As important to our young adult 99% of US citizens are our new immigrants---where working as global labor pool or as new immigrants. We are encouraging all Democratic voters wanting to be real left social progressives to make sure to reach out to our immigrant citizens as they are being captured by only global 1% policy discussion through those dastardly 5% players....black, white, and brown citizens and media.
We will discuss this week US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND HISTORY seguing from the discussion last week identifying how national and international media deliberately allows crony and illegal election results be given open news coverage without explaining why these voting results----election polls----political party committee procedures have not met US RULE OF LAW these few decades of ROBBER BARON FRAUD.
Our US government has been allowed to become SO CORRUPT---we can no longer think government data ---government documents-----and even our original Constitutional documents are REAL and accurate. We heard a decade ago -----it's time to take the US CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS now on display at the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS out of display. Global 1% declared these few decades our US Constitution was no longer in effect and the global 1% are writing a new one tied to TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT allowing that global 1% to be the governing force in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
THIS IS WHY BOTH CLINTON/BUSH GLOBAL 1% POLS ARE CALLING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
As usual they have created talking points as to why this convention is about helping WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% OF AMERICANS.
There were two issues we brought up regarding voting in discussing Spanish public policy and BARCELONA EXIT----the skewed referendum voting results PRETENDING a mandate for exit existed AND the fact that Barcelona pols had voted to allow new immigrants the right to vote after only a few years weakening the policy stance of sovereign citizens. These same tactics were used in developing nations to advance FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES inside sovereign nations pushing aside those developing nations' 99% sovereign citizens---just as now is happening in US, Spain et al.
Below we see just that article ---Maryland is indeed pushing this hardest------the title leads 99% of US citizens to think NON-CITIZENS are voting----if ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is in effect these few decades----what we think of as NON-CITIZENS are WORLD CITIZENS AS ARE US CITIZENS-----ergo, there are no US CITIZENS. This is what has driven immigrant public policy these few decades and it is why 80% of citizens sit out elections filled with candidates WORKING FOR A GLOBAL 1% KILLING THE 99% OF US CITIZENS.
Maryland City May Let Noncitizens Vote, a Proposal With Precedent
By MAGGIE ASTORAUG. 9, 2017
Voters at the University of Maryland in College Park in November 2008. The City Council is considering opening local elections to noncitizens.
Credit Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
As a federal commission searches for evidence of voter fraud and many states try to impose new voting restrictions, a city in Maryland may move in the opposite direction: allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections.
In College Park, home to the University of Maryland’s flagship campus, the City Council is debating a measure introduced by Councilwoman Christine Nagle that would give noncitizens — a broad category that includes green card holders, students with visas and undocumented immigrants — the right to cast ballots for the city’s mayor, council members and other local officials.
Startling though it may seem, the proposal has extensive precedent both in the United States and worldwide: Forty states used to allow noncitizen voting, and dozens of countries currently do.
“The mayor and City Council are not deciding national policy,” Ms. Nagle wrote in an email. “We make decisions about trash pickup, snow removal and equipment for the parks. I think we have shared concerns with our neighbors regardless of whether they are U.S. citizens.”
She added: “Our neighbors have children in school, work, pay property taxes and income taxes, and make their home in College Park just like we do. As residents of our community, I think, they also should be able to have a say in electing the city’s leadership.”
From 2011 to 2015, according to the United States Census Bureau, 21.1 percent of College Park’s population was foreign-born. That number includes naturalized citizens as well as the residents affected by the proposal.
Many opponents of such measures say they would devalue citizenship, perhaps leading fewer immigrants to seek it. Others argue that it would diminish the voting process by including people who are not invested in or loyal to America.
“The feedback that I’ve gotten from my residents in District 4 has been almost overwhelming against the proposed change in our charter,” said Councilwoman Mary C. Cook, who noted that her husband and brother were naturalized citizens.
Many of her constituents, Ms. Cook said, believe that before voting, people should “be in the country for a certain length of time so they can acquire a familiarity with the city, the country, the language, and pledge their allegiance to America.”
At a City Council meeting on Tuesday evening, residents voiced opposition and support. One attendee, Larry Provost, said that the proposal “threatens to dilute the meaning of citizenship in our country,” according to The Washington Post. Another, Olivia Delaplaine, said, “These are people who live here and who are affected by decisions this council makes.”
