Letting non-citizens vote?

[vaskidmark]

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

PORTLAND, Maine -- Like his neighbors, Claude Rwaganje pays taxes on his income and taxes on his cars. His children have gone to Portland's public schools. He's interested in the workings of Maine's largest city, which he has called home for 13 years.

There's one vital difference, though: Rwaganje isn't a U.S. citizen and isn't allowed to vote on those taxes or on school issues. That may soon change.

Been in Portland for 13 years.  Apparently on some sort of visa.  And he's not bothered to apply for citizenship - egen after immigrating because of "political strife" in his native Congo.

Abdirizak Daud, 40, moved to Minneapolis 18 years ago before coming to Portland in 2006. He hasn't been able to find a job. Some of his nine children have attended Portland schools, and he'd like to have a say in who's looking over the school system and the city, he said.

But between his limited English and the financial demands, Daud hasn't been able to become a citizen.

"I like the Democrats. I want to vote for Democrats, but I don't have citizenship," he said.

Been in the country 18 years and still can't (won't?) speak English.  Which may have had some impact on his inability to find a job and the "financial demands" he finds impeding his ability to become a citizen.  But since coming here some of his nine children have attended public schools.  Let's hope the others attended public school in Minneapolis as opposed to being female and thus not entitled to be educated.[OK, that was judgemental and supposes quite a bit.  Maybe I should apologize.]

But he likes the Democrats and wants to vote for them.  Gee, I wonder why?

The Latino guy who's the head cook at my favorite Chinese food place and who lives a few houses down from me came by the other day and told me he has just put in his paperwork to apply for citizenship.  He has been here on a green card for about 7 years after being here illegally for the 5 preceeding years.  I'm not going to go into why he should not have gotten a green card - I'm more focused on the fact that he took the chance and became legal.  So for the last 5 years for sure (and he claims for the past 11) he's paid taxes and done all tye other stuff he's supposed to, but is still not allowed to vote.  So why the change of heart and desire for citizenship?  According to him, it's because he does not have a voice in how the place is run and he's not happy with how it's running.

So as best I can figure the Chinese folks who own the place where he works, who have been bringing relatives over for generations, have gotten to him and turned him into a rabid TEA Partier.  Either that or his kid had a note sent home from school about her refusing to speak Spanish as her primary language.

Your thoughts on this trend to give the vote - in at least local elections - to non-citizens?

stay safe.

[Lennyjoe]

Its simple for me....no citizenship equals NO vote!

[Ned Hamford]

Its simple for me....no citizenship equals NO vote!

I generally feel the same way, but given the absolute mess our immigration system is, I'd soften it with just requiring significant travel on the path to citizenship and demonstration of the intent to continue along it.  Actually, could that be a waiver system?  It is just for local elections.  It would just seem a shame to bar someone from the PTA due to nonsense from a federal bureaucrat.   Meh, would be easier just to take the hard stance with the bright line, no citizenship, no vote.   

Fun Q, what about felons?  Especially given how with over-criminalization you can now become one by accident through no moral or personal failing.

[Monkeyleg]

Try to apply voting rights to a non-member in any other entity--stock holders, the NRA, church boards--and see what happens.

This idea is so ludicrous that it could only have come from someone trying to boost the number of votes for candidates in his party. I wonder which party that might be?

[mtnbkr]

At the Federal level, no way.  At the State level, probably not.  At the local level, I don't have a huge problem with it.  "Citizenship" at the local level is determined by something as strenuous as "living there" and everyone who "lives there" has the same issues and responsibilities regardless of national citizenship. 

There are valid reasons for living in a country without earning citizenship (working for a multinational for example).

[longeyes]

It's not just about citizenship any more, it's about too many people not having a real stake in the nation except as takers.  This is a problem that can't be resolved by more accommodation.  At some point enough people will accept the hard reality of what that's going to really mean.

[Ben]

What "financial demands" keep you from becoming a citizen?

Maybe it's different now, but when my parents became citizens (a process they began as soon as they were allowed to) they took some free night classes, then went to the test and ceremony.

[grampster]

Not only should one have to be a citizen to vote, one should also have to be able to understand, read and speak english.   I'm also of the opinion that one should have to own property in order to vote on certain local issues such as propositions that tax or assess property for the financing.  In addition, one should also be able to vote in any and all communities that one owns propety in certain local elections that raise funds through property taxes or assessments.

