Get real. If you're not a citizen you've got no business voting. Voting is a right for citizens. If immigrants want to vote then they can apply and wait for that right.
Get real. If you're not a man you've got no business voting. Voting is a right for men. If women want to vote then they can apply and wait for that right.
Incidentally, Boston let women vote in municipal elections well before they were allowed to vote in federal elections. While people may disagree about letting legal immigrants vote, one shouldn't confuse federal voting requirements with local voting requirements. Rights are for whoever we as a people decide to grant them to and if your only response to the proposal is "voting is a right for citizens" you're going to have to come up for a better argument than that, given how many Constitutional protections legal immigrants already enjoy. I do recall some sentiment around Boston at one time that "taxation without representation is tyranny". Who is representing the taxpaying legal immigrant?
Women were denied the right to vote based on their gender, with no process to follow to become legal voters.
Immigrants are not denied a right to vote with no recourse. They may apply to become citizens and then enjoy the fruits of that citizenship by voting. Extending those rights by circumventing that process is not the same as extending the rights in recognition of a lack of process.
That said, one could argue that people that think immigrant voting is a bad idea should be consigned to live in places like Everett, which seems to be following Chelsea down the hole of corruption and profiteering by public officials. Chelsea collapsed years ago and went into state receivership for the same sort of reasons Everett is hideously corrupt: local officials regularly sell out the tax dollars and the health and safety of people who cannot vote for their own personal gain.
(and yes, immigrants DO PAY TAXES, either through their rents or through property ownership and through payroll taxes and sales taxes and excise taxes just like everybody else).
Adam, you may want to re-phrase this. The way it's worded now, it would appear you're asking us if people are not citizens of Boston should be able to vote (like citizins of another town), not legal immigrants (and if they are legal immigrants, wouldn't that make them citizens of Boston?)
In most places, only American citizens can vote in the community where they live. Arroyo's proposal would extend that right to immigrants who say they intend to become citizens.
I tell Arroyo that I intend to someday move back to Boston, can I, a US native citizen, vote there? What an idiotic proposal. As though the Democrats don't already have enough of a stranglehold on the government.
One of the benefits of citizenship is voting. Why devalue citizenship by extending its rights to those who are not citizens?
If they'd like to vote, they can follow the same process that others before them have, and apply for citizenship.
And besides, this isn't likely about 'doing right' by immigrants. This is likely about politicians rubbing their hands together gleefully over the prospect of capturing an entire demographic of new voters.
If any immigrant could immediately become a citizen by just walking into an office, paying a fee, and taking an exam, I'd agree with you.
But in fact, this process takes years, if the immigrant is eligible for it at all. Meanwhile, she's paying taxes and sending her kids to local schools. Giving her a voice and a vote strengthens the democratic process and helps integrate her into the community.
I'm rather amused by the work and tax-based arguments for letting foreigners vote. Should non-working or non-tax-paying citizens be denied the right to vote, or does it just feel good rhetorically to say "work" or "taxes" in the context of voting rights for foreigners?
Foreigners (and naturalized citizens) who are anxious to integrate themselves with native society should start off by learning English and consuming less foreign-language domestic media.
who are we kidding. This is a country which boasts about being the protector of democracy around the world --- yet took 150 years allow voting rights for the blacks! What about the Florida and Iowa sham in the past two presidential elections? Hypocrisy at its best!
Background info
City Councilor Felix Arroyo's proposal would let legal immigrants vote. The move would need approval of the state Legislature.
The money quote from that article...
" a move that could increase the number of eligible voters in the city by as much as a third and dramatically alter the city's political landscape."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jen Stewart
Get real. If you're not a
Get real. If you're not a citizen you've got no business voting. Voting is a right for citizens. If immigrants want to vote then they can apply and wait for that right.
Only in Boston.
Reality Check
Get real. If you're not a man you've got no business voting. Voting is a right for men. If women want to vote then they can apply and wait for that right.