Council members ultimately postponed a vote to Sept. 12. They will meet a week before, on Sept. 5, to discuss whether to put the measure to a referendum in November rather than passing it themselves.
Though the College Park proposal has gotten a great deal of attention, it is not the first of its kind. Ten municipalities in Maryland, mostly in the Washington metropolitan area, have already adopted similar ones; the most recent, Hyattsville and Mount Rainier, did so within the past nine months. San Franciscans voted in November to allow noncitizens to vote in school board elections if they have a child in their district’s public schools.
Four municipalities in Massachusetts — Amherst, Cambridge, Newton and Brookline — have statutes that would allow legal permanent residents to vote, but cannot put them into effect unless the state passes its own legislation.
One reason these policies are disproportionately common in Maryland is that local officials there can implement them without state permission.
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, noncitizens are barred from voting in national elections. However, states and municipalities can set their own policies, and state and federal courts have held that noncitizen voting laws are constitutional.
For a large part of American history, suffrage for noncitizens in local elections was the rule, not the exception. From 1776 to 1926, 40 states allowed it in some form, at some point. When voting was restricted to white, male property owners, citizenship was not the central qualification.
But as millions of people from the southern and eastern regions of Europe — people whom, at the time, Americans did not universally regard as “white,” and whose political views were deemed suspect — flowed into the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, anti-immigrant sentiment drove the country away from noncitizen voting, said Ron Hayduk, an associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University and an expert on noncitizen voting laws.
The repeal of these laws coincided with the enactment of other restrictions, like poll taxes, literacy tests and voter registration requirements. And the return of these laws in scattered municipalities has also coincided with a shift in the way immigrants are viewed.
Recent years have brought a sort of tug of war between more and fewer restrictions on voting. There seems to be a cluster of local efforts to allow noncitizen voting, Mr. Hayduk said — but at the same time, other officials are pursuing strict voter identification laws. And President Trump chose an advocate of those laws to lead the federal commission investigating voter fraud. The intensity of the debate about immigration has led to a bifurcated trend, with policies gaining traction in opposite directions.
Ms. Nagle, the sponsor of the College Park measure, said she understood why some people “feel that voting is a right tied to citizenship.” In fact, she said, she once felt that way, too.
But “about two years ago, someone mentioned that it didn’t seem right for students who are here for a short time to have the right to vote and residents who have lived here many years not have the ability to vote because they are not U.S. citizens,” she wrote in her email. “As I thought about it, I began to think, ‘Why wouldn’t we want our neighbors who live in this community to have the ability to vote?’”
The debate over noncitizen voting speaks to much larger disagreements about the place of immigrants in American society, Mr. Hayduk said.
“The big question is: What’s America?” he said. “Who’s an American? What should America — what are the values that America embodies? What does it mean to be an American? Are we a multicultural, multiracial, open society? Are we more of a white Christian version? That’s partly what’s being asked and being answered in these different ways with different laws, policies, movements.”
“It’s kind of a microcosm,” Mr. Hayduk said. “It’s a window into some of these other conversations.”
Here we see MA AND MD leading the way---HARVARD MEETS JOHNS HOPKINS and this is painted as being LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE when our new citizens will not experience FREEDOM, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AMERICA----they are MOVING FORWARD to America being the same as their third world nation regarding rights of 99% of immigrant citizens. We have shouted our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are filling with global 1% and their 2%----these are the foreign voters who would vote in ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE---the 99% of US citizens-----no voting for you.
'Four municipalities in Massachusetts — Amherst, Cambridge, Newton and Brookline — have statutes that would allow legal permanent residents to vote'
We discussed how MD AND MA both were the states having what is called LABOR COLLEGES----one would think that means----education for the benefit of labor. MA AND MD are both hyper-corporate states both bound to OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%----so, NO, we would not think those colleges are PRO-WORKER---they are educating graduates to manage 99% of labor. This is the problem we have today with our US LABOR UNIONS that are now all INTERNATIONAL LABOR UNIONS partnered with global banking 1% supporting CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS knowing they are ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE with goals of bringing US 99% down to third world labor.
