Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arnold-Jones: Citizenship Without Voting Rights
http://www.abqjournal.com/ ^ | 9/6/2012 | James Monteleone

Posted on 09/11/2012 2:07:03 PM PDT by SF Geo

Congress should create a one-time path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who admit violating the nation’s immigration laws but have no other criminal history, said Arnold-Jones, the Republican nominee for New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District seat in the U.S. House.

“If you’ve been in our country illegally and you raised your hand and you have done everything to become a U.S. citizen, and you acknowledge that you broke the law, the consequence is withholding the right to vote even though you’re a citizen, because you cannot buy citizenship,” Arnold-Jones said.

(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: arnoldjones; citizenship; immigration; nm1; sourcetitlenoturl
Janice Arnold-Jones is running for NM house district 1.

She has come up with maybe the best idea to counter the left's hold on Hispanics/illegals. Could be the game changer we need.

She suggests a path to citizenship but (because they broke the law) the don't get to vote.

She is already backing down, saying no vote for 5 years but that's not good. What is the fear of an illegal? Getting pulled out of their life here, I think. Would they trade that insecurity for their vote? Most likely.

Any time period should focus on when they can be eligible for benefits.

1 posted on 09/11/2012 2:07:11 PM PDT by SF Geo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

I’m a high school drop out and even I know that you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights. It would NEVER pass constitutional muster.


2 posted on 09/11/2012 2:10:00 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

No


3 posted on 09/11/2012 2:16:07 PM PDT by ReaganÜberAlles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
And then, of course, as citizens, these new Americans would be within their rights to bring their immediate relatives into the country. Figure 3 extra per new American - open your arms to some 45 million new folks. Some unemployable, old and infirmed, some uneducated school-aged youths, and many more people competing for jobs, housing, food and energy.

We cannot afford to adopt the poor of the world all at once.

4 posted on 09/11/2012 2:16:51 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

>> you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights

And even if we could — constitutionally speaking — how the hell would we *enforce* the no-voting sanction, when we can’t even do a decent job of enforcement against illegals, criminals, and dead people now?

No sale. Go home and apply for legal residency like everyone else in the world has to do.


5 posted on 09/11/2012 2:17:02 PM PDT by Nervous Tick ("You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I’m a high school drop out and even I know that you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights. It would NEVER pass constitutional muster.

Well, how about 3/5 of a vote? There's precedent, in a way.

6 posted on 09/11/2012 2:17:22 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

They’d be in front of the supreme court inside of a year demanding their voting rights and they would win by unanimous decision.


7 posted on 09/11/2012 2:19:25 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
even I know that you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights.

What a doofus to propose this.
Obama has built his career on subterfuge and sneaky, back door tactics.
This would play right into his and the democrats hands.

It is just a way to sucker some voters, senators and congressmen into suporting a grant of citizenship to illegals.
Can't this so-called republican see the pitfalls?

It would be sort of like letting the camel's nose under the tent.
Before it is over you have the entire camel in the tent with you.

After the bill was passed and signed the democrats would orchestrate a great outcry that it is not fair and not constitutional to prevent these poor citizens from voting.

Then, either congress would pass a bill granting full voting rights or the courts would do it for them.

PRESTO! A few million more democrat voters!


8 posted on 09/11/2012 2:29:16 PM PDT by Iron Munro ("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

Sorry. as others of said. Won’t fly. We had a 1 time amnesty in the 80’s. sorry they all missed it.

kick them the eff out of my country. We have citizens who want to work but can’t because someone who should not be here has taken their job.


9 posted on 09/11/2012 2:30:24 PM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

Hey look everybody,Isn’t that a camels nose under the flap to our tent?You know what would eventually happen.


10 posted on 09/11/2012 2:30:43 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Actually, you can: we strip felons of voting rights routinely. Offer citizenship on the condition that they acknowledge their felony immigration violation, and sentencing is set to time previously served. But as admitted felons, they lose the right to vote. . . .


11 posted on 09/11/2012 2:32:19 PM PDT by Salgak (Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border. I **DARE** you to cross it. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
Can't this so-called republican see the pitfalls?

