House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
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, HR 1, 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 Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican.
He pointed to last year’s vote, when 49 Democrats joined the GOP to decry noncitizen 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 Takoma 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 dating 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.
Tags
Who is online
472 visitors
The 228-197 vote came as part of a broader debate on Democrats’ major legislative priority this year, HR 1, the “For the People Act,” which includes historic expansions of voter registration and access, as well as a major rewrite of campaign finance laws.
Folks - with these Democrats in office, the U.S. is futched - totally futched.
What a bunch of unmitigated horse manure on the part of the Democrats! Further proof of how low they will sink just to expand their voter base...
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.
As you were saying? I see someone’s busy firing up the old manufactured outrage machine.
Yeah, kind of like that "manufactured crisis" at the Mexican border that the left wingers are so proud of firing up right?
The Washington Times? Not a reputable source.
Also, doesn't this relate to the places where the immigrants are allowed to vote on the school boards where their children are enrolled and NOT IN ACTUAL ELECTIONS?
Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased due to story selection that favors the left and factually High due to the use of proper sources.
Sure am glad we don't follow your standards for sources.
'Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased due to story selection that favors the left and factually High due to the use of proper sources.
Sure am glad we don't follow your standards for sources.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/'
Your source is the Washington Times, not the Washington Post, Duh
Washington Times
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Index: USA 45/180
History
Launched in 1982, The Washington Times is a daily newspaper concentrating on politics and news. Based in Washington, D.C., The Washington Times was founded by a self-professed messiah , Korean Sun Myung Moon and according to its parent company, during Washington Times 20th anniversary, Moon said : “The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”
Larry Beasley is the current president and CEO of The Washington Times and he will remain as The Times’ chief executive officer. According to a Washington Times article however, Christopher Dolan has been announced as the next president of The Washington Times, effective January 1st, 2019. Mr. Dolan also will retain his role as The Times’ top editor.
Funded by / Ownership
Operations Holdings Inc is the owner of The Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church of South Korea, through their holding company HSA-UWC (Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity). In 1954, Reverend Sun Myung Moon founded this religious movement in South Korea, which is known for its mass weddings and its members are referred to as “Moonies.” According to a Guardian article, former members have claimed that the Unification Church is religious cult that utilizes brainwashing techniques. The newspaper is funded through a subscription and advertising model.
Analysis / Bias
The Washington Times, although praised by conservative political leaders, has also been criticized for being the mouthpiece of the Unification Church . The Washington Times also has a strong pro- Christian bias , with a whole section dedicated to the Bible. They have also published articles that criticizes left leaning Christians such as this: “George Soros and his ‘rented evangelicals’ outed by Christian leaders.”
In review, The Washington Times utilizes emotionally loaded language in their headlines such as “Gowdy puts Comey on blast after FBI ex-chief’s snarky ‘search for the truth’ tweet” and “NBC News’ Mika Brzezinski problem.” When it comes to sourcing, The Washington Times re-publishes articles from the least biased Associated Press and occasionally utilizes credible sources such as Refinery29 . In examining several articles, we found that The Times either does not source information at all, or they simply link back to themselves (internal linking) to information that is not relevant to the article. This article is a good example of internal linking: “Mueller: FBI did not mislead Flynn into lying.” Internal linking is a technique used to increase page views and improve SEO, thereby increasing advertising revenue. There is nothing wrong with internal linking if the link relates to relevent information, but in the case of The Times, it does not.
When evaluating how The Times covers science, we found they published an analysis/opinion piece by L. Todd Wood that promotes a climate change conspiracy theory: “global warming and then the climate change narrative was cooked up by America’s adversaries to enable our enemies to eventually dominate us.” Further, according to IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback , The Washington Times published an article with very low scientific credibility. H owever, when covering straight news on climate change they report accurately as seen in this article: “Trump admin releases National Climate Assessment with dire warnings.”
A factual search reveals that The Washington Times has failed two fact checks that can be read here and here .
Although the Washington Times has a very strong right editorial bias, they report straight news with a much lower bias. Therefore, we rate them Right-Center biased overall, and factually mixed due to poor sourcing, holding editorial postition that are contrary to scientific consensus, and failed fact checks. (7/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 12/16/2018)
Source:
Wow - you actually read the seed
So no comment on your false source?
Just have to allow you to be almost right for once.
Why? You just proved for him he did use a legitimate source.
This is straight news, not an editorial.
Thanks for playing.
No? Who says so?
"House Democrats voted Friday to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections"
It all REALLY makes sense now !
Open borders is next on their agenda - that they've been pushing strong for for many years.
Makes one wonder if the "Queen of the Democrats"....Pelosi....will abdicate her thrown (Toilet) to the "Stupid" Newbies on this !
