House votes in favor of illegal immigrant voting

How will the local versus federal ballots entries be separated to prevent illegals from voting for federal positions?

Is CA going to have an illegal voting machine without federal positions and a citizen voting machine with?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The ones that show up in droves are the immigrants, because they "know" the power of the ballot box. I have co-workers that are legal immigrants from Cuba, Mexico, Israel, and Poland. They are older people like me. They say that they have lived through what happens when people do not take command of their government. They view their right to vote as precious, and a way to fight for their future and for the future of their children.

The Democrats are really trying to hyperspace us into their socialist utopia. They have been waiting so long for it. Its as if they waited all this time for Christmas and now they are ripping open all their presents at once.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

Definitely don't agree but people need to be clear that they are talking about local elections.

Not federal

For the record

Still dont agree

I don't think which election type matters, nor should it.

Congressman Steven Scalise tells colleagues on the House floor..

"You are now prioritizing Illegal Immigrants higher than American Citizens!"

www.hannity.com...

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

Definitely don't agree but people need to be clear that they are talking about local elections.

Not federal

For the record

Still don't agree

Nope, me neither. I don't think anyone here illegally should be able to vote in city, state or federal elections, period. It's to bad that most minorities are oblivious to the fact that they're merely being used as pawns and nothing more.

If someone is here illegally then ice is not doing their job. Oh look another failure of government that is forcefully financially supported by the threat of violence.

Anyone with smarts would know that's an egregious oversimplification.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: network dude

I wonder which city or even county will be the first where we see Sharia Law being used? This is dangerous on so many levels.

This country has had Jewish Sect Laws, Amish Laws, and other specific religions group laws for a long time.

Sharia Law wouldn't be any different.

None of them supercede US Constitutional law.

Heh. The only laws the Left cares about are the ones that can help them further their agenda. All others are obstacles to be overcome BAMN.

Why, they would allow cultural specific laws to supersede the Constitution if they could actually get away with it, and it increased their voting bloc more.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Forgive this foreigner for chiming in, but how the bloody hell can an illegal immigrant vote for the representatives of the Government of a country he's living under illegally??? Does that mean I could pop over on my hols and vote too? So strange your system

It’s not a matter of having a strange system. That which was set up by our Founders after the American Revolution is the best in the world, but not infallible. World socialism
Has been brewing since the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Democrat Party has been taken over.

originally posted by: Dr4c0n
CAUTION DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE OUTSIDE OF YOUR RIGHT WING BUBBLE.

OK I know this won't change the minds of the idiots from the alt right but here some more information about what was actually voted on.

House passes H.R. 1, a sweeping anti-corruption and voting rights bill

Democrats passed House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1) Friday, a bill which could be the most sweeping anti-corruption measure passed by the House of Representatives in a generation, by a vote of 234 to 193. The bill focuses on voting rights, campaign finance, and government ethics.

Campaign finance

It seeks to create incentives for elected officials to rely on small donors, rather than large corporate contributions, when running for office and proposes new disclosure requirements on the source of donor money.

Voting rights

The bill seeks to expand early voting, create same-day voter registration, save eligible voters from "voter purging," and creates a pathway for re-enfranchisement for those who have lost voting privileges due to felony convictions. There is also an amendment to make Election Day a holiday for federal workers.

Anti-corruption

Third, there is a focus on anti-corruption measures. H.R. 1 would require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose their income tax returns and wants paper ballots to be used in federal elections, mainly to reduce the risk of electronic voting machines being hacked.

But since the Republican control the senate and this bill hopes to expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants and for other purposes. Anything anti corruption will not pass the republican controlled Senate.

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Good, you've figured out the trick. Hide bad legislation in with good legislation they won't even adhere to.

Sobering statistic from Senator Lindsey Graham.

Illegal Aliens are adding the equivalent of a new Congressional District EVERY YEAR.

twitter.com...

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

Definitely don't agree but people need to be clear that they are talking about local elections.

Not federal

For the record

Still don't agree

Nope, me neither. I don't think anyone here illegally should be able to vote in city, state or federal elections, period. It's to bad that most minorities are oblivious to the fact that they're merely being used as pawns and nothing more.

If someone is here illegally then ice is not doing their job. Oh look another failure of government that is forcefully financially supported by the threat of violence.

Anyone with smarts would know that's an egregious oversimplification.

It may be a generalized read of the situation but it is true.

Too much government failure and too many people protecting failure of the system.

Of course. Take a single statement completely out of context.

This is what else Lewis said:

In my heart of hearts, I believe we have a moral responsibility to restore access for all citizens, who desire to participate in the democratic process. Many people marched and protested for the right to vote. Some gave a little blood, and others gave their very lives.

Here's his whole speech, not that you care.
johnlewis.house.gov...

And, not that you care, here is the bill.
www.congress.gov...


Anyone care to find the part about allowing non-citizens to vote?

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

Definitely don't agree but people need to be clear that they are talking about local elections.

