platform...
I think he's probably lost the rwnj xtian nationalist vote with his name, ram a swamy... uh, ...yeah, bad timing...
Today's gqp are scared shitless of Generation Z and their votes - hence why they're trying to remove their right to vote.
ramaswamy hasn't got a chance and he knows it. he's shooting for a token VP slot or cabinet seat.
He and DeSantis are on the same page (birthright citizenship) but the US Constitution says differently.
make that every voter next election and I'll consider it, since that would wipe out a vast segment of the GOP vote...
Lol, there would be almost no eligible voters with this guy's idea. I do think kids should have to pass the immigration test in order to graduate high school though. I mean it is really a bunch of basic knowledge that American citizens should have.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The 14th Amendment is pretty clear on who is eligible for citizenship. This includes children born in the US of parents who are here illegally, also known as "anchor babies" But this guy is just another wannabe contender who won't go anywhere.
Most 18 years olds are mature enough to figure things out, but their lack of life experience can cause them to make unwise choices politically.
The thing is most 18 years olds don't care to take the plunge into the (world within itself) of politics as they have so many other dynamic, interesting, and pressing new liberties and freedoms to contend with, thrive, succeed, and (hopefully) enjoy. But, when these youths do take the time to consider their voting power (as a bloc), they know who/what/when/why/how they wish and intend to accomplish its utilization.
Here is a possible reason for this "yahoo" republican offering this up to the red-state electorate for consideration:
Maybe Vivek is taking the "sensational" route to getting his name going viral. Maybe he wants to reinstitute an oligarchical form of governance in the United States (we've been there, done that, got all the t-shirts).
Food for thought. If Vivek had been born in his parent's native land of India, . . . look for yourself at what he would be granted at birth:
The forward facing question for Vivek would be this:
(As these individuals are born here) Why would citizens of the United States want less freedom and liberty
(giving up: birth, descent; (early registration) and place his or her children in the discounted status of a individual
who is seeking means to come and live in this country (naturalisation; acquistion of territory)?
While I think voting should be restricted to people that don't have access to cable "news" that idea, along with Ramaswamy's idea aren't going to happen. The constitution is pretty clear with no wiggle room on the issue of who votes.
Of course I take the whole article with a pound of salt considering the source.
LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
And guess what, it is still within the parameters.
So you agree that it is a stupid idea yet are going to think the story is false when it came out of his own mouth...
Context is important. Sources have a tendency to cherrypick what they want to make the point they want to make. I never said i thought the story was false
You are just trying to muddy the waters with bullshit and it didn't work.
Always cute when someone tells me what I am trying to do.
Keep on and will be off topic.
[✘]
I mean, unless you are arguing he didn't say it, I am not sure why you are questioning the source.
Context is important. Sources have a tendency to cherrypick what they want to make the point they want to make. Based on the source I would feel better about the accuracy if I saw the total transcript or better yet saw an uncut video.
Believe me, as a history major I understand that better than most. Context isn't just important it is key. It is just about everything. I remember some years back one particular jackass user literally taking like 3 words out of an entire paragraph from one of Obama's speeches to say that he was racist or something like that. But if you actually read the entire sentence, and especially the paragraph he was explicitly denouncing racism. Once I pointed that out and asked if context mattered, that user flat out said not, it does not. I was actually pretty fucking amazed.
So very very true.
Completely fair.
Well, since you put it that way, Vivek Ramaswamy is a republican and conservative candidate for president. You should be able to hear all about his plank from conservative papers, articles, newsletters, mailings, radio stations (which conservatives have galore), and at least one (main conservative) cable television channel. No need for liberals to find you materials. How about that! Go for it!
I am not looking at any candidates yet. Let them weed each other out for awhile.
Makes no fucking sense!
No, not at all. That one argues just for the sake of argument if it denounces DEMS/LIBERALS.
Waste of time dealing with that one.
Nothing but projection, deflection, denial, and delusion.
Yes! He said it about two nights ago to Abby Phillips:
I tried to locate a Youtube version without (internal) commentary, but it is what it is: See for yourself!
Abby Phillip Absolutely DEMOLISHES GOP Fool Vivek Ramaswamy
Interesting , thanks. I might have to look for the total uncut version. Obviously the version you sent is edited and includes other statements from other interviews but seeing some things come out of his mouth helps. Of course the whole thing uncut would eliminate any question of context.
IMO while it would be nice to have well informed people voting it is not a requirement in the US nor should it be. A civics test is dumb. While his birthright citizenship comment is interesting it seems more a comment on our border crises. Maybe that should be fixed once and for all instead of trying to change what the constitution says because we can't, or won't fix it. I don't think there should be any constitution amendment. I don't agree the minimum age should be changed.
Exactly how would Vivek Ramaswamy have this civics test comprised? After all, there is a current and 'hot' debate in this country over what is appropriately regarded as history.
Here is an "uninterrupted" version of the Vivek Ramaswamy interview with Abby Phillip (relevant video to this discussion) . See link above this paragraph. Ignore the article and its commentary if you wish.
oh no! that's almost as bad a rating as that breitbart article somebody tried to pass off as news here recently... /s
Good idea. Will never happen.
So you think it is a good idea that people cannot vote until they are 25.
Somehow I am not surprised.
well that, and white and xtian too of course ...
