Yes, here is another trick:

We are going to allow non-citizens to vote.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/states-weigh-letting-noncitizens-vote/

cg - as even the Fox story notes, those non-citizens pay taxes (of several kinds). You'd think that "taxation without representation" might be an issue that a tea partier could get behind...

Non-citizens can be eligible for representation by becoming citizens.

No one asked them to come here. If they do come, legal or illegal, they have to play by the rules...no citizenship, no vote. I don't think we should let them serve in the military either, but unfortunately they do.

Citizenship is a cheap commodity in these United States, alas.

Next thing you know we'll be letting Kenyan Muslims run for office. Oh wait.

No! As to qualify to be covered by the Constitution you must be first a citizen. We have non-citizens working in the U.S and they have to pay taxes because they earn income here. If I as a American citizen earn income in England, I have to pay taxes on that money. Quit trying to get around the Constitution pumpkin!.

There is nothing in the Constitution that bars non-citizens from voting. The states are prohibited from barring citizens from voting, but the document is silent on granting voting rights to non-citizens. Non-citizens are, however, prohibited from running for president or congress.

So again, cowgirl, I ask, when are tea partiers such as yourself going to embrace this cause?

They're living in America and being subjected to taxation without representation. What better time to put on one's tri-corner hat (w/ the tinfoil lining) and demand justice?

Dr. Mosier is right.

"No! As to qualify to be covered by the Constitution you must be first a citizen."

This is absolutely untrue. As soon as you are under the jurisdiction of american courts you are covered by the constitution and jurisdiction is based largely upon geography.

In my opinion it would make more sense if your comment was true, which is why I think we should just get rid of the 5 year requirement and keep only the test for citizenship. It should be prompt and immediate, and to the best of our ability we should limit the number of different classifications preferably to 1 classification. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof", that is one set of laws that cover all people within the United States. But I am more or less a libertarian on immigration.

If like Dr. Adams you believe the polls that show that 26% of americans don't know that we declared independence from britain, then you more or less have to concede just by looking at the citizenship test that those who pass it have a better understanding than the locals. I tend to think most folks a bit smarter if more sarcastic towards pollsters, but the citizenship test isn't weak, and I would be open to making it even more difficult. Mexicans instead of paying smugglers to get them into the U.S. would instead come across and pay say a Sylvian or Kaplan learning center for course prep.

Putting aside my beef with the existance of multiple classifications of people subject to the jurisdiction thereof, I think states should let legal immigrants vote.
For support I turn to Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 395 U.S. 621 (1969) (Republican) C.J. Earl Warren writting the opinion.

"Appellant asserts that excluding him from participation in the district elections denies him equal protection of the laws. He contends that he and others of his class are substantially interested in and significantly affected by the school meeting decisions."

Essentially then C.J. Warren examined the exclusion and asked if it was necessary to satisfy a compelling state interest.

C.J. Warren agreed that the state has a legitimate interest in limiting the franchise in school district elections to "members of the community of interests".

But C.J. Warren found that limiting franchise on the basis of the converse of "no taxation without representation" was too broad. That is the school board only let folks vote who were property taxpayers, as well as parents of children enrolled in the district's schools.

The court found that the requirements of 2012 were not sufficiently tailored to limiting the franchise to those "primarily interested" in school affairs to justify the denial of franchise to appellant and members of his class.

As noted citizenship itself is something of a loose standard, but this is all the more reason for saying that citizenship itself is not a narrowly tailored requirement for voting that serves to delimit those who are "primarily interested".

Not allowing legal immigrants to vote doesn't serve a compelling state interest, because it permits the inclusion via citizenship of many persons who have at best a remote and indirect interest while barring some legal immigrants who are both "subjectively concerned" and "directly affected."

Letting immigrants vote would be retarded. It would allow a group of people who haven't gained full rights to (in part) determine our politics

Can anyone tell me why we should care about "citizenship" at all in this country? Other than running for office and voting (so far), it doesn't apparently confer any special status.

Okay let's try this again. They are not citizens so therefore they are not covered by the Constitution. Once they get their citizenship, then they are covered. What part of that don't you understand. I agree with the law and don't want it changed. The only reason you have an issue with it is because the majority of the citizens of this country have it with hope and change and most likely hope and change is going to lose on Nov 2. Democrats, Liberals and Progressives need illegal aliens, non-citizens cheating at the polls, thugs from the Unions and the Black Panthers in order to win on Nov 2. In other words, you will need to cheat.

Under the Constitution, an individual's eligibility to vote is left mostly to the states. Article I and the 17th Amendment provide that the electors for Members of Congress shall have the qualifications for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.[50] Article II provides that presidential electors shall be chosen in the manner directed by state legislatures.[51] All of the states require voters to be U.S. citizens to vote in state elections,[52] and 18 U.S.C. § 611 makes it a crime for "any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector," or Congress.[53]

Other federal laws authorize the Justice Department to prosecute non-citizens for registering and voting in elections. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires individuals registering to vote to affirm eligibility requirements, including citizenship.[54] The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) added a specific citizenship question to the federal voter registration form.[55] Since citizenship is clearly material to a voter's eligibility, aliens can be prosecuted for providing false registration information and voting under the NVRA.[56] They can also be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f), which criminalizes making a false statement or claim about citizenship "in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)," and under 18 U.S.C. § 911, which prohibits making a false claim of citizenship.

You are making reference to the rights of Englishmen without answering who is an Englishman. This country is a home, not a hotel. If people want to participate in public life, they can begin by immigrating according to law and declaring their exclusive allegiance.