LA Times Wonders If Resident Non-citizens Should Be Able To Vote

What, exactly, is the end game for the Democrat push for “comprehensive immigration reform”? What about Obama’s executive action giving illegals legal status? Is it about compassion? About doing “the right thing”? Many, including myself, have noted that the ultimate end game is to grant these folks voting rights, creating yet another boxed Democrat voting group, pandered to and given stuff via other taxpayers. Democrats are already pitching giving those affected by Obama’s non-amnesty amnesty measures, and here comes the LA Times Editorial Board

Editorial: Should non-citizens in the U.S. vote?

As of Jan. 1, 2012, an estimated 13.3 million lawful permanent residents lived in the United States, and 8.8 million of them were eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship but had not done so. In California, 2.48 million out of 3.4 million green-card holders were eligible to apply but chose not to. And, of course, not all non-citizens residing in this country are “lawful.” An estimated 11 million people live here without permission, though President Obama recently took action to defer the deportation of as many as half of them.

America obviously would benefit if more non-citizens living here — including, eventually, undocumented immigrants — took on the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. But what if they don’t? Non-citizens are still members of their communities. They pay taxes and in many cases send their children to public schools. Should they be given some greater say in the decisions of the local governments, school boards and judicial systems that make decisions for themselves and their children?

Many Americans consider it unthinkable that non-citizens — even lawful permanent residents — would be allowed to vote in elections. Gov. Jerry Brown agrees with them. Last year, in vetoing a bill that would have allowed non-citizen permanent residents to serve on juries, Brown said, “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.”

They go on to note that prior to the 20th Century, non-citizens voted. Of course, that was a vastly different time of people coming to the United States to be a part of the Great Melting Pot, looking for a new life and new opportunities, most of whom came legally and wanted to be citizens.

We agree with Brown that voting is and should be inextricably tied to U.S. citizenship. But we also believe that more needs to be done to encourage people who have decided to live in this country to participate fully in its political life at every level of government. It is not healthy if large numbers of permanent residents, workers and taxpayers are excluded from voting. But the answer is not to sever voting — or jury service, for that matter — from citizenship. It is rather to expand the circle of citizenship.

See what they did there? Rather than allowing non-citizens to vote, they want to just make them all citizens, which would immediately confer voting rights on these folks. But, we can easily assume that they are really looking at the population of illegal aliens (say, what about all those that make up the California prison population, in some cases, being 2/3rds of certain prisons?) to turn into new voting citizens. People who came illegally, often do not bother to learn English in order to communicate with American citizens, help cause wage deflation and stagnation, commit serious crimes, and demand social system benefits, like schooling and welfare, clog up our health system, even causing emergency rooms to close. They want signs, forms, phone prompts, and other things in their language. They aren’t humbled, and do not seem to want to be a part of America. Many are demanding that parts of the Southwest US be returned to Mexico, a nation that didn’t want them in the first place.

This is the goal: create a new dependent citizenry beholden to Democrats.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “LA Times Wonders If Resident Non-citizens Should Be Able To Vote”

  1. Jeffery says:

    yet another boxed Democrat (sic) voting group, pandered to and given stuff via other taxpayers.

    And who are the other Democratic voting groups given stuff via other taxpayers?

    Defense contractors? Wall Street? 1 percenters? CEOs? Fossil fuel industry? Oh, sorry. Those are Republic Party voting groups given hundreds of billions of free stuff via other taxpayers.

    You probably mean “those” shiftless folks who are unemployed or more likely underemployed and underpaid who also depend on Food Stamps, Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare. Do you have a picture in your mind of what “those” shiftless folks look like? Ask dave.

  2. Hank_M says:

    “Those are Republic Party voting groups given hundreds of billions of free stuff via other taxpayers.”

    Free stuff, Jeffery?
    What exactly is this “free stuff” you’re talking about? Give us some details.

  3. david7134 says:

    Once again you show the world what a little man you are. I have never seen someone so bigoted and full of hate. Why?

  4. Jeffery says:


    I teed one up for you!

  5. Jeffery says:


    What exactly is this “free stuff” you’re talking about?

    Were you unaware of the Wall Street bailout following the crash of the housing bubble?

    The direct payments and loan guarantees alone amounted to low trillions of dollars. You do realize that the corporate execs that failed in the free market were enriched by the government.

  6. Hank_M says:

    The Wall St bailout, Jeffery, is the narrative your party and the MSM keep repeating.

    Who really got bailed out and enriched?

    That would be Democrat constituencies: the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) used to inflate the housing bubble, FNMA and FHLMC (Fanny MAE and Freddie Mac), and of course,GM which benefited directly from a transfer of taxpayer money to the UAW.

    Back to your “free stuff”. What free stuff is being given to Defense contractors? 1 percenters? CEOs? and the Fossil fuel industry?

  7. Jeffery says:


    You’ve missed the significance of the bailout of the Wall Street banks. Congress rewarded the wealthy bankers. Trillions were transferred from the working classes as taxes and the loss of wealth from the collapse of the housing market. In addition, the assumed “too big to fail” system as a free (to the banks) de facto insurance policy. When the huge corporations fail their losses are covered by the taxpayers, their profits are pocketed. Wouldn’t you appreciate it if you could invest in anything you wished with no chance of losing your money? We bailed out the executives while millions of hard-working Americans lost their homes.

    The huge contracts awarded to defense contractors represents the transfer of tax monies. We spend nearly $1 trillion a year on defense.

    1 percenters. Really? How about reduced taxes on unearned income? How about reduced payroll taxes on incomes above $116,000? How about no competition for THEIR jobs? Working men and women are forced to compete globally, but not doctors, lawyers, architects etc. CEOs? See above. Are you familiar with how corporate jets work? When I worked at the world’s largest drug company (at the time) the CEO and his family were required to only fly on the corporate jets – even for personal travel. He was required to reimburse the company at the commercial rate for airfare. Drug companies make an extra $300 billion a year in the US because of government enforced monopolies.

    The war on labor has helped suppress wages of the working men and women but have enriched the capitalists.

    Fossil fuel companies receive subsidies in the low billions of dollars per year.

    It’s not Dems vs Repubs here – they both are responsible for gutting the middle class while enriching the wealthy. It’s the wealthy and their minions (politicians) against America.

Pirate's Cove