I suspect he sees them and is just assuming that the public is too stupid to notice.

When I said I was a high school drop out, it didn't mean stupid or uneducated.
12 posted on 09/11/2012 2:34:02 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salgak
But as admitted felons, they lose the right to vote. . . .

That depends on the state and virtually every state has a means for former felons to regain the right to vote. I know because I am one.
13 posted on 09/11/2012 2:36:41 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I’m a high school drop out and even I know that you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights. It would NEVER pass constitutional muster.

Don't be too sure. You probably have never looked at the (unconstitutional as hell) provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but basically, the States of the Old Confederacy can't vote if Eric Holder says they can't. Period.

'Rats tied Texas up in court with a redistricting beef last spring and froze Texas out of the primary race. We were supposed to vote in April. We didn't get to vote until it was all over -- May 29th. Tell me that wasn't a phony lawsuit brought by the 'Rats, making sure Romney won.

They did it in the teeth of the Supreme Court, which prorogated and then slapped the taste out of the forum-shopped federal district Obammy judge who'd told Texas we couldn't vote. They sent the case back down, on fire. But the 'Rats continued, undeterred, brazenly to litigate us out of our voting rights.

So guess who went back to court this month?

Texas is going to be lucky to vote in the general. That seems to be what the 'Rats have in mind.

14 posted on 09/11/2012 2:41:31 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Sure you can. You just use some term other than “citizen”. Create a legal status for foreigners that allows them to work, remain here, attend school, etc,,,, but simply not to vote.
There is nothing in the constitution prohibiiting such legislation. Call it special guest, foreign worker with benefits, etc. It could be done.

Besides, as Obamacare showed, violation of the constitution is often allowed in some situations.


15 posted on 09/11/2012 2:44:43 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
Create a legal status for foreigners that allows them to work, remain here, attend school, etc,,,, but simply not to vote.

They're called resident aliens. I dated a Serbian woman who teaches at a university down south. She's a resident alien and her family in Belgrade all have some sort of standing visa.
16 posted on 09/11/2012 2:48:32 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

There was no such thing as 3/5 of a vote, ever. There was a provision that slave states could only count 3/5 of their inhabitants for purposes of seats in congress. The logic being, you don’t get allocated extra seats for people whom you are holding against their will.


17 posted on 09/11/2012 2:49:01 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salgak

Felons are nothing but “citizens”, stripped of voting rights, after due process of law. A mexican, somali, or chinese smuggled in, could get a similar deal. “Citizen” with no voting rights after due process of law.

AND, if they want to vote, nobody is stopping them from returnng home, immigrating properly, and getting full citizenship.


18 posted on 09/11/2012 2:52:59 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
There was no such thing as 3/5 of a vote, ever. There was a provision that slave states could only count 3/5 of their inhabitants for purposes of seats in congress.

Yeah, I know. Did I forget the /S?

19 posted on 09/11/2012 2:54:13 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

For 21 years I was a citizen without voting rights. I have a niece who will not be allowed to vote even though she was born in the US and has never committed a crime, merely because, through no fault of her own, she was born after November 6, 1994.


20 posted on 09/11/2012 3:06:13 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"I’m a high school drop out and even I know that you can’t create a class of citizens without voting rights. It would NEVER pass constitutional muster."

Sure you can. For many years in the early days of the US, only owners of a certain minimum amount of property could vote. Those who had less property were certainly citizens, but they couldn't vote. And, of course, half the population was (and is) female, were citizens, and could not vote until the Constitution was amended (Nineteenth Amendment).

But....permanent residency satisfies the desire for amnesty without negatively impacting our politics. No citizenship for illegals.....

I would allow ONE exception.....any such illegal who serves in the US military and is discharged honorably would be eligible to apply for citizenship. Any others.....no way in hell.

21 posted on 09/11/2012 3:08:30 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
When I said I was a high school drop out, it didn't mean stupid or uneducated.

That wasn't directed to you - it was targeted at the idiot who came up with the bright idea.


22 posted on 09/11/2012 3:09:14 PM PDT by Iron Munro ("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
For many years in the early days of the US, only owners of a certain minimum amount of property could vote.

Again, that depended on the state.
23 posted on 09/11/2012 3:10:16 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo
Nope...nope...nope...10,000 times NO! No for many reasons,not the least of which is that some Federal judge would throw out the “no voting” part.
24 posted on 09/11/2012 3:29:13 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama's Reelected Imagine The Mess He'll Inherit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo; Morgana; Lazamataz; cripplecreek

Taxation without representation?

The no vote part would be thrown out by every single judge in America.

Cut off the benefits. No free schools, no free healthcare, no welfare and e-verify and the problem fixes itself.

We ain’t amending the constitution to create some sort of caste system.


25 posted on 09/11/2012 3:39:12 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I'm not sure whether Congress can do it, but a state certainly can, with consequences.

14th Amendment: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

The state would just have its delegation in the House reduced proportionately and therefore in the Electoral College, which in many cases would mean they don't even lose a single seat. No effect on Senate representation, of course.

Would it fly in the Court in fact? Of course not. But that is what the Constitution says.

26 posted on 09/11/2012 3:40:02 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

No it would not.

Do you want to amend the constitution to create a caste system?

I didn’t think so.


27 posted on 09/11/2012 3:42:17 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

This is already playing into Democrat hands... this idiot has literally proposed creating second class citizenship.


28 posted on 09/11/2012 3:47:03 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

No. No voting. No SNAP. No WIC. No EBT (or whatever it’s called) No Medicade. No Section 8. No subsidized housing of any kind. No “public assistance” for utility bills. No free cell phones. No driver licenses. No grants, scholarships, or any form of education assistance from US sources, no “in state tuition”. No free school lunches, breakfasts, or after school programs. No bilingual education or duplicate forms in spanish. What did I leave out? Re-instate immigration quotas.

Just no. No nothing. (No nada. Por nadie.)


29 posted on 09/11/2012 3:47:16 PM PDT by KGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salgak

Some states let them vote while in prison don’t they?


30 posted on 09/11/2012 3:48:04 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

I have met Janice Arnold-Jones on numerous occasions. This move by her surprises me. I suspect she has been influenced/pressured by campaign advisers. This is nothing more than pandering for the hispanic vote. Amnesty in any form does not work as our nation discovered in 1986. I had a lot more respect for Janice before this ‘clever’ bone headed move.


31 posted on 09/11/2012 4:00:21 PM PDT by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"Again, that depended on the state."

Well, of course. Why do you think that matters?? The fact remains that there is a ubiquitous history in the US of "non-voting" classes of citizens, all perfectly Constitutional.

The interference of the Federal government in making a determination as to who can or cannot vote is of VERY recent vintage, and AFAIK, only applies to those states impacted by the "Voting Rights Act" (i.e. the segregated "Old South"). The rest of the states STILL determine who can or cannot vote in all elections (including for federal offices) held within their jurisdiction.

32 posted on 09/11/2012 4:31:19 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

“She suggests a path to citizenship but (because they broke the law) the don’t get to vote.”

A few people have done this one better - a path to LEGALITY but no citizenship.

Look, if you don’t take away the birth-right citizenship I don’t think anyone will care. That might need to be taken away to really stop illegal immigration. I do not know if the constitution would need to be amended, I’m not qualified probably to even consider that question in a serious way.

But no illegals should ever get citizenship, even if they get legality. Take 1/2 a loaf and like it, or don’t like it and lump it.


33 posted on 09/11/2012 4:58:26 PM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

No sale!
Do it the complete right and official way for all immigrants, even E.T., or GTFOOMC!


34 posted on 09/11/2012 5:06:11 PM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

Brilliant! What a marvelous plan!

Especially considering the wonderful job that has been done keeping illegals from voting in the first place!

Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!


35 posted on 09/11/2012 5:45:32 PM PDT by elteemike (Light travels faster than sound...That's why so many people appear bright until you hear them speak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

What will this new class of American citizens be called, “Drones” maybe?