Much of the serious debt problems we have in America today are aided and abetted by those who can vote, who stand to gain a handout and not have to pay into the system.  Many politicians understand the corrupt electoral set up we have in that regard and that's why they continue to enslave the have nots by pandering to them by buying their votes for "benefits".

[AZRedhawk44]

No.  Period.  End of sentence.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO BECOME A CITIZEN ANY TIME YOU WANT TO.  WE DON'T FORBID IT, LIKE MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.

Show me you understand the past of this country, and I'll be comfortable with you having a say in its future.

[TommyGunn]

NOT a citizen=NO VOTE
Citizen=Vote

Preferably;
Citizen + Property owner=vote
Citizen + NOT property owner=NO vote.

But I'm old fashioned that way...............

[Tallpine]

If they don't like paying taxes here then they are welcome to move to some other country to pay taxes 

[MechAg94]

How do you split local voting versus national voting?  It is normally done on the same ballot. 

My problem is these people have probably already voted simply because we don't require any sort of ID to vote.

No Citizenship, no vote.  We require that people have a stake in the country and show some responsibility toward wanting to be here and wanting this to be their home.  Citizenship is a good place to draw the line.

[41magsnub]

Agreed, citizenship should be the line.

I could see property owner status required to vote on mil levies and other property based taxes, but not as a whole.  How many folks on this board are renters either due to financial circumstances or just lack of desire to own a home?  Should not owning a house prevent somebody from voting for president or all the other stuff that ends up on ballots?  What about the 18 year old kid in the military, should they not be allowed to vote because they don't own land?

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

It's not just about citizenship any more, it's about too many people not having a real stake in the nation except as takers

Well said.  Also believe if you do not pay federal income taxes (you pay and get every dime back or you don't have to pay and get money back, child credit, earned income) you should not get to vote. Period. You have zero liability and you get to vote how other peoples tax money is spent, BS. If you don't own land or pay federal income taxes, no vote for you. And if you aren't a citizen, no vote for you. There is no reason why once you come here that the process of becoming a citizen cannot be started with in a year.

[Racehorse]

What "financial demands" keep you from becoming a citizen?

Maybe it's different now, but when my parents became citizens (a process they began as soon as they were allowed to) they took some free night classes, then went to the test and ceremony.

It's actually fairly expensive. My wife is from Germany, so we've been going through it. Getting the green card cost us around $1,500, and I think we'll have to pay another $600 to get her citizenship. So it's do-able, but it's not cheap for someone who's probably making minimum wage or close to it.

Edit: I'm totally against letting non-citizens vote. If that happens, citizenship is meaningless.

[AZRedhawk44]

If you don't own land or pay federal income taxes

There's inconsistency there, though I understand the sentiment and agree with the philosophy behind it.

Land ownership has nothing to do with Federal taxes.  It is taxed by the States (and smaller governments).

The demographic I worry the most about, when it comes to voting without paying taxes, are Social Security recipients.  Does a person pay Income Tax on social security payments from Uncle Sugar?  I'd see the AARP demographic trying to stop such a change if it were to gain any traction.

Of course, the AARP is just a puppet of the DNC anyways...

But, the 24th Amendment would prohibit any basis of taxation being a pre-requisite for the right to vote.

[BrokenPaw]

Ultimately, voting is the franchise by which someone determines either how tax money is gathered and spent directly, or indirectly by determining who is placed in office to control how tax money is gathered and spent.

So it's all about money, at the end of the day.

Maybe instead of tying voting to citizenship, we should tie voting to taxes paid; not only in the granting of the franchise, but in magnitude of that franchise.  If you paid $1000 in taxes and your neighbor paid $500, your vote would carry twice the weight his does.  Taxes paid last year determines how much weight your vote carries this year.

That would put power where it belongs:  In the hands of the people who are paying for the services that the government provides, rather than in the hands of the people who are getting those services for "free" just because they've managed to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide for yet another day.

Difficulty:  Determining how much any given person actually paid in taxes total; how do you track anything other than income and property taxes without becoming (even more) invasive?  Excise taxes like those on gas, and sales tax, would be very difficult to quantify.

[AZRedhawk44]

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A poll tax could be used as a means to restrict access to State and local elections, but the highlighted text above makes me think that there's absolutely no way to tie Federal voting to paid taxes.

However....

Perhaps "additional" votes could be tied to those who pay taxes.  Each person is guaranteed a ballot worth 1 point, regardless of tax status.  If you paid over "X" amount on your Federal Income Taxes last year then you get a ballot worth 2 points instead of 1 point.  If you paid over "Y" amount on your taxes, then you get a ballot worth 3 points.  And so on.

I dunno if it's worthwhile having a special ballot class for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, or if people in that class would respect the change merely between 1 point "guaranteed" vote and 2 points "I pay for the system" votes.  They might be happy with 2 points, or they might end up wanting ballots worth 7,325 votes.  I think a convoluted measuring system would become more cumbersome than the current tax code.

...And I suspect somehow the inflation of importance of tax-payer votes over those of the non tax-payers, would be construed as "abridging" their right to vote, in a court challenge.  You could argue you're merely augmenting the right to vote of taxpayers, but I think it would fall through even with the current SCOTUS.

[MechAg94]

I think it would be a bad precedent to move away from "one man, one vote" no matter the reason.

[Monkeyleg]

It already seems difficult for state and local election boards to administer elections properly, so I don't know how effectively they could administer varying amounts of votes based on taxes paid.

With almost 50% of the population paying no taxes (and the Democrats trying to get past the 50% threshold), I would love to see paying taxes be a requirement for voting. We're reaching the point where those who pay no taxes will be able to determine how much those of us who pay "contribute".

Does a person pay Income Tax on social security payments from Uncle Sugar?  I'd see the AARP demographic trying to stop such a change if it were to gain any traction.

Yes, SS payments are taxable. That started under Clinton, IIRC, although I can't remember how they're calculated.

[Seenterman]

Citizen + NOT property owner=NO vote.

But what about "renters" their not landowners; would they not get the right to vote?
Would they get a wavier on paying their taxes because I think we once had a pretty big beef about something along the lines of taxation without representation from a bunch of politicians we didn't elect.

[AZRedhawk44]

But what about "renters" their not landowners; would they not get the right to vote?
Would they get a wavier on paying their taxes because I think we once had a pretty big beef about something along the lines of taxation without representation from a bunch of politicians we didn't elect.

I think the "property owner" schtick is a big distraction.  Back in the 1790's, our FedGov was not the taxing behemoth it is today.  Taxes were paid to the State you lived in.  The FedGov had no property taxes and no income taxes.  I believe Federal revenue was generated by tariffs and such.  Predecessors to our current excise taxes.

Elections also worked differently back then.  Only land-owners could vote, but technically they voted for Electors for their State.  Not for President/VP/etc.  They voted for State Senators and Representatives.  The State Legislature then voted for US Senators... not the people directly.

As such, all voting was a local institution to the State.  The State levied property taxes (it had no power to regulate interstate commerce or to tax based on tariffs (those are Powers reserved to the FedGov by the Constitution), and income tax hadn't been invented yet).  And so the tie between landowners and voting rights was drawn.

Now that the Fed Gov directly attacks the incomes of everyone, it makes sense for all citizens to be able to vote, regardless of property ownership.

[longeyes]

It's not about getting away from "one man, one vote," it's about getting back to "one citizen, one vote" and defining what "citizen" means in terms of stake in the society.  People who are on the dole--meaning "entitlements" they never paid in for--are quasi-citizens in terms of their financial accountability; it's clear--at least to me--they should not have the power to magnify their own benefits at the expense of tax-payers.  "One man, one vote" is a good concept but it arose in a time when there was no vast and expanding welfare state.

[Scout26]

Oh.

Hell.

No.


For all the reasons mentioned above.

[RevDisk]

NOT a citizen=NO VOTE
Citizen=Vote

Preferably;
Citizen + Property owner=vote
Citizen + NOT property owner=NO vote.

But I'm old fashioned that way...............

You're quite welcome to take my vote.  I don't think you'd quite realize the unintended consequences.  One of those is that if one is disenfranchised without a valid and direct action on the part of the now disenfranchised (such as committing a felony, renouncing one's citizenship, etc), how binding is that social contract?