Incidentally, Boston let women vote in municipal elections well before they were allowed to vote in federal elections. While people may disagree about letting legal immigrants vote, one shouldn't confuse federal voting requirements with local voting requirements. Rights are for whoever we as a people decide to grant them to and if your only response to the proposal is "voting is a right for citizens" you're going to have to come up for a better argument than that, given how many Constitutional protections legal immigrants already enjoy. I do recall some sentiment around Boston at one time that "taxation without representation is tyranny". Who is representing the taxpaying legal immigrant?
Not the same thing.
Women were denied the right to vote based on their gender, with no process to follow to become legal voters.
Immigrants are not denied a right to vote with no recourse. They may apply to become citizens and then enjoy the fruits of that citizenship by voting. Extending those rights by circumventing that process is not the same as extending the rights in recognition of a lack of process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jen Stewart
Not only in Boston
Until the 1920s, non-citizen legal immigrants could vote in local elections in 40 states. Boston is actually behind many other areas in permitting local people affected by local decisions to participate in local affairs http://www.immigrantvoting.org/statescurrent/USoverview.html
http://www.immigrantvoting.org/statescurrent/statelist.html
That said, one could argue that people that think immigrant voting is a bad idea should be consigned to live in places like Everett, which seems to be following Chelsea down the hole of corruption and profiteering by public officials. Chelsea collapsed years ago and went into state receivership for the same sort of reasons Everett is hideously corrupt: local officials regularly sell out the tax dollars and the health and safety of people who cannot vote for their own personal gain.
(and yes, immigrants DO PAY TAXES, either through their rents or through property ownership and through payroll taxes and sales taxes and excise taxes just like everybody else).
You may want to re-phrase the question
Adam, you may want to re-phrase this. The way it's worded now, it would appear you're asking us if people are not citizens of Boston should be able to vote (like citizins of another town), not legal immigrants (and if they are legal immigrants, wouldn't that make them citizens of Boston?)
Changed, thanks
In most places, only American citizens can vote in the community where they live. Arroyo's proposal would extend that right to immigrants who say they intend to become citizens.
How about....
I tell Arroyo that I intend to someday move back to Boston, can I, a US native citizen, vote there? What an idiotic proposal. As though the Democrats don't already have enough of a stranglehold on the government.
Baloney, Dave!!
"As if the Democrats don't have enough of a stranglehold on the government?"
That's total baloney, imo. It's the Republicans who've got the stranglehold on our government right now.
So, Arroyo would like to devalue citizenship?
One of the benefits of citizenship is voting. Why devalue citizenship by extending its rights to those who are not citizens?
If they'd like to vote, they can follow the same process that others before them have, and apply for citizenship.
And besides, this isn't likely about 'doing right' by immigrants. This is likely about politicians rubbing their hands together gleefully over the prospect of capturing an entire demographic of new voters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jen Stewart
Becoming a citizen isn't straightforward
If any immigrant could immediately become a citizen by just walking into an office, paying a fee, and taking an exam, I'd agree with you.
But in fact, this process takes years, if the immigrant is eligible for it at all. Meanwhile, she's paying taxes and sending her kids to local schools. Giving her a voice and a vote strengthens the democratic process and helps integrate her into the community.
I'm rather amused by the
I'm rather amused by the work and tax-based arguments for letting foreigners vote. Should non-working or non-tax-paying citizens be denied the right to vote, or does it just feel good rhetorically to say "work" or "taxes" in the context of voting rights for foreigners?
Foreigners (and naturalized citizens) who are anxious to integrate themselves with native society should start off by learning English and consuming less foreign-language domestic media.
who are we kidding. This is
who are we kidding. This is a country which boasts about being the protector of democracy around the world --- yet took 150 years allow voting rights for the blacks! What about the Florida and Iowa sham in the past two presidential elections? Hypocrisy at its best!
what happened in Iowa?
I don't recall hearing of any problems with Iowa elections in recent years. Say more?
Brings to mind Cleveland Amory
"Here in Boston, my dear, we pronounce that 'Ohio.' "
It was both Florida and Ohio where the last two Presidential
elections were hijacked--and stolen right out from under our noses. Moreover, the American people have allowed that to happen--twice!!