Should immigrants be allowed to vote?

[_Jumper_]

I believe that they can in Canada and other advanced nations. If they voted in 2000...

[NoMoreRedInk]

1. They are allowed to vote after they gain citizenship***

nm

[arewethereyet]

2. but certainly not before

[leftyandproud]

3. certainly. *NT*

[radwriter0555]

26. Well since bush wants to rule the world, EVERYONE on the planet should

be allowed to vote for president of the USA.

[dmr]

49. That would be nice since the whole world hates Bush*

T'would give us leverage against the idiot!

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

51. I'll vote for that!

... Er, where do I register?

;)

[Cleita]

4. If they are permanent residents and pay taxes, I think they should.

IMHO

[TowelBoy]

5. They are allowed to vote I thought

As long as they're legal

[David Dunham]

6. Immigrants can vote after they become US citizens.

[_Jumper_]

7. Not in America

Only citizens can vote. In Canada all members of Canadian society can vote.

[HEyHEY]

8. I think you have to be a landed immigrant - officially

Iverglas may know...wherever he is.

[Cleita]

10. Only citizens can vote in the United States, but I don't

know how they check for that status. I can't imagine everyone registering people to vote asking for passports, citizenship papers or birth certificates like the Social Security office.

[iverglas]

18. yeah, I know

Some of the mythology about us takes things just a tad too far. ;)

Only citizens of Canada may vote in elections in Canada. Sheesh.

From the good old Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- in the Constitution:

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The right to vote is not really quite like the right to life and the right to liberty, after all. It is a "right" that relates directly to membership in the particular state that the vote controls, not just to membership in a society or in the human race. Membership in a state is defined by citizenship.

Otherwise, hell, why not just let people who live in Peoria and have never set foot outside it vote in, oh, BC provincial elections??

Anyone who lives permanently in Canada and wants to vote in Canada won't have too much difficulty doing it: live here for 3 years, apply for citizenship, get citizenship, vote. And of course run for any office you like.

Now on the other hand, people convicted of criminal offences, of whatever variety, have always been able to vote in Canada -- and in 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada held that people (citizens, of course) serving sentences in penitentiaries may also vote, since the government failed to provide any good reason why they should be denied that right of citizenship:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2002/vol3/html/2002scr3_0519.html

Methinks someone is trying to establish a parallel here between a foreign-born US citizen not being permitted to run for president and a non-citizen resident not being permitted to vote. Of course there is an easily made distinction.

Some limitation on the right to vote is obviously necessary, otherwise 3 billion citizens of China would be voting in Florida elections by mail.

Is it reasonable to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens? I'd say yes. Non-citizens obviously have the citizenship of some other country, and are perfectly free to go vote there. (One exception is certain former US citizens, who may have no citizenship at all, since the US regards the right to renounce one's citizenship as a "basic human right", while most countries regard having some kind of citizenship as both a right and an essential tool in structuring international relations. Statelessness throws a wrench into the works.)

I do not support the policies of some countries that deny long-time legal residents citizenship (unless I were presented with some very good justification for doing that). But somewhere in between no rights ever and full rights upon the plane landing, there is a reasonable middle ground that can be justified. A person who wants to exercise decision-making authority in respect of a human group, like a state, really needs to be a member of that group.

And reasonable qualifications for membership -- like admission as a permanent resident, demonstration of intention to become a member and understanding of what membership involves (by residing in the state for a reasonable period of time), and a formal application for membership and a commitment to adhere to the membership rules (taking out citizenship) aren't unreasonable.

To the anticipated objection that native-born citizens do not have to "qualify" for membership/citizenship, I would simply point out that citizenship is not for the benefit of individuals only, it is for the benefit of the other states in the world. If citizenship were not automatic on birth in most circumstances, we'd mostly all be stateless, and that would make for a fine kettle of fish when it came to things as simply as cross-border shopping: once one of us Canadians entered the US, they'd never be able to get rid of us. ;)

.

[gula]

25. Ooops

So I actually voted illegally in Canada. So very sorry, but I got an invitation to vote so I did. I have no idea how I got on the voter's list. How does that work anyway?

[iverglas]

31. heh

It used to be that we were "enumerated" for the voter's list, every election. The enumerators in each constituency were nominated by the two parties with the highest standing in the last election -- but that never made for enough, so there were lots of other people, particularly retirees, who made a little money spending a month or so going door to door doing the enumerating. Now, permanent voters' lists have been established, and each election a card is mailed out with the existing information for an address, and if there is a new occupant at the address s/he has to contact the returning officer's office to get on the list. (This can be done by phone.)

