Voting on Election Day shouldn't be limited to citizens
By: Tali Farhadian Weinstein - NBC News
BUZZ NOTE: There is a video with this seed about other voting rights issues in America which may be accessed by clicking on the SEEDED CONTENT link just below this message, which will take you to the original source article.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Voting on Election Day shouldn't be limited to citizens
On Tuesday, millions of people across the country who could have the right to vote won’t be able to. Nearly 14 million legal permanent residents , not to mention hundreds of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers, have made their homes here and should be able to weigh in on local elections that have a direct effect on their everyday lives. 
© Provided by NBC News The New York City council is poised to allow this to happen, and to set a national example for how we integrate noncitizens into our communities. Last month the council held hearings on a bill that would allow certain noncitizens — lawful residents who have lived in the city for more than 30 days — to vote in city elections. In other words, any New Yorker with a green card could cast a vote for mayor, council member, comptroller and other local elected officials. The bill’s sponsors have a veto-proof majority , and support from Eric Adams , the Democratic nominee to be the city’s next mayor. The council should pass the bill before its term ends this year. And then the rest of the country should follow suit.
Right now, noncitizen voting is quite rare — so rare that it may sound exotic, or even unconstitutional. In fact, noncitizen voting is older than the republic itself. It was universal in colonial times and remained through the 18th and 19th centuries. What’s new is the argument that only citizens should vote, an idea that took hold in the early 20th century when a rash of nativist and racist local laws were passed to disenfranchise African Americans, Jews, Italians and others deemed “inferior” to the “white” population.
Yet even today, the possibility of noncitizen voting remains intact and to be seized; every state constitution except Arizona’s and North Dakota’s permits it. Federal law explicitly recognizes that states and cities may allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, though not in federal ones.
Only 14 municipalities currently allow noncitizens to vote in at least one type of local election: one in California, two in Vermont and 11 in Maryland. But if New York were to join this small group, we could better challenge the weird idea that it is somehow “normal” to exclude noncitizens from basic decisions about our shared civic life.
On the face of it, noncitizen voting is a matter of basic fairness. People who live, work and pay taxes in our communities should have a say in how they are governed. Noncitizen New Yorkers contribute nearly $3 billion per year in city taxes , for example.
But there will be less obvious benefits as well. For one thing, changing who votes could change who runs for office. Advocates of the council bill estimate that it will immediately add more than 850,000 to the rolls in New York City alone , which should affect who becomes a candidate.
Letting noncitizens vote will also likely change how we think about resettlement of newcomers. Consider the 49,000 and counting Afghan refugees at domestic military bases on the verge of being settled by the federal government in communities around the country, where they can seek work authorization : Under the council bill model, many should be able to vote after settling into their new homes.
Many of these people have risked their lives, have lost friends and family, home and future, because they believe in our democratic ideals. We owe them the vote. Isn’t this the most basic aspect of democracy? Isn’t it what we and they fought for? Instead of thinking of giving them a special right, we should see this as another responsibility for people who want to actively contribute in their new neighborhoods.
New Yorkers in particular understand the practical and symbolic importance of this bill, because the majority know the immigrant experience firsthand. Most New Yorkers grew up as I did, either as immigrants or with at least one immigrant in our households . We know that citizens and noncitizens are in the same boat.
Last year, I was a candidate for a local office in New York City. In immigrant-rich neighborhoods like Washington Heights, I regularly met grandmothers who told me they would ask their children and grandchildren to vote for me, because they couldn’t themselves cast a vote.
Every time I heard this, I thought about my father. My dad was 30 years old when he came to this country, seeking asylum after we fled the violence and antisemitism of revolutionary Iran. Although my parents quickly got authorization to work here, my dad turned 45 before he became a citizen and could cast his first vote. In those 15 years of waiting, it would not have “made sense” for a candidate like me to direct my energies to someone like him. Multiply him by a million, and that’s a huge part of the city to overlook.
For those of us who hoped that President Joe Biden would quickly correct federal anti-immigrant policies, the past months have been a source of frustration and disappointment. Last month, American law enforcement officers who looked like cowboys appeared to whip desperate Haitians seeking refuge in our country. We left behind tens of thousands of Afghan allies during the summer evacuation.
Comprehensive immigration reform — or even more modest and seemingly popular legislation, such as to legalize the status of “Dreamers” — remains as elusive as it did during the Obama administration, thwarted recently by the Senate parliamentarian . In fact, no president since Ronald Reagan has managed to transform the immigration system dramatically for the better. Maybe New York City can open the way for real change.
