NYT - There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,554
There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote

https://archive.is/vVFZn#selection-313.0-332.1

July 28, 2021

By Atossa Araxia Abrahamian
Ms. Abrahamian is a journalist who has written extensively about citizenship.
This essay is part of a series exploring bold ideas to revitalize and renew the American experiment.
Read more about this project in a note from Ezekiel Kweku, Opinion’s politics editor.

Washingtonians love to complain about taxation without representation. But for me and my fellow noncitizens, it is a fact of political life that we submit to unquestioningly year after year, primary after primary, presidential election after presidential election. Nearly 15 million people living legally in the United States, most of whom contribute as much as any natural-born American to this country’s civic, cultural and economic life, don’t have a say in matters of politics and policy because we — resident foreign nationals, or “aliens” as we are sometimes called — cannot vote.

Considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision undermining voting rights, and Republicans’ efforts to suppress, redistrict and manipulate their way to electoral security, it’s time for Democrats to radically expand the electorate. Proposing federal legislation to give millions of young people and essential workers a clear road to citizenship is a good start. But there’s another measure that lawmakers both in Washington and state capitals should put in place: lifting voting restrictions on legal residents who aren’t citizens — people with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers.

Expanding the franchise in this way would give American democracy new life, restore immigrants’ trust in government and send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world.

It’s easy to assume that restricting the franchise to citizens is an age-old, nonnegotiable fact. But it’s actually a relatively recent convention and a political choice. Early in the United States’ history, voting was a function not of national citizenship but of gender, race and class. As a result, white male landowners of all nationalities were encouraged to play an active role in shaping American democracy, while women and poor, Indigenous and enslaved people could not. That wholesale discrimination is unquestionably worse than excluding resident foreigners from the polls, but the point is that history shows how readily voting laws can be altered — and that restrictive ones tend not to age well.

Another misconception is that citizen voting rights have always been the prerogative of the federal government. In fact, states have largely decided who had a say in local, state and national elections. Arkansas was the last state to eliminate noncitizen voting in 1926, and it wasn’t until 1996 that Congress doubled down with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which made voting in federal elections while foreign — already not permitted because of state-level rules — a criminal, and deportable, offense. (This means that congressional Democrats working on immigration and election reform can reverse the 1996 sanctions the same way they voted them in.)
 
Atossa Araxia Abrahamian, Ezekiel Kweku ?

Fuck these people!

And fuck their opinions!

Furthermore, fuck the NYT for "giving" (yes they were given) a platform.

Wall off the cities then flood 'em.
 
At this point I believe the citizens would be better served if only people who pay more tax than they receive , property and or business owners were voters. That may include some non citizens but probably less than have been getting votes counted in large cities for the past two decades.
 
I think only land owners should be able to vote.

And since noone in this country owns any land (oyarde excepted),

We should have a national beer drinking contest, to determine how the land should be allocated

Only then can we vote
 
It's an interesting thought. I had no idea that noncitizens could still vote all the way until 1926.
 
It's an interesting thought. I had no idea that noncitizens could still vote all the way until 1926.

The concept of a "non-citizen" pretty much didnt exist until the early 1900's anyway.

But neither did most of the social programs
 
The concept of a "non-citizen" pretty much didnt exist until the early 1900's anyway.

Sure it did. The original US Constitution required that the President be a natural born citizen. It only required that Representatives be citizens for 7 years. Senators, 9 years. It refers to citizens of individual states in Articles 1, Section 2, and Article 4 Section 2. It delegated to Congress the responsibility of making a uniform code of naturalization.

Different states had different voting rules, some of which required citizenship, while others didn't.

That said, given those facts, I'm not sure what the essential difference was between a citizen and a noncitizen who met voting requirements.
 
I think it's good to acknowledge that noncitizens shouldn't be allowed to vote.

But once you face that, and consider the reasons they shouldn't, I think that the conclusion will inevitably follow that citizens shouldn't be allowed to vote either for the same reasons.
 
At this point I believe the citizens would be better served if only people who pay more tax than they receive , property and or business owners were voters. That may include some non citizens but probably less than have been getting votes counted in large cities for the past two decades.

Something like that might be good, but it will never happen in our corrupted culture. As soon as people can vote to receive money, directly or indirectly, then you have a moral hazard and conflict of interest.