The difference from the US has always been that names go on the list at the initiative of the govt, not the individual -- the govt used to send people door to door, and now does the contacting by mail.

In the past, enumerators would sometimes get their info from neighbours, if they couldn't get hold of the occupant of an address, or if they were lazy. That might be how you got on a list. Assuming you didn't call your info in. ;) And assuming that some corrupt candidate's agent didn't put you on the list in hopes of then being able to have someone vote in your place. There is corruption. The Liberal MP for my riding (and the people his machine run in city council elections) is a fine example of it. We do have dead people vote, and candidate's agents come into polling stations with fists-ful of proxy voting forms, voting for whole groups of people, usually with names from a particular ethnic group which has traditionally been Liberal.

(In one municipal election, I was canvassing for the local progressive candidate, and met an older woman in a co-op apt. building -- that's low-income, not a fancy NYC-style co-op -- who said she wanted to vote for us but would have a hard time getting to the polls. Of course we offer rides on voting day, but since that particular day was an advance poll day, and I had a car, I offered to take her down then. She was visually-impaired, so she and I made the declarations for me to mark the ballot on her behalf, in her presence and by her instructions. All went well. Then as we left, she asked me to drive her to the liquor store, and would I be so kind as to go in and buy her a bottle to give to the nice young man who was fixing her bathroom plumbing. At that point I devoutly hoped that no one was following us! And later her neighbours told me that the bottle was definitely not for any nice young man ... . Anyhow, that election we won the ward by an average of 1.5 votes/poll, so I figured she and the young woman whom I'd driven to the poll in a raging snowstorm, an hour before the polls closed, and stayed in the car with her baby in his car seat while she voted, were my contribution to the victory!)

The citizenship question isn't generally asked directly. It is only raised if there are reasons to. This can indeed be tricky in a country where 1/5 of the population was born abroad - and more than that in Ontario, for instance. You just can't go challenging anybody with a "foreign-sounding" name. ;)

Of course, I once knew an immigration officer who did just that. He'd comb through the dockets for the local criminal court each week, and call up anybody who didn't have a "Canadian-sounding" name, to see whether they were non-citizens and he should take deportation action against them. One day he called someone who apparently had a "Belgian-sounding" name (hey, he was an equal-opportunity bigot) and started inquiring about his immigration status, and the fellow replied that his great-great-grandparents had been born in Canada, and demanded to know what this was all about, and when he found out, filed a complaint with the human rights commission. At the hearing, commission counsel asked the immigration officer whether he could recognize a non-Canadian name when he heard one. Oh yes indeed, he replied. Well then, how about Hnatyshyn? Oh, that one's not Canadian. How about Mazankowski? Nope, definitely not Canadian. Well ... they were both Tory cabinet ministers, and Hnatyshyn later became Governor General. The immigration officer's reputation later stood me in good stead when I challenged an action he took against a young woman from Africa whom he accused of working illegally when she babysat some friends' kid, while she was attending business college, and he told her she should drop out of school and apply under the "foreign domestic program"; obviously, she was black and female and should therefore be a domestic.

Anyhow -- yup, you voted illegally! It is an offence, so you oughtn't to do it again. ;)

.

[gula]

50. Well I am a citizen now, so I can

Thanks for the explanation. It must have been my landlady as I had no front door. I was living in a, as I found out later, illegal basement. Whatever would you native-borns do without us newly arriveds who know from nothing.

We now have to show some ID before being allowed to vote.

[lapislzi]

23. What's a "member of society?"

Define your terms.

No, I'm not spoiling for a fight, but I'd like to know what you're driving at.

[iverglas]

36. if I may try to answer (lapislzi, that is) ...

(ed. -- this was meant as a reply to lapislzi's question "what's a 'member of society'?")

I used the expression too, although with a different conclusion, when I said (emphasis added):

The right to vote is not really quite like the right to life and the right to liberty, after all. It is a "right" that relates directly to membership in the particular state that the vote controls, not just to membership in a society or in the human race. Membership in a state is defined by citizenship.

We could think of the "state" as a kind of club, as has been mentioned. Anybody may come to the club's functions, participate in the club's activities -- but if you want a say in how the club is run, you have to qualify for membership and take out membership.

It would be unjust to deny people membership in the club, or to set the qualifications for the club unreasonably high. But it isn't unjust simply to have qualifications. Otherwise, people who hate baseball and love hockey might try to take over the baseball club and turn it into a hockey club. Requiring that they have attended at least three baseball games, and show that they know the rules of baseball, would not be unreasonable (in my humble opinion) as a demonstration of their understanding and appreciation of baseball. Requiring that they have attended 100 baseball games and/or be married to a member of the baseball club would be unreasonable.

Sure, there might be people who would learn about baseball and go to games just so they could get the benefits of club membership and maybe so they could try to turn it into a hockey club, and there would also be people who couldn't go to the games to qualify for membership because they work nights. But overall, and maybe with exemptions for hardship cases, it would be fair.

Club membership would involve paying dues as well as getting a say in how the club operated. Citizenship is the same -- you get to vote, and you also get to get drafted or meet whatever other demands the state makes of citizens. Non-citizens have to pay taxes as members of the society, just as non-members have to pay admission fees to baseball games.

Non-citizens are "members of the society" by choice, just as non-members go to baseball games by choice. If they don't like what they get for their money, they are free to leave. And that's a reason why statelessness is a bad thing -- people without a nationality are not free to leave where they are, because they have nowhere else to go. And that's one reason why it's important for people to be able to acquire citizenship by meeting reasonable rules.

As long as the rules are reasonable -- the rule in Canada, for instance, simply put, being three years' legal residence, passing a basic knowledge test and taking the oath/affirmation of citizenship -- they aren't unjust; they make a justified distinction between citizens and non-citizens. If someone meets those requirements and chooses not to become a citizen, then s/he has chosen to participate in the club's activities, for whatever price the club charges (paying taxes, e.g.), and not take out the membership that is needed in order to have a say in how it's run (vote) and be eligible to play on the team (get elected to office). Non-members and non-citizens are, indeed, paying "guests". They pay a price for what they obviously believe is value.

There simply have to be rules. Maybe having permanent residence in a country would be enough. But that would be a hard rule to enforce. I could get a US green card, for instance, if I qualified, and continue to live in Canada, very easily. Nobody'd know I was gone. Then I could just drive over the border, show my green card and register to vote, come home, and return only on election day every four years. And yes, some citizens of the US could do the same thing -- stay long enough to take out citizenship (and proof of that stay does have to be presented), then leave and return only on election days. But that involves a lot more time and effort, and so is less likely to happen.

The reasonableness of rules is always a question; arbitrary rules are not good. Rules that reflected prejudice against foreigners, rather than a genuine willingness to admit foreigners to the club, would not be good. Requiring that a foreigner be married to a citizen in order to gain citizenship would be arbitrary and unfair. But the relatively minimal rules that apply to acquiring citizenship in countries like Canada and the US really aren't arbitrary or unfair. And the rule that only citizens may vote treats non-citizens differently, for reasons that are really quite sound, is justified. In my humble opinion.

.

[lapislzi]

41. I agree completely with your analysis

...the question then becomes, are the rules for U.S. citizenship unfairly harsh?

I think _Jumper_ needs to define his/her terms and stop painting with so broad a brush. I think the question of the reasonableness of the requirements for U.S. citizenship vs. the requirements for Canadian citizenship is a fair one, and deserves to be debated. (I happen to think they are not, and we can toodle down that path if anyone wants to)

I am simply bothered by the umbrella term "member of society." My 10-year-old is a "member of society," but she can't vote, and rightly so.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

[iverglas]

46. and thank you ;)

I think the question of the reasonableness of the requirements for U.S. citizenship vs. the requirements for Canadian citizenship is a fair one, and deserves to be debated. (I happen to think they are not, and we can toodle down that path if anyone wants to)

In fact (see my post "I often wish" down below) the rules in the two countries are about as close to identical as you get.

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/faq.htm#q1
http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/require.htm

Residence and Physical Presence

An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:

- has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (see preceding section);

- has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with no single absence from the United States of more than one year;

- has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year shall disrupt the applicant's continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period)

- has resided within a state or district for at least three months

We don't have that last requirement, and we require 3 years out of 5 actual residence at present. (Our rules are under discussion.) I won a case in which the person did not physically reside in Canada much at all during the 5 years, but had immigrated to Canada 25 years earlier, and never managed to accumulate 3 years in 5 because he worked for a Cdn company, in countries other than his country of citizenship, having no other real career opportunities (and was involved in activities promoting Cdn interests there).

I am simply bothered by the umbrella term "member of society." My 10-year-old is a "member of society," but she can't vote, and rightly so.

That's a different thing though, I'd just point out. That's a question of the reasonableness of the rules that apply to citizens, i.e. of the distinctions made among citizens, based on age or anything else. Whether the rules should apply equally to citizens and non-citizens is a question that brings in somewhat different considerations.

But as in many situations, the rules applied by groups that share many basic values -- Canada and the US -- are pretty much the same.


.

[ohiosmith]

48. Only Canadian citizens can vote. I've been a Landed Immigrant

for more than 30 years.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. If they live here and pay taxes, not allowing them to vote is

Taxation without representation.

[NoMoreRedInk]

11. Kids pay taxes and can't vote

I wonder what it'd be like if we let every 14 year old burger flipper vote. It's kind of unfair that they can't.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. I'm not sure that's the best comparison. Minor children are both legally

and in actual fact, dependent upon their parents or guardians.

Is this a good or a bad thing? Should 14 year olds be able to purchase alcohol? drive? consent to sexual activity? serve in the military?

If I have a 14 year old whom I no longer wish to provide with room and board, should I face legal action if I simply change the locks?

[arewethereyet]

12. they're welcome to join the club

but until they do, no vote. They are guests here, nothing more.

If you want taxation without representation, move to the District of Columbia. Thats legitimate T.W.R.

[Cronus Protagonist]

16. Thanks for that

When I posted on here that I cannot vote, my comments were immediately discredited as having no value. Since I can't vote, I should shut up, was the refrain from certain DU'ers.

I'm pleased to see that there are some who see the injustice of it. I've lived in this country for more than 20 years and I've never been allowed to vote. Additionally, I was not allowed to vote in the UK either because there were no elections between my 18th birthday and my emigration. So I'm a 43 year old who's never had a single chance to vote. I've never been in a polling booth in my entire life, and this is NOT by choice.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[arewethereyet]

17. sure it is

if it were important to you, you would have gained citizenship. You have had ample time to do so.

I know, you don't want to become a US citizen. No problem, I understand. But guests here do not deserve the vote.

That you choose to remain a guest is entirely up to you.

[Cronus Protagonist]

30. I'm sorry you think that way

If I were you I'd think a little longer before I posted something like that because I would be attacked for saying anything like that on DU.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[VLC98]

39. Hi Cronus! I'm in the same boat as you..

I've had my resident alien card since 1989, and have lived here for 8 years all together. I really don't expect to be allowed to vote, but I do wish the US would recognize dual citizenship (ie. not require me to denounce allegiance to Britain), so that I could become a citizen. I feel it is quite possible to love (and be ashamed of) two countries equally. Aside from voting, I am concerned about my rights in general and I have been tempted to apply for citizenship, but my conscience won't let me.

[primavera]

37. So what else is new?

That's hardly a unique distinction. As a resident of the District of Columbia, I have no political representation, yet, strangely enough, the IRS continues to expect me to pay taxes. The same holds true for residents in all of the US territories which do not have state status.

[_Jumper_]

14. If immigrants could vote

Al Gore would be in the White House today.

[ComerPerro]

15. Hell

Al Gore would be in the White House today if African Americans were allowed to vote in Florida too.

[tom_paine]

19. Always important to remember that

Al Gore's chances were broken over the backs of African-Americans.

No doubt about it.

[Bandit]

20. IMHO only citizens should have that right.

:shrug: we don't want foreign interest flooding our election booths for a cause that is not in our interests.

[guajira]

38. You Mean Like S. Florida????

I worked at the polls and am convinced that there were voters who were not citizens. In Florida everyone can get a voting card, even if they are not citizens, and the honor system applies! LOL!!!!

[Bandit]

40. I would venture to say not everyone can get a voting card in Florida

In fact I would say there were over ninty thousand people who were unable to vote in 2000 in Florida although they were fully qualified. Florida is not the best example.

[karabekian]

21. no

unless they are citizens

[Hammie]

22. Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote.

[cryofan]

24. NO, that would cheapen our franchise

voting is power.
Why dilute our own power?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

27. yes, after they become citizens.

I think thats pretty clear.

[durutti]

28. Yes.

If you're working and contributing to society and the economy, you should be allowed to vote.

[Mick Knox]

29. after citizenship.. of course... nt

[Walt Starr]

32. Only if they gain citizenship

IF they are here under a visa or green card, not only no BUT HELL NO!!!!

[Bridget Burke]

33. Once they're citizens, of course....

If they just wish to be residents, work here, pay taxes, etc., they're welcome to stay as honored guests. Most of them DO have the right to vote--in their home country. I knew an Argentine couple who went to the Argentine consulate for absentee ballots every time there was an Argentine election--voting was compulsory.

I work with many non-citizens; many will become citizens, others may return to their original homes. Most were appalled by Bush & would have voted against him. Some who were planning on becoming citizens are in no hurry--if things get worse here, they may need to escape.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. I know a 25-year foreign-born resident who

recently became a U.S. citizen specifically to vote against Bush.

[Walt Starr]

35. And since he is now a citizen

he has every right to vote in the upcoming election.

He cannot and should never be allowed to become president, but since he became a citizen he has every right to vote.

[evil_orange_cat]

42. I think it's fine the way it is... want a vote? become a citizen...

my mom is a naturalized immigrant... I was the first on that side of my family to be born in America. I hope that gives people some perspective.

I'm glad Canada and other nations are happy with their policies... but I think America's current policies are just fine.

If we allow non-citizens to vote, what's to stop Mexican immigrants from taking over politics in the Southwest? It's quite possible they would vote to join Mexico!

[Gringo]

43. Not unless they become citizens.

If they aren't committed enough to this country for citizenship, they have no business voting.

[andyjackson1828]

44. I thought I had read something in the past....

about non-citizens being able to vote. I surfed around and found that in the 18th and 19th centuries up to 22 states and territories allowed immigrants to vote. One of the reasons given was to encourage immigrantion to a particulat state or territory. It appears that Arkasnsas was the last state to allow this and it ended some time in the 1920s. I also found a reference that says that Takoma Park, MD is the only jurisdiction in the country that allows non-citizens to vote.

I would be in favor of allowing non-citizens to vote, but I would want a very long residency requirement, maybe 15-20 years.

[iverglas]

45. I often wish people would read some of the discussion

... before jumping into it.

The assertion in the original post -- that non-citizens may vote in Canada -- is false.

Non-citizens may *not* vote in elections in Canada. In fact, I don't know of any "advanced nation" where non-citizens may vote.

Some of the more recent replies in this thread continue to say things about how Canada can do what it wants, but the US will do what it wants ...

Canadian and USAmerican rules for gaining citizenship are very similar, just as a whole lot of other things are very similar between the two countries. At present, Canada requires three years of legal residence (as a formally admitted permanent resident or "landed immigrant" with an IMM1000, the equivalent of a US green card), the ability to speak one of the two official languages (English and French), and demonstration of basic knowledge about Canada and its institutions and the rights/responsibilities of citizenship (a test/interview). Pretty much the same as in the US.

Some countries have much more stringent rules for acquiring citizenship, or make it effectively impossible. In most cases, I would object to those rules. I find the rules in Canada and the US quite reasonable. (I may disagree with the US requirement to renounce the former citizenship, but this may also be becoming the rule in Canada.)

The Canadian constitution grants the right to vote to Canadian citizens, along with the right to stand as a candidate in any election.

The difference between Canada and the US is that anyone eligible to vote and be a candidate may become Prime Minister, because any Member of Parliament could become Prime Minister at any moment, basically. This is true regardless of where s/he was born or how long s/he has been a citizen -- while in the US no naturalized citizen may become President. And the additional relevant difference here is that the Cdn PM is the head of government only, while the US president is the head of government *and* the head of state, and there might be arguable reasons for restricting access to that office more than to other offices. (I just haven't seen any that are relevant in the modern world.)

I often wish that people weren't so all-fired eager to just spout an opinion, and were more interested in knowing what they're talking about and in what other people have to say.

.

[ShimokitaJer]

47. Non-citizens can vote in local elections in my town

I live in Takoma Park, MD, and we've allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections since 1992. Of course, Takoma Park was called "probably the leftiest 'burb anywhere" by Utne Reader, so I know we're not typical.

[NoPasaran]

52. Some nations do allow

Some nations do allow noncitizens to vote in local elections

See http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V14/7/wucker-m.html