its the majority of democrats too...
This was in San Francisco of all places... Poll: Americans overwhelmingly reject voting rights for undocumented immigrants
San Francisco's Department of Elections last week made the move to start allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in the city's school board elections, sparking a national debate.
The idea is unlikely to be copied in many localities, at least if the latest American Barometer poll is any indication.
According to the survey, which is a joint project of Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company, 71 percent of respondents opposed San Francisco's decision, while only 29 percent said they supported the move.
Ninety-one percent of Republicans polled said they opposed giving the right to vote to noncitizens, as did 54 percent of Democrats.
Seventy percent of independents said they were also in opposition to the decision.
When respondents were asked the same question but with the wording changed to include the term "illegal immigrants" instead of non-U.S. citizens, the results were nearly the same.
but SFO rejected the measure...
the fact that 29% of respondents supported non-citizens to vote in anything blows my mind.its the majority of democrats too...
This was in San Francisco of all places... Poll: Americans overwhelmingly reject voting rights for undocumented immigrants
San Francisco's Department of Elections last week made the move to start allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in the city's school board elections, sparking a national debate.
The idea is unlikely to be copied in many localities, at least if the latest American Barometer poll is any indication.
According to the survey, which is a joint project of Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company, 71 percent of respondents opposed San Francisco's decision, while only 29 percent said they supported the move.
Ninety-one percent of Republicans polled said they opposed giving the right to vote to noncitizens, as did 54 percent of Democrats.
Seventy percent of independents said they were also in opposition to the decision.
When respondents were asked the same question but with the wording changed to include the term "illegal immigrants" instead of non-U.S. citizens, the results were nearly the same.
Straight facts
brehs think I'm fukking around out here ...I'm trying to HELP the democrats...Straight facts
bruh...democrats think this shyt is a game.
Their argument is "you shouldn't be competing with illegal immigrants for jobs". What kinda nonsense argument is thatAmerica is a capitalistic system. Somebody gotta work them fukked up jobs. Poorer Americans unfortunately have to do so. How are they supposed to have higher pay, better benefits and better working conditions when third world workers are willing to work for nothing? Either these nikkas are trolling, are Hispanics themselves, c00n professionals that made a few dollars and forgot where they came from or they're business owners and depend on having illegal workers. If a politician said this garbage in real life, he'd get destroyed in the media.
Just want to add to this.
).
...executing suspected Communists by flying helicopters over the ocean and dropping them to their deaths :towelmax:
It goes further than the Monroe Doctrine, it goes back to John Adams' Aliens & Sedition's act. Immigrants were less likely to vote for his party, so he enacted an anti-immigration law which made it more difficult to become a citizen (14 years, long after he'd be running for president). Thomas Jefferson repelled 3/4 of the act when he came into office, and the part he didn't was used to inter Japanese-Americans during WWIIJust want to add to this.
You aren't wrong about what the US got up to in Latin America in the 80s.
But it goes far deeper than just what we did in the 80s. This stretches all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine.
The US strategic approach to Latin America has always been first and foremost about preventing any other world power from gaining influence anywhere in the region.
This really heated up post-WWII, when the Soviet Union made an enormous effort to establish Communist (or at least Communist-sympathizing) governments across the region.
Under JFK, the US failed pathetically at overthrowing Castro's young and still very weak government (Bay of Pigs
Under Nixon, the US (fairly openly) backed the coup d'etat that ousted Salvador Allende (the leftist PM of Chile at the time) and installed a military government led by Pinochet.
We all know what Pinochet was about
And so on and so forth...when you peel back all of the Latin American shenanigans the US was involved in (even through the Reagan era), you find that they're primarily driven by a desire to eliminate Soviet influence on the region.
For the most part (Cuba is really the only exception - Venezuela didn't escape America's grip until the early 2000s) it was a successful effort.
Was it right though? Absolutely not. But I don't expect morally upstanding behavior in foreign affairs from any country.
I assume states have interests, and they'll pursue them by whatever means they have at their disposal - up to the limit of their citizens' tolerance for foul behavior, or the potential for regime-threatening blowback from other states.
After all...other, equally amoral states have been known to exploit the ugly actions of competitor states towards their own ends...just look at the Saudis and the Syrians
Or better yet...the US and Saddam's Iraq