It was HARVARD-----Boston's best global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE who came to Baltimore for a conference of POLITICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY departments to tell these IVY LEAGUES that there was no more US POLITICS----no US POLITICAL PARTIES----NO US SOVEREIGN LAWS----everything they said would be INTERNATIONAL ---GLOBAL. This is why these few decades open election frauds take all our elections moving those 5% to the 1% into all US government positions and unleashing tens of trillions of dollars in US Treasury frauds. Harvard says NO US RULE OF LAW----and VOILA---ROBBER BARONS GONE WILD.
'The United States has a history of allowing noncitizens to vote, going back to the Founding.
“It’s surprising to a lot of people,” said Ron Hayduk, professor of political science at San Francisco State University and author of Democracy for All: Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights in the U.S.
A country founded on the idea of no taxation without representation did not care much about nationality, said Hayduk. Instead, early America based voting rights on race and class. Any white male could vote as long as they held property'.
Here is SAN FRAN----home of top ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE for only the global 1% telling us about US VOTING RIGHTS through history.
Maryland Town May Let Undocumented Immigrants Vote
A proposal in College Park would allow non-citizens, even people who aren’t in the U.S. legally, to cast ballots in local elections.Joanna Purpich
08.08.17 1:00 AM ET
Undocumented immigrants might soon be able to vote in President Donald Trump’s backyard.
While the federal government cracks down on immigration and voter rights, local officials in a suburb of Washington, D.C., debate expanding the right to vote in local elections to noncitizens including undocumented residents.
A proposed amendment to College Park, Maryland’s charter is up for vote by the city council Tuesday. It would permit any resident to vote for mayor or city council as long as they can prove that they live within city limits. The town of 30,000 and home to University of Maryland has a large immigrant community, according to Julio Murillo, a policy analyst at immigration rights group CASA. Roughy one-fifth of the city would gain the right to vote, Murillo said.
“We’re not talking about international affairs. We’re not talking about national security. We’re talking about trash pickup, snow removal,” Murillo, who supports the move, said. “It’s only fair for somebody who’s paying taxes to also have a say in these issues, to have a representative who reflects them and their interests.”
“It’s trying to make our community a place where everybody can participate,” said Councilmember Christine Nagle, who is sponsoring the plan.
Councilmember Mary Cook said that both she and her constituents oppose the bill. Naturalized citizens must take classes and go through a process before they gain citizenship, said Cook.
“To pledge allegiance to this country, that’s really important,” she said. “It’s a special privilege of citizens to be able to vote.”
She argued that immigrants eager to participate in civic life have other options.
“Voting is just a one time thing. There are many ways to get involved in College Park,” Cook said, giving civic associations and the senior committee as two examples.
Cook also called the proposal poorly thought out and part of a trend. Residents of nearby Takoma Park gained voting rights regardless of immigration status in 1991. Last December, Hyattsville passed a similar law followed by Mount Rainer a month later. Ten towns in Maryland allow any resident to vote in local elections.
The United States has a history of allowing noncitizens to vote, going back to the Founding.
“It’s surprising to a lot of people,” said Ron Hayduk, professor of political science at San Francisco State University and author of Democracy for All: Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights in the U.S.
A country founded on the idea of no taxation without representation did not care much about nationality, said Hayduk. Instead, early America based voting rights on race and class. Any white male could vote as long as they held property.
“[Voting rights] was more extensive than England or other places in Europe for a long time,” said Hayduk.
During the 1800s, Wisconsin even allowed newcomers to vote in state and federal elections as long as they intended to pursue U.S. citizenship.
However, as residents felt overwhelmed by immigrants coming in from South and Eastern Europe during the turn of the century, states tightened down on voter policy, said Hayduk. He drew a parallel between then and today.
“If you look at the news reports of the day back then, you could substitute Italians or Jews with Muslims and Mexicans. It reads very similar,” said Hayduk.
Despite the current anti-immigration sentiment in many parts of the country, Murillo said the proposal could “only make democracy stronger.”
Keep in mind-----MOVING FORWARD kills the America our 99% of global citizens want to come to----it installs governance looking just like the third world governance they are trying to escape----so if immigrants vote--they are being directed to vote for global 1% candidates.
