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 ...
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.
That wasn't directed to you - it was targeted at the idiot who came up with the bright idea.
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.
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.
No it would not.
Do you want to amend the constitution to create a caste system?
I didn’t think so.
This is already playing into Democrat hands... this idiot has literally proposed creating second class citizenship.
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.)
Some states let them vote while in prison don’t they?
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.
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.
“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.
No sale!
Do it the complete right and official way for all immigrants, even E.T., or GTFOOMC!
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!
What will this new class of American citizens be called, “Drones” maybe?
The shorthand annotation is A M N E S T Y.
It's been done. Didn't work.
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
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.
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.
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.