Not federal

For the record

Still don't agree

Nope, me neither. I don't think anyone here illegally should be able to vote in city, state or federal elections, period. It's to bad that most minorities are oblivious to the fact that they're merely being used as pawns and nothing more.

If someone is here illegally then ice is not doing their job. Oh look another failure of government that is forcefully financially supported by the threat of violence.

Anyone with smarts would know that's an egregious oversimplification.

It may be a generalized read of the situation but it is true.

Too much government failure and too many people protecting failure of the system.

Only only failure here is one side wanting to circumvent law (sanctuary cities etc) and one side wanting to uphold law.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

Definitely don't agree but people need to be clear that they are talking about local elections.

Not federal

For the record

Still don't agree

Nope, me neither. I don't think anyone here illegally should be able to vote in city, state or federal elections, period. It's to bad that most minorities are oblivious to the fact that they're merely being used as pawns and nothing more.

If someone is here illegally then ice is not doing their job. Oh look another failure of government that is forcefully financially supported by the threat of violence.

Anyone with smarts would know that's an egregious oversimplification.

It may be a generalized read of the situation but it is true.

Too much government failure and too many people protecting failure of the system.

Only only failure here is one side wanting to circumvent law (sanctuary cities etc) and one side wanting to uphold law.

You are in denial or lacking information.

The sanctuary cities are not the only areas where people are residing here illegally.

If that was the case then who would really care if those cities wanted to continue their mess as long as the failed government is not paying for it.

If ice were doing their job more efficiently then it would not be costing near as much and the actual illegal people would be rounded up.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: network dude

I wonder which city or even county will be the first where we see Sharia Law being used? This is dangerous on so many levels.

This country has had Jewish Sect Laws, Amish Laws, and other specific religions group laws for a long time.

Sharia Law wouldn't be any different.

None of them supercede US Constitutional law.

you do realize that only one of those Faith's you listed actually calls for death of non believers, right? Only one allows and encourages stoning... is that the type of law system you really want to have? I know I personally dont. It would be similar to living back in the crusades, believe or die. Not a fun prospect.

The Dems are falling apart ! A new party of liberals who support pro life and guns or Conservatives that support pro choice and 2week background checks on guns could rule forever !

a reply to: Phage

section 1015 is probably the offending part of the bill as it would effectively make illegal voting by non-citizens unpunishable by the law and makes it impossibles to use their records against them to even prove they aren't citizens. from what i read it would indeed allow non-citizens to vote and not be punished for violating American law.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

If that's the law then the law needs to change.

a reply to: namehere

from what i read it would indeed allow non-citizens to vote and not be punished for violating American law.

You are reading it incorrectly. That section has nothing to do with voting. It is in regard to automatic registration and it offers protections to people who are improperly registered through no direct action of their own.

It has nothing to do with allowing non-citizens to vote and, in fact, is quite specific in stating that the protection does not cover anyone who votes illegally.

(c) Protection of election integrity.—Nothing in subsections (a) or (b) may be construed to prohibit or restrict any action under color of law against an individual who—

(1) knowingly and willfully makes a false statement to effectuate or perpetuate automatic voter registration by any individual; or

(2) casts a ballot knowingly and willfully in violation of State law or the laws of the United States.

Voting illegally is not protected. But it's moot because McConnell will not allow the bill to be voted on by the Senate.

a reply to: Phage

Of course. Take a single statement completely out of context.

This is what else Lewis said:
"In my heart of hearts, I believe we have a moral responsibility to restore access for all citizens, who desire to participate in the democratic process. Many people marched and protested for the right to vote. Some gave a little blood, and others gave their very lives."

Here's his whole speech, not that you care.
Rep. John Lewis on the Passage of HR 1, the For the People Act
And, not that you care, here is the bill.

H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019

Anyone care to find the part about allowing non-citizens to vote?


You are reading it incorrectly. That section has nothing to do with voting. It is in regard to automatic registration and it offers protections to people who are improperly registered through no direct action of their own. It has nothing to do with allowing non-citizens to vote and, in fact, is quite specific in stating that the protection does not cover anyone who votes illegally.


(c) Protection of election integrity.—Nothing in subsections (a) or (b) may be construed to prohibit or restrict any action under color of law against an individual who—


(1) knowingly and willfully makes a false statement to effectuate or perpetuate automatic voter registration by any individual; or

(2) casts a ballot knowingly and willfully in violation of State law or the laws of the United States.

Voting illegally is not protected. But it's moot because McConnell will not allow the bill to be voted on by the Senate.

Your first post had one reply and it was a person parroting what they were told by conservative sites/shows. The 2nd post contains facts and a valid question and then it went quiet.

When faced with facts, conservatives disappear or will ignore a question and will continue talking about how the left voted for the illegals right to vote, acting like you did not ask them a question or post any facts.

They will continue squawking away like the parrots they are because a story told them it was this way..no need to research on their own. They are doing this because they are deflecting from the fact it is a bill against corruption and the right can't succeed without that.