This is also why we are seeing all that FAKE MARXISM------from our new immigrants---they are bringing those same FAKE LEFT MARXIST politics as 99% of foreign sovereign citizens fought to be rid of. So, today we are seeing a great percentage of our new immigrant voters either going far-right wing----LIBERTARIAN ---or far left wing MARXIST -----
THERE GOES THAT RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE VS LEFT WING SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE.....THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Below is the US Constitution telling us CITIZENS have the right to vote.
US CONSTITUTION-----AMENDMENT 15
Section 1-----The right of citizens of the US to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the US or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2-----The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by proper legislation.
We KNOW our 99% of immigrants are more tightly tied to control of 5% to the 1% because of all the far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, dictatorship politics in developing nations.
We know our US black citizens---our US women ----who have not experienced all that freedom of ANYONE VOTING as the last article PRETENDS is the case----are going WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT---ANYONE ABLE TO VOTE WAS COMMON IN US HISTORY?
Of course that article---written in MARYLAND-----HOME OF ALL THAT IS FAKE NEWS------published by DAILY BEAST ---great big global 1% media outlet.
PLEASE EDUCATE ON OUR VOTING RIGHTS AND US CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL LAWS THROUGH HISTORY BECAUSE THAT IS THE NEW FAKE NEWS.
See the picture of our black 5% to the 1% PRETENDING this is a civil rights for immigrants issue when our 99% of black citizens in US don't even come to the voting polls because black elections are so rigged and crony to that 5% black political machines....and yes that is you Congress people LEWIS AND WATERS. It seems Waters and Lewis are fighting hard for global 1% and their 2% voting rights while ABANDONING THEIR 99% OF BLACK CITIZENS' VOTING RIGHTS.
Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (1908-73) on August 6, 1965, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States. The act significantly widened the franchise and is considered among the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.
Selma Spurs Johnson to Call for Voting Rights Act
Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency in November 1963 upon the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In the presidential race of 1964, Johnson was officially elected in a landslide victory and used this mandate to push for legislation he believed would improve the American way of life, such as stronger voting-rights laws.
Did You Know?In 1965, at the time of the passage of the Voting Rights Act, there were six African-American members of the U.S. House of Representatives and no blacks in the U.S. Senate. By 1971, there were 13 members of the House and one black member of the Senate.
After the U.S. Civil War (1861-65), the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” Nevertheless, in the ensuing decades, various discriminatory practices were used to prevent African Americans, particularly those in the South, from exercising their right to vote.
During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, voting rights activists in the South were subjected to various forms of mistreatment and violence. One event that outraged many Americans occurred on March 7, 1965, when peaceful participants in a voting rights march from Selma, Alabama, to the state capital in Montgomery were met by Alabama state troopers who attacked them with nightsticks, tear gas and whips after they refused to turn back. Some protesters were severely beaten, and others ran for their lives. The incident was captured on national television.
In the wake of the brutal incident, Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 15, 1965, the president outlined the devious ways in which election officials denied African-American citizens the vote. Blacks attempting to vote often were told by election officials that they had gotten the date, time or polling place wrong, that they possessed insufficient literacy skills or that they had filled out an application incorrectly. Blacks, whose population suffered a high rate of illiteracy due to centuries of oppression and poverty, often would be forced to take literacy tests, which they inevitably failed. Johnson also told Congress that voting officials, primarily in Southern states, had been known to force black voters to “recite the entire Constitution or explain the most complex provisions of state laws,” a task most white voters would have been hard-pressed to accomplish. In some cases, even blacks with college degrees were turned away from the polls.
Voting Rights Act: Signed into Law on August 6, 1965The voting rights bill was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 77-19 vote on May 26, 1965. After debating the bill for more than a month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 333-85 on July 9. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, with Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders present at the ceremony.
The act banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the nonwhite population had not registered to vote, and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections (in 1964, the 24th Amendment made poll taxes illegal in federal elections; poll taxes in state elections were banned in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court).
Voting Rights Act: Voter Turnout Rises in the South
Although the Voting Rights Act passed, state and local enforcement of the law was weak and it often was ignored outright, mainly in the South and in areas where the proportion of blacks in the population was high and their vote threatened the political status quo. Still, the Voting Rights Act gave African-American voters the legal means to challenge voting restrictions and vastly improved voter turnout. In Mississippi alone, voter turnout among blacks increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.