Letting noncitizens vote is no substitute for immigration reform on the federal level, but it is meaningful and within the power of most cities, towns and counties. Let’s hope that a year from now, noncitizen voting will be the new normal around the United States.
BUZZ NOTE: Comments are subject to the Confucius group RED RULES which may be accessed by clicking on the Confucius group avatar at the top right of this page.
The topic is voting rights of individuals in America and any comments otherwise are OFF TOPIC and will be deleted.
Tags
Who is online
62 visitors
Did I not make this very same argument on an article here about a month ago, and I was shouted down by American members on this site? Nice to read this to see that at least there is one American who makes common sense about the issue.
This is me disagreeing with you in a very non-shouty voice.
This is a terrible idea.
Thank you for not shouting. I agree with the author for the reasons he gave, which were almost all the same reasons I gave before. What is the problem? What are your reasons why they should not be able to vote for municipal matters. Are only actual citizens in America "exceptional" which entitles them to fair and sensible privileges? Why do you feel long-time permanent residents who own homes and businesses that employ a lot of Americans, perhaps even married to American citizens, and fathers of American-born children, pay taxes and give to American charities not entitled to have a say by means of a vote with respect to municipal matters that affect them greatly? Nobody has said they should be able to vote for State or Federal candidates or referendums, so that should make the Republicans happy.
You outline several of them. Examples:
The NY statute is going to let people vote after 30 days of residency. If that constitutes "long-time, permanent", a "newly permanent" resident would simply need a weekend AirBnB.
But voting can't be limited to property owners or employers, can it? You can't focus solely on best-case scenarios and ignore everything else.
As the article outlines, you'd have to allow Afghan refugees to vote after 30 days in NYC. A refugee who has been in a new country for a month, don't speak the language, doesn't understand anything about life in that country, how it's run, how things are funded, and how decisions are made is far, far less capable of making an educated voting decision than a 14-year-old who has grown up there.
We don't let the 14-year-old vote....and there is a reason for that. The same reasons apply to newly arrived refugees.
I very strongly disagree. I am not shouting at you but would shout at any politician wanting this.
Non Citizens voting lowers the value of my Citizenship
I agree. If one wants to vote, then one should be a citizen. Simple.
I think of citizenship as being a national or whole country thing, not just a municipal one. We are talking about voting in municipal elections only.
The only difference between municipal and national is scale. Voting is a right afforded to citizens.
To be a citizen of the town you have to be a citizen of the country.
Can a non-citizen parent vote at a school board meeting, or a union member meeting?
Yes, the definition of the word "citizen" does allow for both.
[Deleted]
Off topic (Buzz of the Orient)
The better question is, should they be allowed to?
So if one is a non citizen, then they should not get a vote, either in town or up to and including national.
If Union rules allow it,
Unions don't let non union members vote.
Not in the union i was in and not in any union i've ever heard of.
I thought the question was could a non citizen vote in a Union election, I was thinking that person was a union member. As summer help I did not belong to the Union and could not vote but when I joined the Union I could vote in Union things
Ah i see, my bad.
I'm very sure we didn't have any non-citizens in our union in my time but i suppose that is probably different today.
I think if one is accepted into a union, they get to vote in that union but if i think about it not sure a non citizen could have got into our union.
I'll check that out
Per our BA, one needs to be a US citizen to join our local.
That seems a bit problematic to me, especially in places like Michigan. Don't you guys have closed shops up there?
Nope, we are currently a freedom to work state.
Unbelievable i know.
Nope...no it doesn't.
Are you saying that municipalities are not subject to Amendment XIV?
The short answer, Buzz, is that I can't remember what prompted me to post that. As I recall, I was under the impression, at the time, that is was being offered that the definition of citizen could be read to allow those not naturalized or born in the US to vote. Going back and reading the previous posts...again...not sure sure what I read to lead me down that path.
LOL. Now 5 days later I don't remember what the conversation was about.
Little more than half of the world's seven billion people are citizens of fully functioning governments enjoying constitutionally protected freedoms. That would explain part of the reason for the massive collection of migrants crossing the US southern border. Under the US Constiution the American people, as citizens, are guaranteed security under a Republic, whose officials they alone choose. The rights and liberties we enjoy are only as good as the citizens who vote to protect them. In America non-citizens have no vested interest in any of that.
I not only think only citizens should be able to vote, I think the voting age should be raised to 35.
Did you say that because....
I don't understand why now you can vote at 18 but have to be 21 to drink legally. I could do both at 18
and at 18 I would have rather been able to legally drink than vote
Lol ... few 18 year olds wouldn't .....
Very interesting, educational, and a civil discussion. Only one member went off topic notwithstanding I posted a RED RULE about that.