We've all seen that straw man before, just like the one about Dems taking all your guns away or Obama coming with black hawk helicopters to take all the white Christians to Fema camps. I've never been for "open borders" though I'm not concerned that we don't have a contiguous physical barrier to either the north or the south, we don't need them. I support the 2nd amendment and religious freedom, I just happen to understand that you can support both of those things while also supporting universal background checks and the right of Muslims to build mosques anywhere a Church would be allowed regardless of how close to "ground zero" they are.
So if you have a real beef with actual progressive policies, state them, but stop with the rhetorical straw man arguments where you claim all liberals are gay, atheist, anti-2nd amendment, pro-abortion entitlement vampires. Doing so only furthers the divide between conservatives and reality.
I'm sorry DP, but the Dems have no actual progressive policies other than establishing their power base, aborting after 9 months, allowing Illegal Aliens to vote, etc.
They're working on it.
The Democrat house just Okay'd two new gun laws they are trying to get through to the Senate.
That's total hogwash and you know it. Illegal immigrants aren't voting, late term abortions are only allowed when it's to save the life of the mother. But yes, Democrats are trying to reestablish their power to enact positive change in America. I support gun rights, the 2nd amendment and universal background checks. I support a woman's right to choose up to viability, and I support a doctor and a patient deciding the patients life outweighs that of an unborn fetus if the life of the mother is at risk even after viability. I don't want anyone who is ineligible to vote to cast a single ballot, and I want everyone who is eligible to vote to be able to vote which is why I do not support the GOP voter ID laws that were found to intentionally target eligible minorities disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. The fantasy straw man you have created in your mind of "the Dem's" simply doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of paranoid religious conservatives who think everything they dislike is a machination of the devil trying to erode white Christian values.
I guess just because you say so, it is so, eh?
Do you have a Driver's License? Do you cash checks? Do you use a bank? Do you have a credit card? Do you own a car? Do you own a home? The VRA requires proper identification for elections. Finding someone's electric/utility bill with their name and address on it is NOT proper identification.
There is a lot right in what you say - but there is a lot wrong, and one of the biggest is that "christianity" is not the divining power in government - remember?
That's funny, you are describing the gop, who has totally prostrated themselves to Trump, losing their old policies and values along the way. Democrats have always had a more robust group and welcome more ideas. You guys are bad at describing liberals.
Hogwash. Try harder.
No, not because I say it's so, because the courts have concluded it to be so.
" In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina GOP legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision ," the court said.
"This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)," the judges wrote.
" Do you have a Driver's License?"
Funny thing, at the moment my license is expired. I went in to the DMV to get it renewed but because I live in a place where they have no numbered addresses and no mail delivery (every gets a free PO Box in my small town) the DMV requires a bunch of extra paperwork (lease and utility bills) showing parcel numbers which I couldn't find and had to request a new lease copy since it had been several years. So even though I live in an affluent area with a DMV near by, I still have to wait a week or so to get what I need to go to the DMV to get my license renewed. Are there elderly people, disabled, and those living in poverty that aren't able to maintain a valid drivers license? Absolutely. But that's no reason to throw their voice and vote away, all based on the bullshit lie that illegal immigrants are somehow voting in large numbers when the evidence shows the exact opposite.
My issue is this - the U.S. Constitution specifically states, in three amendments, that voting is a right for "Citizens of the United States". Illegal Aliens are not citizens of the U. S. - so, per the U.S. Constitution, they have no right to vote. Nothing done by Congress, i.e. Constitutional Amendment, has changed the right for U. S. Citizens to vote nor have any been introduced to amend the Constitution to all Illegal Aliens to vote - period.
Sure, understand what you're saying - ND is attempting to stop Native Americans from voting - MT is attempting to stop Native Americans from voting - ID is attempting to stop Native Americans from voting. Hey, they are U. S. Citizens and those states are attempting to stop U. S. Citizens from voting, but the Democratic Congress, with all its wisdom and stupidity, wants to allow ILLEGAL ALIENS to have the right to vote when, as you've mentioned and as I just pointed out, U. S. Citizens are being prohibited.
Kinda futched up, eh?
Can you prove that minority voters were disenfranchised by simply asking for an ID?
Thank you, my friend
Actions like this are going to blow up in their faces and blow big in 2020.
This keeps up I predict a massive win for Reps in the House and Senate.
Keep it up dipshits!
Sandy the bartender is a gift to conservatives.
Sometimes there's just nothing more to say about a party that has zero respect for sovereignty or the rule of law.
Illegal immigrants should not be here in first place so this should have never become an issue
All voting records should be checked for outstanding warrants before elections
Today I offered a motion to recommit # HR1 reaffirming that only US citizens should have the right to vote. Dems rejected it. Next time you go to the ballot box, keep that in mind. The future of their party is in cities like San Fran, where illegals can vote. Let that sink in.
That's pretty obvious proof that Dems are traitors to the nation.
If illegal immigrants can vote, what's the chance of my being able to vote in an American election? There was a time when I owned property in Florida.
I'll vouch fer ya.