Since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has been amended to include such features as the protection of voting rights for non-English speaking American citizens.
Here is top NIHILIST global 1% pol Governor of Maryland O'Malley who can lie, cheat, and steal our grandmother's dentures from the bed stand if we turn our backs for only a second. No morals, no ethics, no US Rule of Law, no GOD'S NATURAL LAW happening with O'Malley or our 5% to the 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA POLS.
O'Malley is PRETENDING to be fighting to protect black voters with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to voting ---when the goal of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is for only the global 1% and their 2% to vote---and that FEDERAL DOCUMENT called the US Constitution does not allow that. His motive is to change the US Constitution to OPEN BORDERS VOTING.
Below we see the state constitution for Maryland -----take a look at your state constitution for wording as to sovereign rights to vote.....here we see the wording THE INHABITANTS OF MARYLAND----which indeed can be interpreted as anyone living in Maryland can vote---this is why MARYLAND is taking this lead. But look a little further down the Maryland Constitution and we see ELECTIONS SHOULD BE FREE AND FAIR and every CITIZEN having the qualifications prescribed by the CONSTITUTION----this refers to the US Constitution ----and refers to that AMENDMENT expanding voting rights to US BLACK CITIZENS.
Now, US Constitutional voting laws are tied only to FEDERAL ELECTIONS---to Congress----a state can, if the constitution is written in vague language like THAT THE INHABITANTS can allow open elections to any inhabitant of that state FOR STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS ONLY. Now, remember, our US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----would fall under that state constitution. Maryland will easily pretend the voting law we describe below does not exist.
Art. 5. (a)
(1) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England,
Art. 7. That the right of the People to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty and the foundation of all free Government; for this purpose, elections ought to be free and frequent; and every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage (amended by Chapter 357, Acts of 1971, ratified Nov. 7, 1972).
We will see all our US state assemblies MOVING FORWARD with state constitutional changes to OPEN BORDERS voting and that will include US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---and it will end with only that global 1% and their 2% voting and 99% of US citizens and global labor pool not voting.
By Hannah Fraser-Chanpong CBS News August 4, 2015, 2:30 PM
Martin O'Malley calls for constitutional amendment on voting rights
Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley speaks during an event at the Truman Center for National Policy July 23, 2015 in Washington, DC.
NEW YORK -- As he pitched himself to black voters in South Carolina Tuesday, Martin O'Malley called for a constitutional amendment to protect every American's right to vote.
"Many Americans don't realize that the U.S. Constitution does not affirmatively guarantee the right to vote," he said in an email to his supporters. "Passing a constitutional amendment that enshrines that right will give U.S. courts the clarity they need to strike down Republican efforts to suppress the vote."
O'Malley is specifically advocating for the passage of legislation introduced in the House in January, which states, "Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides."
The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
His push coincides with the fiftieth anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was instrumental in prohibiting racial discrimination at the ballot box. According to data compiled by the Brennan Center at New York University and provided an O'Malley campaign official, at least 19 states introduced bills last year that either require voters to show photo ID at the polls or tighten existing photo ID laws and four states reduced early voting hours.
These measures, according to O'Malley, are a Republican effort to systematically exclude voters who lean Democratic, including low-income, disabled and minority Americans, despite the success of the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but efforts to rewrite sections of the law have gone nowhere in Congress.
In a meeting in Columbia Monday morning with members of the 20/20 Leaders of America, a bipartisan organization of black mayors, elected officials and other community leaders, O'Malley spoke more broadly about his ideas to reform the criminal justice system.
His plan focuses on improving relationships between law enforcement agencies and the communities they police, lowering sentences for nonviolent crimes, reforming the prison system and using encouraging states to restore voting rights to people with criminal records, including those with felony records.
Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, has also advocated for an expansion of voting rights. She has proposed an automatic, universal system for voter registration which would register all 18-year-olds to vote, unless they choose to opt out, and the creation of a national standard of 20 days of early, in-person voting that includes evenings and weekends.