Maybe I could support repealing the 26th amendment if it included repealing the second amendment. The Constitution isn't the bible. You can't cherry pick it.
Trump's close advisor, Steve Bannon, once suggested that only property owners should be allowed to vote.
The right wing lunatic fringe is full of really good ideas. Well, full of something...
Pretty sure that any candidate standing for election should be required to earn at least a bachelors degree in political science.
He also admitted that the first time he voted was in 2020, when he would have been 35 years old.
Yeah, let’s listen to this guy about changing the laws about voting.
Lets not listen to him about anything.
Lets not listen to him about anything.
Seems reasonable on all levels.
I suspect the main resistance to this is coming from politicians who know they will lose many of their “useful idiot” votes, if this was implemented.
No doubt. Wasn't there a push not too long ago to lower the voting age?....
Yep, dumb idea right up there with free college …. Probably worse.
How does serving in the military inform an individual amount to passing a citizenship test? Curious.
We reward military service will sufficient benefits already. 'Front-loading' a right to vote in the service package does not aid in understanding the world of politics. Military service has never been meant as a means to pass a citizenship test.
And that is a strange use of the word, "adopt" - for youths born and properly naturalized to this country as this is the only home they have inherited.
For what I did not understand here is an opportunity to make it clear to me.
Opinions do vary, greatly in this regard.
I know many of my fellow Veterans on the left agree with me on this but knowing how NTers works, it’s doubtful many of them will step up here.
Willingness to serve one’s country shows a maturity that is lacking in many 18 year olds. I’m perfectly fine with this exception for that reason alone.
Service over self …. A concept foreign to entirely too many here …..
This is the original question, incidentally asked to you. Care to respond explicitly to the question? And one more question if you will indulge me:
What would be the proper status of a youth born, raised, schooled from pre-school, kindergarten, elementary, junior high, and high school that youth awaits turning 18 and this "magic" of military service citizenship or the affordability (650-700+ dollars and cents) of a citizenship/naturalization test?
I never said it did. That’s your creation not mine. I’ve made one of my reasons clear. Do you disagree with that? Another reason is in a time of recruiting difficulties, it is one more incentive to sign up. Do you disagree with that?
As to your final question, rephrase it so your question is understandable and not the run on sentence from hell. Be glad to answer it then.
They have a benefits buffet 'galore' for servicemembers and veterans already. In any case, no one should lose a RIGHT in the constitution (have it taken away) to merit becoming a citizen of the country of their birth/origin.
As to the "final question" as you labeled it: No! Children born in this country should not go through the years aspiring to be something more than "DREAMERS" - worse, other countries don't make "aspirants" out of their children!
Figures. Nothing to deliver in handfuls. The cost of becoming a naturalized citizen requires a person be in a status of "IMMIGRANT" and a cost of 650 - 700+ dollars. Tie that to voting and it breaks another rule of law: Poll taxation.
If youths born in the United States are 'made' to pay to become citizens at 18 years old when all they want to do is vote in the following election-it's a poll tax!
And yes, poll taxes are illegal. Why? Because voting as it is right now is free to citizens (which youths are without the so-called, "merit" points and cost associations).
Nope. Upon review; that portion of my comment is plain and clear.
Yawn …. Demand answers and don’t reciprocate. You still bore me CB.
No more benefit of the doubt for you.
None …..
You seem to have missed the point of this article. Go reread it again. Hint: Vivek Ramaswany wants to end "BIRTHRIGHT citizenship" and replace it with naturalization through a citizenship test at one age or another. Now will you for heaven's sake get "in" this discussion properly?
1. Birthright citizen and 2. Right to vote at 18 years of age.
I digress. Read the article for necessary context. Or just give it all up.
Read the damn article. That's all.
That was never in question in this article. Yes, I would know that for I have been voting for longer than I can remember and doing so because of birthright citizenship and legal age to voting rights. Never paid a plumb penny to do so, either.
I am discussing the article, the article You are probably off-topic, but that is not my call.
Duh. I am sure Vivek Ramaswany knows about the amendment sequence of events too, but it does not stop him from campaigning on the possibilities of changes, plural, in birthright citizenship and voting age requirements.
You wrote:
I replied:
And so you wrote this non-sequitar:
You wrote that to convey what?
And we do our best to see that conservatives don't take any more rights away. BTW, liberals will continue to pursue the rights that have been stolen away back!
I think you should be allowed to vote at the age of 16. You can get your driver's license then, so why not? You can work at that age, so why not?
Then you should be allowed to buy a gun at that age right?...
That makes no sense but that's nothing new.
Attempting to equate DL age, with voting age, is one of the stupidest ideas ever.
Ever!
Why?
When I was old enough to drink legally at 18 I was also smart enough to vote.
If a kid is not responsible enough to drink they are not responsible enough to vote
Raising the drinking age from 18 was far worse than raising voting age to 21would be
DL was at 16 last I checked.
Not sure what you are trying to get at ….
He's on ignore - I don't know why he's responding to me.
Probably going on about some hive minded drone bullshit.
Drinking and voting age should be the same
I disagree. That's 21.
Yep, with one exception.
Folks who serve in the military should get the right to vote when they join, if 18.
Alcoholic drinking is not a constitutional right found in our constitution, thus not an equivalency.