Illegal aliens allowed to vote in San Francisco

Full story:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html

 

SteveFoerster, do you see any legal issues with allowing sub-branches of government to circumvent the Constitution? It's a form of anarchy and treason to give illegal aliens a voice in Constitutional privileges (not to be confused with Constitutional protections).

 

Local/state governments making decisions on how they feel things should be done. I thought that was a core Conservative belief.

 

Kizmet, you are correct, but it does not include States (or their political subdivisions) circumventing the Constitution of the United States. The Civil War settled that question -- and the Constitution remained intact.

 

Please specify the article of the Constitution that regulates elections to the SF School Board. Thank you.

 

Look, me again, you can be as outraged as you want but there's nothing illegal going on here.

 

Stanislav, as a foreigner of Russian lineage who does not live in the United States, thank you for your intense interest in the U.S. Constitution. Kizmet, as an American, thank you for your interest in the nation.

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 reads: “…To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…”
  
• In 1876, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility.
  
• In 1891, Congress established the Immigration Service. It was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
  
• In 2002, “The Homeland Security Act of 2002” was passed, which consolidated authority for border protection, naturalization, customs and immigration.

It is illegal for a political subdivision to:

• Circumvent the Constitution of the United States.
• Create laws that countermand Constitutional or Federal laws.

 

SteveFoerster, it was "fake news" when communist MSM commentators (ABC, MSNBC, et al fake news) said that President Trump's meeting with Putin was "treason." LOL

 

All it does is establish that US Constitution is silent on who can or cannot vote for members of San Francisco School Board. Thank you.

Having cleared this up, what is the purpose of your fear mongering here? Are you supporting similar efforts of Russian intelligence officers, aiming at dividing America and undermining its Democracy using Internet?

 

This is true. It is not illegal for American President to capitulate before the foreign foe. It is highly unpatriotic, though, and for this reason no previous President ever did that. Especially to so feeble a foe.

It may be illegal to give up American citizens to despotic regimes' prosecutors. Which Trump appeared to seriously consider.
(not that it'll actually happen though)

 

As a native-born San Franciscan (who still lives in the vicinity) I'm very curious whether the City and County of San Francisco proposes to maintain multiple voter rolls and produce a variety of ballots for different kind of voters, or whether they will end up placing all 'registered voters' on a single roll and allowing all of them to vote the complete ballot (including contests in which it would be illegal for them to vote). While the Sacramento Bee story suggested multiple rolls, I'm skeptical that will actually happen in practice. It's more likely that the Registrar of Voters will complain that it's too hard to implement (and too threatening to illegals whose names might appear on the restricted-voters roll) and all voters will end up being placed on a single roll.

 

Yes, it's a shame that Trump capitulated in supplying military weapons to the Ukraine that were heretofore denied. It's a shame that he capitulated in having U.S. troops training with Ukrainian troops near Crimea. When will this man stop capitulating?

 

Allowing everyone, regardless of citizenship or legal residency to vote in local elections doesn't (as far as I know) violate federal law. (Certainly allowing them to vote in federal elections, for President, Senators or the House of Representatives would violate the US Code.)

On its face, this decision of San Francisco's does seem to me to violate Article II, Section 2 of the California State Constitution.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&article=II

But my biggest objection (I'd guess that Me Again shares it) is that allowing non-citizens (and especially illegal aliens) to vote certainly sends a message that US citizenship and legal residency mean next to nothing. Which I'm sure is precisely the message these people want to send. In their minds, especially since the election of Trump, San Francisco isn't an American city any longer. It's a city of the world, a global... something.

It's especially ironic when the same people are wrapping themselves in the flag, doing everything in their power to restart the Cold War. tracking down "spies" and "foreign agents", and accusing the President of "treason". If the nation is so unimportant that its citizenship and immigration law don't mean anything, then why are they trying so hard to defend it by channeling Joseph McCarthy and HUAC?

Yes, yes, I know, it's all rhetoric. It's all intended to attack Trump. It is bizarre and hypocritical though.

It must be exceedingly difficult for them to wrap their brittle little minds around the idea of patriotism, after spending generations attacking and belittling it. But their belated attempt to do so shows that they believe that the old idea still possesses persuasive force.

 

I made that decision about 4 weeks ago. So far, so good.

I made it because:

(1) A sudden spate of new buildings and a rebuilt stadium have reduced my reception of over-the-air TV channels from six down to one.
(2) The people of Ontario have elected Doug Ford as premier. So for the next 4 years, I don't want to see any news.

Since then, I've averaged (and enjoyed) reading about 9 books a week. Right now, I'm reading a 10-volume World History Encyclopedia, that I bought for a song around 20 years ago. I think I might be turning into Ted Heiks ...