As governor of Maryland, O'Malley oversaw the expansion of early voting days and the introduction of same-day voter registration. In 2007, he signed legislation that restored voting rights to 50,000 Marylanders with felony records.
O'Malley often touts his executive experience as an advantage in the race for the nomination, and has pledged to nationalize reforms he made in Maryland. His recent emphasis on policing, voting rights and criminal justice reform comes as O'Malley and the other Democratic candidates have rushed to voice their commitment to black voters and, in particular the "Black Lives Matter" movement, which disrupted the progressive Netroots Nation forum in Arizona last month.
O'Malley, who then stumbled in his response to the protest, has since tried to clarify his position.
"[Baltimore] had become the most violent, addicted and abandoned city in America," he said to the National Urban League in a speech last week, recalling his time as mayor. "Every year we buried 300 young black men who died violent deaths on our streets. And black lives matter."
This is what our US political science departments are teaching our young adults today in political science classes and these students are getting degrees having them embrace the idea that our US Constitution is not really a SOVEREIGN DOCUMENT----and that of course US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES can allow anyone inhabiting these cities to vote. This is what happens when we allow STATES RIGHTS to eliminate all Federal government enforcement of US Constitutional, Federal agencies, Federal Court precedence for 300 years---the global 1% simply pretend that US Constitution does not exist---and state assemblies pass OPEN BORDER VOTING for any inhabitant and there goes sovereign voting rights. No what happens next? Only LANDED GENTRY will vote----as in US history only white landed gentry were able to vote originally.
Note that RON HAYDUK-----writing the book below telling us immigrants could always vote in US----well, that was on state level in some states. Som HAYDUK is writing as a professor at SAN FRAN UNIVERSITY coming from CUNY---NY QUEENS COLLEGE.
“It’s surprising to a lot of people,” said Ron Hayduk, professor of political science at San Francisco State University and author of Democracy for All: Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights in the U.S'.
Professor in the Political Science department
at CUNY Queens College, Flushing, NY
Please be aware that at only state level have voting laws shown some of this liberality for immigrant voting and this is what our 5% to the 1% state and local assemblies and city/county halls are now MOVING FORWARD. We are hearing the Congressional Black Caucus following O'MALLEY'S lead---as Clinton neo-liberals-----PRETENDING this is strengthening VOTING RIGHTS for US black citizens when they are no doubt working for global 1% and their 2% African citizens.
HERE WE HAVE THAT GLOBAL 1% WALL STREET FAKE RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN RYAN PRETENDING HE IS WITH BLACK US CITIZENS WHEN HE IS TEAM ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE VOTING FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2%.
Below we see a right wing media citizen from that global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY writing in Florida pretending RYAN is fighting for black US 99% VOTING RIGHTS knowing this is about AMENDING THE US CONSTITUTION for open border voting for only the global 1% and their 2%.
Tierney Sneed is a reporter for Talking Points Memo. She previously worked for U.S. News and World Report. She grew up in Florida and attended Georgetown University'.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s it was easy for global 1% to send in their 5% to write propaganda like this---today these 5% media citizens simply could care less what a 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens think of their dishonest reporting.
Ryan To Black Caucus: I’m With You On Voting Rights–But I Can’t Do Anything
By Tierney Sneed Published February 4, 2016 11:23 am
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said House Speaker Paul Ryan told them he backs a bill to restore portions of the Voting Rights Act gutted by the Supreme Court, but won’t bypass his committee chairman to bring it the floor for a vote, The Hill reported.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) told The Hill that Ryan had signaled support for the Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), at a meeting with the group of black lawmakers Wednesday.
“So somebody was saying, ‘Well, why don’t you go tell your committee chair to do it?’ ” Cleaver said. “And he said, … ‘Look, I can’t do that.'”
According to The Hill, Ryan does not want to step on the toes of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), whose committee has jurisdiction over the legislation. Goodlatte has said that what’s left of the Voting Rights Act is enough to protect the franchise and thus the bill is not necessary. Ryan, a former committee chairman himself, has expressed a commitment to a bottom-up approach to leadership that defers to committees on advancing legislation.
“He said, ‘I told my own conference I’m not going to do it, so I’m not going to come up here and tell you anything differently. … I want it to be the product of the committee,’ ” Cleaver recounted, according to The Hill.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR