College Park decides Tuesday whether to allow noncitizens to vote

[TheReal_ND]

And then people came to their senses with the immigration act of 1924

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census, down from the 3% cap set by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which used the Census of 1910. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews.[1][2][3] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians.

So you see, just when we were nailing down this country and prospering, your spoiled drug addled generation fucked it all up

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act,[1] changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Representative Emanuel Celler of New York proposed the bill, Senator Philip Hart of Michigan co-sponsored it, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts helped to promote it.

[MilSpecs]

Local governments are probably not the best place to make an argument against enfranchisement of non-citizens. The local level is where funding decisions with immediate impact on most residents takes place, regardless of citizenship status. The mayor and council may decide who takes out your garbage, how much money your school is going to get, how often the streets are going to get cleaned - the nuts and bolts of everyday life for everyone.

[Ph64]

Democracy is the selection method most suited to liberty because I make my own decisions and my vote is relatively worth the same as yours. Citizenship & practicing liberty aren't the same thing. A bunch of people in an auditorium deciding on whether to turn the heat up or down doesn't depend on the citizenship of the people in the auditorium, just that they are the ones affected by it.

p.s. If your argument is that people outside the auditorium are voting then okay but once someone is inside the auditorium, they're just as important as anyone else.

I'm waiting to hear what happens when, rather than voting on the thermostat setting, they are voting on a person who gets to exclusively control the thermostat for the next 4 years... and then a few months later they're all noticing the auditorium is at a sweltering 95-degrees and realize the person they voted for owns stock in a local utility company that's selling heating fuel/electricity to the auditorium at inflated (graft/corruption) prices letting both of them profit nicely off the con job on the electors... they naturally voted for the auditorium thermostat nominee who offered them a "free" dollar each for their vote. Oh, and because of the increased heating cost they all have to pay a 50-cent a day tax the new "elected official" created to help pay the heating bill on the auditorium.

[Martin Hash]

Democracy is the selection method most suited to liberty because I make my own decisions and my vote is relatively worth the same as yours. Citizenship & practicing liberty aren't the same thing. A bunch of people in an auditorium deciding on whether to turn the heat up or down doesn't depend on the citizenship of the people in the auditorium, just that they are the ones affected by it.

p.s. If your argument is that people outside the auditorium are voting then okay but once someone is inside the auditorium, they're just as important as anyone else.

I'm waiting to hear what happens when, rather than voting on the thermostat setting, they are voting on a person who gets to exclusively control the thermostat for the next 4 years... and then a few months later they're all noticing the auditorium is at a sweltering 95-degrees and realize the person they voted for owns stock in a local utility company that's selling heating fuel/electricity to the auditorium at inflated (graft/corruption) prices letting both of them profit nicely off the con job on the electors... they naturally voted for the auditorium thermostat nominee who offered them a "free" dollar each for their vote. Oh, and because of the increased heating cost they all have to pay a 50-cent a day tax the new "elected official" created to help pay the heating bill on the auditorium.

I know you were being sarcastic but consider your scenario another way:
Everyone has a price, sweltering heat would be unanimous at the right price, and even if only 51% were bribed, that's still a majority. Even without bribes, if 51% thought it was too cold, the other 49% would still be unhappy. If a dictator took over, well I assume they have the 2nd Amendment, so unless the dictator has over half, s/he's going down, if s/he does have over half, then s/he's NOT a dictator, s/he's elected. And if the temperature selected by democracy doesn't suit you, leave.

[Speaker to Animals]

I just want control of the auditorium sound system so I can keep everybody happy with great music.

[TheReal_ND]

I always love the "then leave" part of those poorly formed platforms. Can't really be too smug though. A large portion of my political desires involves other people leaving as well. Though, I'm a moderate and would actually stand for IRL IMMIGRATION REFORM LIKE A FUCKING UNICORN RAINBOW FART

Edit: Drumpf is actually doing about as well as I could have hoped for so yay. A little bit of unicorn rainbow spray

[Speaker to Animals]

A neutral immigration policy would make a good start. We don't let any more immigrants inside America in a given year than the number of people who emigrated out the previous year.

Maybe add to that means testing. If an immigrant cannot prove they can support themselves, then back to where they came from. No welfare state shopping.

[Martin Hash]

It's been a long time, so I'll restate my position.

1) A WALL (or just Trump-like rhetoric, that's doing almost as good as a wall). If you're here, citizenship.
or for people who just can't get over Illegals getting rewarded...
2) A WALL. It will take 50 years but Illegals will eventually die off. Any child born to an Illegal is a citizen by birthright, so problem solved.

The key to controlling Illegals is A WALL.

[TheReal_ND]

If you're here, citizenship.

I would say KYS if you weren't hosting one of my platforms.

[Ph64]

Everyone has a price, sweltering heat would be unanimous at the right price, and even if only 51% were bribed, that's still a majority. Even without bribes, if 51% thought it was too cold, the other 49% would still be unhappy.

So you are all for the tyranny of the majority then?
They're under the Constitution/Bill of Rights? You didn't mention that. What if the 49% is heavily armed? Do the 51% get to invalidate the 2nd Amendment and take their guns? Does 51% invalidate their pursuit of happiness (cooler temps)?

Maybe they should just split the auditorium in half then, high temp 51% on one side, cooler temp 49% on the other. Of course that would require a vote... and if the 51% vote against it... revolution?