A Modest Proposal: Stop saying "Illegals Shouldn't Vote in U.S. Elections." Instead, say, "Citizens of Foreign Nations Shouldn't Vote in U.S. Elections."
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! 🤛
You'd be surprised at how many bleeding-heart leftists actually don't comprehend that the illegals here are not stateless, free-roaming refugees with nowhere to go if we don't take them in.
It doesn't register with them that every last one of these people is actually a full citizen of some other country.
We should stop saying, "Illegals shouldn't vote in U.S. elections."
We should start saying, "CITIZENS OF FOREIGN NATIONS shouldn't vote in U.S. elections."
Then watch the look on their faces as they struggle to understand what you mean. "What citizens? What are you talking about?"
It's astounding how many of them do NOT comprehend this.
Maybe a small change in terminology would help.
Right now, I'd take anything that would help even a little.
yes^ words matter!
that's why Q asks 'what is a spell', and tells us to 'be the autists'
I think we have to 'reverse' the curses, and your suggestions = how to do it.
ILLEGALS THEY SHOULD NOT be politicians nor judges or police officers or military
We have plenty of illegals in the government specially Muslims. I am watching Edge of Darkness 1943 with Errol Flynn and let me tell you, it looks like we are reliving the same crap just worst than before because Muslims are way way more dangerous than the Natzis. This time they are in all west countries including USA. They want to conquer, back then Men were very brave, now we have bunch of normies and gays LGBTQ plus and cowards pedos. USA and England were NOT invaded and their military strategically defeated them. God have mercy on us.
Citizens of other countries shouldn't be allowed to vote, run for office or be here without legal process.
Lots of our politicians have dual citizenship.
Exactly. Language is important and too often the right picks up on the language and terminology of the left in rebuttal. The left chooses their terming very carefully thereby twisting the right's rebuttal before it even begins. It's not much different from the debate surrounding Islam. It has been framed as pushing back against a religion. It is not. It is a battle against a political ideology that is in contradiction to our Constitutional governance system. We will never win a fight based on religion that is protected. The argument must be reframed to take Islam on as a competing political ideology and governance system.
There are also legal foreign nationals that vote in our elections - not just illegals. A foreign citizen is still a foreign citizen and has no business voting in US elections - period.
Russians should not be voting in AMERICA !!
Good point.
"Illegals Shouldn't Vote in U.S. Elections."
One is here legally or not
Not Legal = Illegal ( IL is the prefix for NOT )
Semantics is what is making our discourse crazier than it should be.
It should be CLEAR to the thinking person.
Voters are to be American CITIZENS. Not residents, visitors, or wannabes.
Yes. It continues to astound me - it shouldn't at this point, but it does - that people still think illegals popped into being the moment they crossed the border.
Extremely good insight. I will alter my rhetoric in future conversations. Very much to the point, and a point that needs to be stressed.
Nor should they hold ANY office
Good one. And Murdering babies is called “Women’s health care”.
Good point. We also shouldn't be objecting to "gender affirming care." We should be objecting to spaying and neutering our children.
That’s a start. There’s a whole lot more who shouldn’t be voting in elections either.
I’ll tell you what would help, deport citizens of foreign nations, start with anyone practicing Sharia Law.
Deport my wife? Who would vote for Trump if she were able to, and is death on illegals? Pull back and think again. There is no harm in having approved visitors. You just have to be careful about the approval.
I like it because it also opens up the dual citizenship door, which is a huge, unacknowledged problem
I've yet to understand the "problem," so long as the U.S. citizenship is firm.
To head off a fruitless discussion, I've never seen any evidence that loyalty is compromised. Plenty of cases of pure-US citizens being found, arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for espionage on behalf of a foreign power. We have no problem granting security clearances (of certain kinds) to foreign nationals (e.g., NATO Secret etc.) and vice versa. The obligations are defined and enforced by the agreements signed.
I'd very much prefer that all the dualies I know were precluded from voting in the US.
They're not necessarily bad people, but their minds and loyalties are clearly focused elsewhere.
How do you know they are "focused elsewhere"? This seems like a projection or a suspicion, rather than a fact. How is "being focused elsewhere" any different from feckless US voters (neither bad nor good, but just "not there")?
Were the people you know US natives who obtained a second citizenship elsewhere, or foreigners who became naturalized and retained a citizenship elsewhere? I have a cousin who is dual French-US from both parents.
I think there is less of a problem of divided loyalty, than there is of conflict of interest. It's like the question of which brother do you love more.
Framing the narrative. It's an essential part of all message crafting. I approve of this methodology.
Excellent point! Words matter.
Frame the issue correctly!
Love it! I'll do this, just to watch them replace NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL
with
NO HUMAN BEING IS A CITIZEN OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY
qeq
Op could have stopped at “It's astounding how many of them do NOT comprehend” for every topic as they are progressive shit smell loving liberals after all. However point taken and it’s brilliant