The obvious thing would be people receiving government assistance should not vote, as they will always vote for socialists who promise to give them more money. But then again, that might apply to social security recipients as well. Then you have government employees who vote for more government and more spending, and then you have government contractors and their employees. How many people get government money, directly or indirectly?

You’d probably have to limit voting to about 20% of the population, the truly self sufficient portion.

Government spending (and money printing) is the root of all evil. Limit that, as much as possible.
 
Something like that might be good, but it will never happen in our corrupted culture. As soon as people can vote to receive money, directly or indirectly, then you have a moral hazard and conflict of interest.

The obvious thing would be people receiving government assistance should not vote, as they will always vote for socialists who promise to give them more money. But then again, that might apply to social security recipients as well. Then you have government employees who vote for more government and more spending, and then you have government contractors and their employees. How many people get government money, directly or indirectly?

You’d probably have to limit voting to about 20% of the population, the truly self sufficient portion.

Government spending (and money printing) is the root of all evil. Limit that, as much as possible.

Ya I would fully support it . Social Security people could vote if they owned business , property or pd more tax than receive , otherwise they should be left out as well . Voting should be for producers. The Founders could not for see a population where 30 percent supports the rest .
 
Someday in the future we will revert to monarchy or have a system of laws which doesn't require representative elections.
It's not working out.
 
What difference does it make if they rig the counts anyway? Why do people want to come here? Do they not realize that it is flat out SUICIDE to come to this country right now?
 
Someday in the future we will revert to monarchy or have a system of laws which doesn't require representative elections.
It's not working out.

Only problem we have with our laws is what the Democrats have done to them. Like, oh.... NOT ENFORCING THEM? NOT ABIDING BY THEM?
 
Only problem we have with our laws is what the Democrats have done to them. Like, oh.... NOT ENFORCING THEM? NOT ABIDING BY THEM?

You cannot simply blame the Democrats when it IS THE LAWS of the highest order that created the Democrats.

Democrats are the majoritarian party. In a Democratic Republic, the Majority writes Laws.

The root cause IS our very form of government.
 
[MENTION=35668]Snowball[/MENTION] is on the right track.


Some slogans:

"Get Out The Vote!"

"Your Vote Your Choice!"

"Let Your Voice Be Heard!"

"I Registered!"

"I Voted!"


Every time they need/want more consent, more articles and slogans appear.

Inclusion, exclusion, "votes were rigged", more rules/laws are needed.

"CITIZEN" - what a way to be proudly owned.

Anybody who gives their consent to others to rule is a traitor to themselves and to me. But, it is the world that we create and live in, and it all starts with you.

Take personal responsibility, let your voice be heard, Stop Voting, and let them know that we don't need or want people we don't know and politicians running ruining our lives.





Don't forget to vote! :up: /s
 
You cannot simply blame the Democrats when it IS THE LAWS of the highest order that created the Democrats.

Democrats are the majoritarian party. In a Democratic Republic, the Majority writes Laws.

The root cause IS our very form of government.

Be VERY CAREFUL with statements like that, because your reaction is expected, and used against you.

You are supposed to hate Freedom and Capitalism and our form of government. The way to achieve this is to tell you that what you have is the form of government you think you have, and then tell you too look at how bad it is. We do not actually have either a Republic or Democracy. We have a Technocratic Plutocracy. They define themselves as Democrats so you hate Democracy. They tell you we have a Republic if they want you to hate Republics.

The outcome of this is the type of govt we really need to avoid at all costs, which is COMMUNISM.

"When Benjamin Franklin exited the first Constitutional Congress (where they wrote the Constitution), a young woman asked Mr. Franklin 'Sir, what have you given us?' to which he replied 'A Republic ma'am, if you can keep it.'"

The very word Republic comes from two words Res and Publica, or "The Public Thing". That means THE LAW. Democrats (really full scale COMMUNISTS wearing the label of Democrats, again, so you hate Democracy) definitely do not abide by THE LAW. The idea for a Republic was that THE LAW should apply to every person equally, from Peasant to King, Prince to Pauper, the laws are applied equally. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not steal elections.

Look at pretty much everything they are doing. They are gaining power because we are unable to apply the law equally and fairly. They break laws to punish us and steal elections and garner more power. That is our biggest fault, in my humble opinion.
 
Hell, let's just put Zuckerberg drop boxes in China.

I never used that website and it baffles me how that has become one of the most evil entities online now. It's like the movie idiocracy come to life. Soon there will be killbots that fly through your window for wrongthink on the site
 
Back
Top