San Francisco No Longer Belongs to Americans

     Citizenship ought to mean something. At present, the right to serve on a jury, the right to elected office, and the right to vote, are generally the only rights reserved for citizens.

     Citizenship is an indicator of being a full-fledged member of a people and a civilization, with the right to participate in how it is run and in what direction its government shall take. It is not only a compendium of a dwindling set of rights, but a duty, obligation, and honor. What, then, does citizenship mean when foreign nationals, particularly those who are illegally in this country and hold no legiance thereto, can out-vote actual citizens in determining our very governance?

     We’ve already seen attempts to allow criminal aliens to sit on juries, and successful attempts to allow them to de facto register to vote under the color of law and serve as officers of the court. Now, San Fransisco is allowing illegal aliens to vote for school board elections.

“San Francisco voters approved Proposition N last fall to allow illegal immigrants to vote in the city’s future school board elections, and some believe it’s a problem that could soon “metastasize” to other school districts.

“Proposition N allows illegal immigrant parents of students in the San Francisco Unified School District to vote in November school board elections scheduled for 2018, 2020 and 2022”

     Of all the local elections to allow foreign nationals who are illegally in this country and thus are criminals to determine the governance of the schools that educate American children, school board elections are the most impactful.

     Americans’ children’s education should not be determined by the influence foreigners, or controlled by the vote of the same. A distinction of citizenship should allow Americans to determine how American children are educated.

     A non-citizen of any country has no moral right to vote in the elections of any other country, legality notwithstanding.

     A larger problem might end up arising if the so-called “National Popular Vote” were to be enacted by a sufficient number of states.

     By effectively nationalizing the vote based on popular vote, doesn’t this open up potential challenges based on the equal protection clause (whether justified or not) due to states having different election laws including differences in early/absentee voting and even who can vote (e.g. felons)?

     This would invite the Federal government to take over the elections and create an actual nationwide election system rather than the 50+1 we have now? Just image a President Hillary or President Warren running national elections in all 50 states.

     The bigger problem is in who gets to vote. Right now it is largely up to the states with few exceptions (e.g. can’t deny on basis of race or sex), but states could bulk up their numbers by not only allowing felons to vote, but non-citizens including illegals.

     With illegal aliens voting, this would allow foreign nationals to control the outcome of our elections. Heck, in a nightmare scenario, a single state could allow anyone anywhere around the world to to vote… which they might be able to get away with with an agreeable Presidential Administration and courts.

This entry was posted in Elections, Progressives and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to San Francisco No Longer Belongs to Americans

  1. avatar Blue says:

    The internationalistas will draw a line in the sand as soon as their pet illegal aliens start trying to apply for gun permits.

  2. avatar FaCubeItches says:

    “It is not only a compendium of a dwindling set of rights, but a duty, obligation, and honor.”

    Pretty much have to disagree with the idea that citizenship any longer includes any duties or obligations. Those only held so long as the government was fulfilled its obligations to the citizenry. It has chosen to do otherwise, thereby freeing the populace (at least as a moral matter, albeit not necessarily a practical matter, since the government use coercive force to enforce what has become a totally unilateral “social contract”) from any duties or obligations going forward. Whatever you can avoid, you should avoid.

Comments are closed.