36 posted on 09/11/2012 6:04:25 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Take two Aspirin and call me in November - Obama for Hindmost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino; cripplecreek; Victoria Delsoul; re_nortex; stevie_d_64; wardaddy
Call it special guest, foreign worker with benefits, etc. It could be done.

The shorthand annotation is A M N E S T Y.

It's been done. Didn't work.

37 posted on 09/11/2012 8:44:07 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo; All

Anything that does not deport all Illegal Aliens is AMNESTY....

You win American voters by deporting Illegal Aliens...you lose voters by giving them Amnesty. Just ask President McCain

The GOP needs to get over their fetish of Illegal Aliens. You do not win Hispanic voters by supporting Illegal Alien Amnesty

Illegal Alien Amnesty is Anti-American Bigotry. This is just another GOP Bigot


38 posted on 09/11/2012 8:47:12 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (The DNC Convention is like the Nuremburg Rallies for non-white folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
[You, quoting XIV Amendment] "....the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

This is the sole constitutional remedy for the sort of abuses Jim Crow States were imposing on the black population in the 40's and 50's. There were multiple remedies, of course: one, black citizens emigrated north, signed on with city machines in big States like Illinois (home of Emmett Till) and New York, and exerted influence at the federal level back on their home States.

Two, the XIV Amendment remedy of reduced representation, of which the House of Representatives would apparently be the arbiter.

Three, another constitutional amendment to provide further remedies along the lines of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Four, litigation under their state constitutions against the abuses complained of, up to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court to see whether SCOTUS would bind voting rights to the States as it had done other federal rights, as had been done in Brown vs. Board of Education and in the case of the poll tax, which was found unconstitutional.

Notice that I said that the VRA would require amending the Constitution, to be constitutional itself.

39 posted on 09/11/2012 9:02:45 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

As you are no doubt aware, no attempt was ever made to implement this provision of the 14th, so we don’t know how it would have administered. The amendment provides no mechanism for adjudication or administration of the provision.

Presumably, as you say, it would have been by the House, which is the only institution directly affected anyway.

A very awkward provision, arising out of an attempt to square the circle of respect for state determination of who had the right to vote with federal discouragement of disenfranshisement of black citizens.


40 posted on 09/11/2012 9:10:07 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KGeorge

so I guess that is a ‘no’.


41 posted on 09/12/2012 2:07:13 PM PDT by SF Geo (osama, usama, obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Felons who can’t vote are not another ‘class’ of citizen. They broke a law and lost a right of citizenship as a consequence. Not really that complicated.

Thing is, if I were an illegal what would I be worrying about? Getting my life tossed in the crapper by being deported. Not not being able to vote.

My point is that this checkmates a BIG anti-American, ultra liberal weapon. They use it to keep Mexicans in line. Yet most Hispanics are by nature conservative, Without fear of deportation, they could vote the way they want to.


42 posted on 09/12/2012 2:13:56 PM PDT by SF Geo (arnold-jones, non-voting citizenship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

They might be more likely to worry about breaking the voting law if they weren’t already lawbreakers.

The difference between: Heck, I broke one law, why not break another. And: I’m not breaking any law right now why take a chance on some dumb voting law.

You see, the Dem.s wouldn’t OWN them anymore.


43 posted on 09/12/2012 2:17:11 PM PDT by SF Geo (arnold-jones, non-voting citizenship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Why? Felons haven’t.


44 posted on 09/12/2012 2:18:29 PM PDT by SF Geo (arnold-jones, non-voting citizenship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

And that is done one-by-one.


45 posted on 09/12/2012 2:20:15 PM PDT by SF Geo (arnold-jones, non-voting citizenship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

I’m really surprised the media hasn’t suggested the obvious. Annex Mexico.

Voila! Problem solved.


46 posted on 09/12/2012 2:29:08 PM PDT by yuleeyahoo (Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Geo

LOL Ohhh yeah.


47 posted on 09/13/2012 12:41:51 AM PDT by KGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

[smile]


48 posted on 09/13/2012 12:43:39 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: yuleeyahoo

Right. If they want American citizenship THAT badly, let’s just move the border SOUTH.


49 posted on 09/13/2012 12:45:30 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson