[macintologist]

A non-citizen who legally lives and works in the United States should be able to vote in our elections. They pay taxes, they are upstanding members of the community and more than likely provide some sort of product or service that is beneficial to society. It could be anything, almost every single job a foreigner does is in some way beneficial.

Not to mention that they pay taxes.

They should be able to vote. Hell there are welfare leeches that offer nothing to society, yet they can vote, but this wonderful tax-paying foreigner cannot?

[probablecause]

Being a legal non-citizen is good, but in order to show commitment to the country you live in one should become a citizen. There are tons of legal resident aliens who get corporate sponsorships and then return to Switzerland or wherever after a few months. Why should such an individual get to vote? I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any (or many) countries that allow non-citizens to vote.

You should get to vote in the country you're born in even if you're a poor "welfare leech".

[marden]

Originally Posted by probablecause 

Being a legal non-citizen is good, but in order to show commitment to the country you live in one should become a citizen. There are tons of legal resident aliens who get corporate sponsorships and then return to Switzerland or wherever after a few months. Why should such an individual get to vote? I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any (or many) countries that allow non-citizens to vote.

You should get to vote in the country you're born in even if you're a poor "welfare leech".

[The Godfather]

This proposition is completely against the concept of citizenship. The only voters in any given country should be their citizens. "The people" in the phrase "a government by the people" should have a limited meaning, and this meaning is limited to its citizens, not its visitors.

Let's say that legal resident from country A can become a citizen of country B in less than 5 years. Is this wait too long or too short to prove loyalty to the host country.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

This proposition is completely against the concept of citizenship. The only voters in any given country should be their citizens. "The people" in the phrase "a government by the people" should have a limited meaning, and this meaning is limited to its citizens, not its visitors.

Let's say that legal resident from country A can become a citizen of country B in less than 5 years. Is this wait too long or too short to prove loyalty to the host country.

To become a citizen, you must be willing to swear your loyalty to the United States. You must give up your allegiance to any other country. You must agree to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. When you become a citizen, you accept all of the responsibilities of being an American. In return, you get certain rights and privileges of citizenship.


Why Become a U.S. Citizen?

Permanent residents have most of the rights of U.S. citizens. But there are many important reasons to consider becoming a U.S. citizen. Here are some good reasons:

• Showing your patriotism. Becoming a citizen is a way to demonstrate your commitment to your new country.

• Voting. Only citizens can vote in federal elections.

• Serving on a jury. Only U.S. citizens can serve on a jury. Serving on a jury is an important responsibility for U.S. citizens.

• Traveling with a U.S. passport. A U.S. passport enables you to get assistance from the U.S. government when overseas, if necessary.

• Bringing family members to the U.S. U.S. citizens generally get priority when petitioning to bring family members permanently to this country.


• Obtaining citizenship for children born abroad. In most cases, a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. citizen.

• Becoming eligible for federal jobs. Certain jobs with government agencies require U.S. citizenship.

• Becoming an elected official. Many elected offices in this country require U.S. citizenship.

• Meeting tax requirements. Tax requirements may be different for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

• Keeping your residency. A U.S. citizen’s right to remain in the United States cannot be taken away.

• Becoming eligible for federal grants and scholarships. Many financial aid grants, including college scholarships and funds given by the government for specific purposes, are available only to U.S. citizens.

• Obtaining government benefits. Some government benefits are available only to U.S. citizens.

Guide for New Immigrants: Becoming a U.S. CitizenGuide for New Immigrants: Becoming a U.S. CitizenGuide for New Immigrants: Becoming a U.S. Citizen

[RAILhead]

Uhh...okay.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

A non-citizen who legally lives and works in the United States should be able to vote in our elections. They pay taxes, they are upstanding members of the community and more than likely provide some sort of product or service that is beneficial to society. It could be anything, almost every single job a foreigner does is in some way beneficial.

Not to mention that they pay taxes.

They should be able to vote. Hell there are welfare leeches that offer nothing to society, yet they can vote, but this wonderful tax-paying foreigner cannot?

Umm... you're joking... right?

[The Godfather]

Let's say you are a citizen of country A and country B offers you citizenship. If you take the offer, should you be obligated to relinquish your country A citizenship?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

If you are a citizen of country A and country B offers you citizenship, should country A revoke your citizenship?

Not at all. Just because another country offers citizenship doesn't change anything. Maybe the question you meant to ask was what happens if one ACCEPTS citizenship to another country?

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

Let's say you are a citizen of country A and country B offers you citizenship. If you take the offer, should you be obligated to relinquish your country A citizenship?

Questions and answers on dual US/other citizenship

22. Are there any disadvantages to dual US/other citizenship?

Aside from the possibility that one or the other country might decide to impose distasteful restrictions on you because they consider you to be one of their citizens, there are at least two issues that you might (or might not) see as causes for concern.

If your line of work requires you to have a security clearance for accessing classified US government information, you may very possibly find that actively acquiring or retaining a foreign citizenship may cause you to be refused clearance (or may cause a clearance you already have to be revoked). If this might affect you, you would be well advised to consult with a knowledgeable lawyer.

If you are seriously planning to seek a political office in the US -- especially in the federal government -- it is extremely possible that having a second citizenship may be a serious liability. Your opponent will almost certainly be sorely tempted to (mis)represent your status for his/her own political gain -- questioning your loyalty to the US and your suitability for office -- and any efforts on your part to explain or justify your situation are likely to fall on deaf ears. This is less likely to be an issue if you are running for a state or local office.

[macintologist]

To become a citizen, you must be willing to swear your loyalty to the United States. You must give up your allegiance to any other country. You must agree to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. When you become a citizen, you accept all of the responsibilities of being an American. In return, you get certain rights and privileges of citizenship.

Funny since naturally born citizens never had to do that. They could hate this country for all I know and still vote. A legal permanent resident on the other hand, who pays taxes and contribues to society, cannot?

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

[ink]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Funny since naturally born citizens never had to do that. They could hate this country for all I know and still vote. A legal permanent resident on the other hand, who pays taxes and contribues to society, cannot?

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

It's not just a financial question; it's a civic question. Issues such as energy policy, education and civil rights have little to do with income taxes. It's great that one chooses to work in a foreign country, but that's only half-way there.

Besides, you can still vote in your country of origin until you obtain dual citizenship or expatriate.

And "idiots"? C'mon macintologist...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

I didn't ask anyone to come here and pay any damned income tax.

Don't like that you're (supposedly) paying taxes? Go the F back to your own country.

[marden]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Funny since naturally born citizens never had to do that. They could hate this country for all I know and still vote. A legal permanent resident on the other hand, who pays taxes and contribues to society, cannot?

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

The ones who hate America but were born and raised here are quietly sent away and never again heard from. The brainwashing and secret food additives aren't 100% effective. And for the new people it takes about 5 years (min) for the process to work on them. That's why you have to be a CONTINUOUS resident for that long.

But I think Crash Harddrive makes a VERY cogent point.

Based on your attitude, however, I think you will never get to vote here. You seem to be an angry, angry foreigner who lacks good judgment.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

I pay sales tax when I buy CDs from Japan. Do you reckon I should get all the benefits of Japanese citizenship because I supply their government with money?

[RAILhead]

I think poor old macintologist has hit a new low.

He's now in Moniqueland.

[Kevin]

This whole thread is just absurd.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Not at all. Just because another country offers citizenship doesn't change anything. Maybe the question you meant to ask was what happens if one ACCEPTS citizenship to another country?

Yeah. That's exactly what I meant. I changed my question accordingly.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Funny since naturally born citizens never had to do that. They could hate this country for all I know and still vote. A legal permanent resident on the other hand, who pays taxes and contribues to society, cannot?

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

Are you suggesting that coutries should take on the Baptist model? To become a citizen, you must:
1. Be an adult, not an infant
2. Take and pass a civics/morals course
3. The teacher will try to sway you 3 times (borrowed from another religion)
4. Publicly profess your allegiance to the nation
5. Be dunked in the river

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Funny since naturally born citizens never had to do that. They could hate this country for all I know and still vote. A legal permanent resident on the other hand, who pays taxes and contribues to society, cannot?

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

My... someone's bitter!

If you are one of the few lucky ones to be granted permanent residency, take the next step and get your citizenship. It's not a matter of paying some taxes. Voting is a right, granted only to citizens. As well it should be.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I pay sales tax when I buy CDs from Japan. Do you reckon I should get all the benefits of Japanese citizenship because I supply their government with money?

[Dakar²]

I just don't see what the big deal is. If they want to vote citizenship isn't that hard to obtain for a resident alien. If they don't want to become a citizen but want to vote then they must have something against this country to begin with.

[Millennium]

So macintologist, are you prepared to apply this to democracies worldwide, or only the US? As far as I'm aware, no country implements your proposal, and with good reason: it's handing out power without responsibility. Is a formal commitment to a country, in the form of citizenship, really too much to ask before that country grants voting rights?

[macintologist]

Why is it that voting is the only thing that distinguishes citizens from legal residents. They can apply for all the same benefits. They can pay into FICA and get social security back. They can apply to scholarships, join the military, get a drivers license. The fact that they can't vote is just plain wrong IMO since the government is stealing enough of their money via the income tax as it is.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Why is it that voting is the only thing that distinguishes citizens from legal residents. They can apply for all the same benefits. They can pay into FICA and get social security back. They can apply to scholarships, join the military, get a drivers license. The fact that they can't vote is just plain wrong IMO since the government is stealing enough of their money via the income tax as it is.

You have yet to answer anyone's question to you. You just repeated the same thing you've been saying.

Just admit it, you really didn't think this all the way through before you posted.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Funny since naturally born citizens never had to do that. They could hate this country for all I know and still vote. A legal permanent resident on the other hand, who pays taxes and contribues to society, cannot?

Do you idiots understand the concept that if you're going to pay an income tax to a government, you damn well should have a say in how that government spends YOUR money.

Natural-born citizens do not have to swear loyalty because - having been born here - they have never held fealty to any other sovereign state. The oath is more a fore-swearance of previous loyalties - duh.

Paying income tax is NOT any kind of a measuring stick for voting.

For instance, just because you own a share (or thousands of shares) of Wal-Mart stock, it doesn't give you the right to walk into your local Wal-Mart and fire the manager and hire someone else, either.

Now who's the idiot?

[RAILhead]

Oo oo — I know, I KNOW!!!11!

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You have yet to answer anyone's question to you. You just repeated the same thing you've been saying.

Just admit it, you really didn't think this all the way through before you posted.

If it's a matter of swearing an oath to a foreign nation, that could easily be done by a naturally born citizen. Still not a good enough reason to deny them their rights.

[Chuckit]

Non-citizens don't have a right to vote in U.S. elections just the same as I don't have a right to vote in Australian elections. You can't be denied a right that's not yours.

Also, voting is not the only thing that distinguishes a citizen from a non-citizen. Aliens can't hold any elected office, nor can they vote for them. Only citizens of a country are allowed to lead that country. In a democracy, voting is leading the country.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

If it's a matter of swearing an oath to a foreign nation, that could easily be done by a naturally born citizen. Still not a good enough reason to deny them their rights.

Oh.. I think I figured it out... you're from Bizarro world...right?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Oh.. I think I figured it out... you're from Bizarro world...right?

I'm not a weirdo that thinks farm animals should be paid for their labor and have their own bank accounts.

I'm talking about human beings dammit, that happen to live in this country, which the government happens to STEAL their money in the form of an income tax.

[Chuckit]

People who "happen to live in this country"? Like, they just inadvertently moved to a foreign country, attained permanent residency and stopped short of getting citizenship? Yeah, I'm sure there are so many people who just stumbled into those circumstances without knowing what was going on.

I don't like income tax either, but that's entirely unrelated. If you want to vote in a democracy, become a citizen of that country. This isn't brain surgery here.

[Spliffdaddy]

um, the government isn't stealing the income tax money from non-citizens.

You said yourself that they are entitled to government benefits and use of the roadways and infrastructure.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I'm not a weirdo that thinks farm animals should be paid for their labor and have their own bank accounts.

I'm talking about human beings dammit, that happen to live in this country, which the government happens to STEAL their money in the form of an income tax.

Not all rights are inborn. Some must be earned, and one of those is voting. You earn that by making a commitment to your country, i.e. by becoming a citizen. If you aren't willing to make the commitment, that's fine, but you don't get the benefits of that commitment. What is so wrong with this?

And I ask again: do you believe that noncitizens should have the vote in all democracies, or only the US?

[Tuoder]

While I do think that taxation and representation should be intrinsically tied to each other, I don't think that permanent residents should be able to vote. I advocate the opposite approach. They should pay fewer taxes.

They should be compelled to pay for the public services that they use. Law enforcement, social security, and road maintinence and building are examples. Permanent residents should not be compelled to pay for public services that do not benefit them, where ever practical. The problem with this is that it would lead to an even more bloated tax code.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

A non-citizen who legally lives and works in the United States should be able to vote in our elections. They pay taxes, they are upstanding members of the community and more than likely provide some sort of product or service that is beneficial to society. It could be anything, almost every single job a foreigner does is in some way beneficial.

Not to mention that they pay taxes.

They should be able to vote. Hell there are welfare leeches that offer nothing to society, yet they can vote, but this wonderful tax-paying foreigner cannot?

I tend to agree with that. At least in local elections. The funny thing being that this would probably increase the voting rate.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

So macintologist, are you prepared to apply this to democracies worldwide, or only the US? As far as I'm aware, no country implements your proposal, and with good reason: it's handing out power without responsibility. Is a formal commitment to a country, in the form of citizenship, really too much to ask before that country grants voting rights?

Actually immigrants have some voting rights in some countries, albeit limited.

http://www.immigrantvoting.org/material/world.html

'Today, approximately 40 countries have approved some form of immigrant suffrage. Since 1994, Belgium, Austria, and Rome have approved laws according various levels of voting rights to noncitizen residents.'

This is a growing trend.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

While I do think that taxation and representation should be intrinsically tied to each other, I don't think that permanent residents should be able to vote. I advocate the opposite approach. They should pay fewer taxes.

They should be compelled to pay for the public services that they use. Law enforcement, social security, and road maintinence and building are examples. Permanent residents should not be compelled to pay for public services that do not benefit them, where ever practical. The problem with this is that it would lead to an even more bloated tax code.

That makes a LOT of sense!

Then, as the permanent residents began to eat up more of the tax dollars than they provide and their numbers started to increase because the land of Freedom suddenly had the immigration equivalent of a "White Sale" (imagine the WAILING if I called it a 'Brown Sale' ) imagine the ads...

MUSIC: James Brown's "Living in America"

Best Freedom - Lowest Taxes - Most Social Services

Where?

Only in AMERICA!!!

Face it only a few of us are cute, Malawiian or lucky enough to be adopted by this woman


For everyone else you have to take the slower route, but if you win you win BIG!

MUSIC: Fades down then quickly up for James Brown's 3 word shout...

"I FEEL GOOD!"

The citizens would QUICKLY vote to stop ALL immigration.

I guess that would solve THAT problem.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

That makes a LOT of sense!

Then, as the permanent residents began to eat up more of the tax dollars than they provide and their numbers started to increase because the land of Freedom suddenly had the immigration equivalent of a "White Sale" (imagine the WAILING if I called it a 'Brown Sale' ) imagine the ads...

If someone does not use a service as a result of being an immigrant, then how does that cause them to eat more tax dollars than they provide?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

If someone does not use a service as a result of being an immigrant, then how does that cause them to eat more tax dollars than they provide?

You know what?

I did something that I regularly find fault with others for doing.

Not reading your post thoroughly or completely.

I plead, "Guilty."

Many apologies.

But if it's all the same to you I'll leave the post as it has a nice Madonna photo and a reference to James Brown in it.



Good times.

[Macrobat]

As far as "what other countries do," there is the age-old question I'm sure everyone's parents asked them in some form at some time in their lives:

"If Bobby jumps off a bridge, does that mean you're gonna jump off the bridge, too?"

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

As far as "what other countries do," there is the age-old question I'm sure everyone's parents asked them in some form at some time in their lives:

"If Bobby jumps off a bridge, does that mean you're gonna jump off the bridge, too?"

and?...

[Macrobat]

Would you?

[ghporter]

No. Wrong. Absolutely not. Never!

I spent almost all my life defending the Constitution of the United States. It EXPLICITLY allows ONLY citizens to vote. Why? Because a citizen has a stake in voting well. This may be kind of moot nowadays, but that's why it's there. A non-citizen would not have such a stake, and could certainly have reasons to vote BADLY. Imagine a large number of people, motivated to hurt the U.S. but not explicitly banned from becoming legal residents. Now imagine them intentionally voting in such a way that a particularly bad candidate gets elected so that they can disrupt the nation. It could happen very easily in a scenario where non-citizens are allowed to vote.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

No. Wrong. Absolutely not. Never!

I spent almost all my life defending the Constitution of the United States. It EXPLICITLY allows ONLY citizens to vote. Why? Because a citizen has a stake in voting well. This may be kind of moot nowadays, but that's why it's there. A non-citizen would not have such a stake, and could certainly have reasons to vote BADLY. Imagine a large number of people, motivated to hurt the U.S. but not explicitly banned from becoming legal residents. Now imagine them intentionally voting in such a way that a particularly bad candidate gets elected so that they can disrupt the nation. It could happen very easily in a scenario where non-citizens are allowed to vote.

It already exists but many of these people are ALREADY citizens.

On April 19, 2006, Saudi Islamist cleric Sheikh Dr. Nasser Al-'Omar appeared on Al-Jazeera delivering a lecture on jihad. In it, he said, "The Islamic nation now faces a great phase of jihad," and added "There are places where jihad is proper - Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, and the Philippines." He also told his audience that the U.S. was "disappearing" - echoing his statement on Al-Majd TV on June 13, 2004 that "America is collapsing," and that Muslims "must be patient."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...mp;ID=SP115406

According to the Sheikh, America is already disappearing in the hearts of Americans "and that Muslims "must be patient."

[medicineman]

On second thought, it might be a good thing. They could vote to cede California to Mexico. Win/win.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

On second thought, it might be a good thing. They could vote to cede California to Mexico. Win/win.

California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado & Utah all belong to Mexico.

To deny any citizen of Mexico the right to vote on their own land is offensive.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by The Left 

California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado & Utah all belong to Mexico.

To deny any citizen of Mexico the right to vote on their own land is offensive.

Do you have a deed or receipt for that?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by The Left 

California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado & Utah all belong to Mexico.

To deny any citizen of Mexico the right to vote on their own land is offensive.

By that logic, we should give the entire rest of the country to the Native Americans. That is a terrible idea, and a deeply flawed belief.

[The Left]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

By that logic, we should give the entire rest of the country to the Native Americans. That is a terrible idea, and a deeply flawed belief.

well actually yes, reparations are due to Native Americans along with true soverienty.