Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
An interesting op-ed piece from the middle of the week about extending the franchise to better reflect the views of all who live and work legally in the USA.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/o...elections.html
Ms. Abrahamian asks why those who live in the USA, albeit not citizens, but hold work permits or green card,; pay their taxes, and contribute as law-abiding members of US society should not have a say in electing the officials who represent them along with US citizens.
She has lived and worked in New York since 2004 but has never had an opportunity to vote, as she points out:
She continues that extending the franchise to settled non-citizens might also revitalise US democracy and reflects on previous restrictive voting rights.
She likewise illustrates the misconception that citizen voting rights have always been the prerogative of the federal government, noting that Arkansas was the last state to eliminate non-citizen voting in 1926 and that it was not until 1996 that Congress brought in 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”.
She also points to the notion of representation; whereby the more individuals who live in a country have an opportunity to vote, the more accurately elections reflect the wishes of the majority within the country; observing that although the 2020 presidential election was considered a high turnout, only 65% of eligible voters actually voted.
She acknowledges concerns among Republicans and that while, initially, Democrats would most probably be the biggest beneficiaries of such a change, it could encourage elected Republicans to appeal to a more diverse constituency, and/or perhaps encourage their supporters to vote in greater numbers. In other words, it is possible that allowing those 15 million extra voters would benefit both major parties and possibly even the smaller ones such as the Libertarians or Greens.
She opines that it is just good civics to allow [and encourage] people to feel they have a sense of investment in their towns, communities, cities, and the country. Furthermore, and given that the US permits dual citizenship thereby allowing those who hold dual citizenship to vote from abroad, she asks why foreign residents in the US should be not likewise be represented?
In her opinion the difficulties of obtaining a visa or a green card are often much greater than becoming a naturalised citizen, and she informs us that it took her 15 years and over $10,000 in legal fees [not counting college fees] to obtain permanent residency. In contrast she compares the citizenship test and oath to be “like a piece of cake”.
She ends by making the point that some local lawmakers already permit non-citizens to vote on local issues such as the collection of garbage, the state of roads, and such like, so why should authorised immigrants not be permitted to vote on wider social and political issues?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/o...elections.html
Ms. Abrahamian asks why those who live in the USA, albeit not citizens, but hold work permits or green card,; pay their taxes, and contribute as law-abiding members of US society should not have a say in electing the officials who represent them along with US citizens.
She has lived and worked in New York since 2004 but has never had an opportunity to vote, as she points out:
[..]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.
She continues that extending the franchise to settled non-citizens might also revitalise US democracy and reflects on previous restrictive voting rights.
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. voting laws can be altered — and that restrictive ones tend not to age well.
She likewise illustrates the misconception that citizen voting rights have always been the prerogative of the federal government, noting that Arkansas was the last state to eliminate non-citizen voting in 1926 and that it was not until 1996 that Congress brought in 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”.
She also points to the notion of representation; whereby the more individuals who live in a country have an opportunity to vote, the more accurately elections reflect the wishes of the majority within the country; observing that although the 2020 presidential election was considered a high turnout, only 65% of eligible voters actually voted.
She acknowledges concerns among Republicans and that while, initially, Democrats would most probably be the biggest beneficiaries of such a change, it could encourage elected Republicans to appeal to a more diverse constituency, and/or perhaps encourage their supporters to vote in greater numbers. In other words, it is possible that allowing those 15 million extra voters would benefit both major parties and possibly even the smaller ones such as the Libertarians or Greens.
She opines that it is just good civics to allow [and encourage] people to feel they have a sense of investment in their towns, communities, cities, and the country. Furthermore, and given that the US permits dual citizenship thereby allowing those who hold dual citizenship to vote from abroad, she asks why foreign residents in the US should be not likewise be represented?
In her opinion the difficulties of obtaining a visa or a green card are often much greater than becoming a naturalised citizen, and she informs us that it took her 15 years and over $10,000 in legal fees [not counting college fees] to obtain permanent residency. In contrast she compares the citizenship test and oath to be “like a piece of cake”.
She ends by making the point that some local lawmakers already permit non-citizens to vote on local issues such as the collection of garbage, the state of roads, and such like, so why should authorised immigrants not be permitted to vote on wider social and political issues?
Comment