Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "'Is There A Constitutional Right Of One Who Is Not A Citizen To Vote In An Election?'" video.

  1. But that's already not true, some states allow non-citizens to vote in local and state elections. It's becoming more common. It's also weird that you can't distinguish between US citizens and illegal immigrants, as if there aren't millions of legal immigrants in the US right now.
    1
  2. It actually says that you cannot take the rights of citizens away, not that you have to be a citizen to vote. The current laws stopping voting were not constitutional amendments.
    1
  3.  @jackfredricks6223  I'm actually really concerned for the US education system. It seems okay, then I see things like this that prove otherwise. The three amendments to the constitution on voting rights don't restrict anything. They in fact do the exact opposite, giving people more rights, not less. Where your confusion lies seems to be in how we deal with things not mentioned in the constitution. The simple answer is that we make laws. Laws are then weighed against the constitution to see if they are constitutionally sound. Non-citizen voting is not restricted in the constitution, and therefore creating a law that allows non-citizens to vote would be constitutionally sound. "If you weren't wrong, you would be saying that non citizens could be denied the right to vote if of a certain race/color/sex/age" Yes. Again, there is nothing in the constitution about non-citizens voting or not voting, meaning making it legal for them to vote would not be against the constitution. Since they have no specific protections, you are absolutely right that they could restrict voting to people of certain backgrounds, hues, genitals and oldness. If you think you are right, post the line in the constitution that talks about non-citizen voting restrictions.
    1
  4.  @jackfredricks6223  "In fact they do just that. The 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments restrict the government's ability in VERY specific ways." Right, but it doesn't restrict people and their rights in any way. In fact it does the opposite. "You tried to make the argument that because they all specify "US Citizen voting rights," that it does not restrict the government from doing that to non US Citizens. That's when I told you to not be ridiculous. The constitution is there to restrict the government, not its citizens." But that's exactly the point, if they also restricted the government from doing that to non-citizens then non-citizens could vote as the amendments would apply to them. Non-citizens are not mentioned, and are therefore not applicable to these amendments. You calling me ridiculous doesn't change what's written. Accusing me of an ad hominem, then coming out with this garbage is peak hypocrisy. "This is absurd as a statement, especially since the three amendments I referenced all include very specific words that specify that the right is for US Citizens to vote." Meaning none of those amendments apply to non-citizens. Meaning they are not being given the rights, nor are they being restricted. They are neutral in the constitution when it comes to voting. "The right to vote. Whose right to vote are we talking about? Citizens to the United States." Again, proving my point. We aren't talking about non-citizens in the constitution. They are not being restricted in any way. "Do you see the part where it says "and citizens of the United States?" Every time voting is mentioned (outside of Congress), it includes "citizens of the United States." Do you think that non citizens have a right to vote in the US?" Wow, you are really missing the point here. Let me rephrase: Where is the line in the constitution that bans non-citizens from voting? Would a reversal of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 combined with a separate law stipulating that non-citizens can vote given certain stipulations be considered unconstitutional? If so, point out the part of the constitution that this would violate. I think the real issue here is that you seem to believe that not being able to vote is the default, when in reality the default is that anything not specifically outlawed is allowed. When you get that through your head let me know.
    1
  5.  @jackfredricks6223  "We the people..." means, "We the citizens..." So now you think non-citizens don't get any rights? Who's the troll now? Tell you what, point to the part of the US constitution that bans non-citizens from voting and I'll leave.
    1
  6.  @johnd.8224  That's simply false.
    1
  7.  @pfzht  Plenty of countries allow this kind of voting. You still have to be a legal immigrant to do so, so it only empowers those who already live here. If you think giving a voice to other people disenfranchises you then you might be the problem.
    1
  8. No, you have to be a resident. There is a big gap between citizen and tourist, and it's the over 600K legal residents entering per year that can't vote. Should people with green cards be able to vote? Should scientists here on a visa for the last decade be able to vote?
    1