All this fuss over a resolution that has zero effect because of that pesky separation of powers thing.
There’s a law barring non-citizens from voting in federal elections. Wake me when Congress looks set to repeal that.
Until then…since Congress has zero power to say what state and local entities do with their election laws…this is a giant nothingberder.
Cue slippery slope arguments in 3…2…1…
What makes you any better than them?
Im curious…
Where is this in HR 1 ?
I have something better then top secret bs, i have God and he’s never been wrong , all this bs wont even make it to the senate floor,lmao 
It was a motion to recommit offered by Dan Crenshaw… It failed so it does not appear in the bill…
Here is his motion…
https://crenshaw.house.gov/uploadedfiles/mtr_hr1.pdf
Quote what ever it is I said that gives you that idea?
Nothings ever passed the senate that you disagree with?
What is the point to citizenship and legal immigration then?
The appropriate response is to remove everyone who is here illegally to their own country. Then this does not become an issue.
Pretty soon the libs will allow dogs to vote… and you know that those good boys would do nothing but vote themselves more treats.
They can’t vote in federal elections, now can they?
And many state and local juridstictions won’t let them vote either.
The question here isn’t about that…it’s about whether you agree with federalism or not.
Do you think the feds should be able to dictate to state and local entities as to how they run their elections?
So the interests of illegals can be enacted at the state and local level, over those of citizens?
So I guess this means that illegals can now hold office in state and local jurisdictions. Who will be the first illegal governor or state representative?
I agree 100%. It’s a big country and people have ample choice as to where they want to live. I’ve moved for lesser reasons. But I’m pretty sure that any localities that do allow illegal voting have a fairly large population of illegals living there. In which case those that don’t like it probably wouldn’t live there to begin with.
In the case of the SF school district that Crenshaw mentions, the citizens of that school district voted to allow non-citizens (they must also have children attending the district schools) to vote in the school districts elections. Are you opposed to the citizens of school district setting their own standards for voting in the districts elections?
Federal jurisdiction. Local and state governments can make decisions regarding their residents as they please.
Which state or local laws state they can run for office?
Can you guys stick to what’s actually happening as opposed to immediately sliding down the slippery slope of imagine the worst case scenario?
The citizens of those localities voted to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. If I lived there, I might vote differently, but I don’t live there.
So who am I to tell them they’re wrong? They voted for it.
That’s what separation of powers is all about, you see…
I’m sure if residents in those municipalities disagree, they can bring it to the courts.
That’s how our government works, you see…
I heard Mitch saying it wont make the floor of the senate, so that’s my stance, we’ll see huh
How are they providing representation to illegals who can’t vote?
No it isn’t.
