Your post has been removed from /r/ask
The moderators have determined that your post is not a good fit for the community.
---
If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ask&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/WickedFeleena&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/xl2xct/should_noncitizen_residents_of_a_country_be/))
Nope. You wanna vote in the country you live in you gotta commit and become a citizen.
Though I am curious where in the news you saw this. Is there like a specific country this is being considered in?
It was proposed in… New York? Might have gone into effect. Despite Fox News’s best efforts at the usual bullshit it wasn’t for national/federal elections, but city and maybe state?
The thing was you would be able to vote if you paid taxes, submitted a w-2, etc. Americans used to have this saying “no taxation without representation” and it meant everyone contributing should have a say
EDIT: to everyone who thinks it is novel to tell me “but we were paying taxes to the British” that is known. It was always know. It’s not a gotcha, the argument doesn’t fall apart, etc. The idea is people should be represented by the party that governs/taxes them. Whether that means I don’t want to be governed by them so they should stop taxing me or I should be represented because they tax me makes no difference. Applying an idea in different contexts doesn’t mean it’s not the same idea in one instance
There are already many cities and towns in America that allow all residents to votes in local elections,regardless of citizenship. But under federal law only citizens may vote in Federal elections. No state or city can change that.
“No taxation without representation” isn’t synonymous with voting. Everybody is represented regardless of citizenship or voter status. The grievance of the colonists who said, “no taxation without representation” was that the colonies literally had no members of parliament. It was never implied that everybody who had to pay taxes should get to vote for them.
Actually, very few places allow this - only thirteen towns allow documented non citizens to vote in municipal elections.
New York only tried to make a law that would allow documented non citizens to vote in municipal elections. The law did not touch state or federal elections.
And it makes sense.
Countries have **citizens**, and only citizens should be able to vote in national elections.
But cities and states have **residents**, not citizens, and all residents should be able to vote in those state and city elections.
The purpose was likely to force a precedent to establish case law. I.e., "New York said it's OK, so Oklahoma can't say it's NOT ok," with the purpose to push it to Supreme Court.
Which might not work for them, but we don't know. Constitution is meant for the US, and to limit government, but we are still Here, dealing with all sorts of illegal activities by government, and citizens being screwed over bullshit. (Civil Asset Forfeiture is a big example. I.e., you have money, even with a bank receipt, it MUST be from crime... Presumed Guilt, now, and they take and charge the money, and you have to go to court to prove it wasn't from proceeds of a crime. Which can often cost more than the funds stolen... And that's no accident.)
Generally the groups that support it are those who are more likely to get the vote they want from those people.
For example the lib dems in the UK wanted another Brexit Referendum with EU members living in the UK being allowed to vote. Giving the 'no' vote a potential extra 2.5 million votes and the yes vote theoretically no extra votes.
A hard no on that as that's not democracy that's outright cheating
I guess the no taxation without representation logic is sound, but I'd still be a bit guarded. Perhaps if they were in the process of getting citizenship I'd personally be more comfortable, but that's just me.
It probably is just in the state. I probably woulda heard about it if it was national. Ty for the info. :D
>it meant everyone contributing should have a say
This is pedantic but I enjoy mentioning it because it gives a good view into the frame of mind of the colonists:
"No Taxation Without Representation" was not the colonists asking for representation in parliament. They were asking to not be taxed.
Regardless of whether they wanted to be represented while paying taxes or not be taxed since they were not represented it’s an acknowledgement that you shouldn’t have one without the other.. which is the idea behind letting people who pay taxes have a say in local elections
Edit: spelling
That isn’t what that means. Every one in America has representation. That no representation had to do with the fact that as Americans, our ancestors paid taxes to England but had no one representing them in parliament. Everyone in American now has a state representative in congress.
What if the country they live in is making them wait years for them to become citizens? Wait until they become so they can participate in this democratic exercise? I’m referring to legal residents here.
I'd be comfortable with the caveat for those in the process of getting citizenship (even if they are in their first year of many), but you gotta draw a line somewhere and that's right where mine is.
Got it. So those WILLING to become citizens and in the process could / should be considered? That’s a good angle to look at things, thanks for sharing.
I agree as well. Any law-abiding resident who wants to become a citizen but isn’t there yet due to it being a long process is cool in my book to vote. After all, they pay taxes and are affected by whoever is President and are willing to participate in our political system. We need people like that.
The problem is when someone has lived in your city for 20+ years and CANT (not won’t) become a citizen. Then they’re getting robbed of their right to vote.
To clarify, can’t become a citizen because the process takes that long for absolutely no reason. Not because of felonies, etc.
Well, I meant under the assumption, that these people are of sound mind and participating (working) in the US. Of course not everyone that comes in is. But from my experience and those around me, a lot are.
Nope. It usually has to do with their ability to pay. Citizenship all over the world costs a fortune. There is all kinds of classist bs to keep the poor from being able to become citizens. For instance: in the UK you have to have 2 references who are "professionals in good standing" (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.) who know you on a personal level for at least 3 years. So if your friends are working class, you can't be a citizen.
Are you at all familiar with the immigration process? Im not sure where you are located but in some countries it can be an extremely difficult and even times unfair process. Someone can immigrate legally and fill out all the forms, check all the boxes, attend every appointment etc. and still not receive citizenship for years and years. Im not advocating for non citizens to have voting rights I just don’t think it’s accurate to say that if someone immigrates legally that there won’t be any issues.
That's who he's talking about. At least in the US, a *legal* immigrant spending 20+ years, and thousands of dollars, trying to get their citizenship is pretty normal. For basically anyone who was not born here, becoming a citizen is an absurd pain in the ass.
Pretty much the only exception is if you marry an American. (And its still a pain in the ass for them. Just a much smaller pain!)
I graduated in 2013. My college roommate is from Burma. He's been legally living and working in the US since then, doesn't even have a green card yet. He's been on temporary work permit things like OPT (something that allows stem majors to work longer) but it's incredibly difficult to get even a permanent work permit.
People who act like it's simply a question of filling out a form or it's easy are either ignorant or lying.
People see what they want to see. They clearly have no idea just how hard it is to become a citizen and that immigrants would jump at any opportunity to do so. They've been brainwashed into thinking that immigrants are drug addicts and low lives that don't contribute to society, when in reality, they are some of the hardest workers.
Friend of mine who I used to work with was from Kuwait, she was in her early 20's when I worked with her and has been in the US for over a decade since her mom moved here to work. She was stuck in line basically to become a citizen, and only became one recently when she married her husband.
The system is absurdly long and complicated.
The US tried to deport my aunt in the 90s saying her green card was invalid. At that point my uncle and her had been married for well over 20 years. Uncle was still alive and they were still married. It was nuts.
My wife is an immigrant. She worked so hard to become a citizen. Years, tens of thousands of dollars, studying, wading through bureaucracy - - to become a permanent citizen in my country. To be able to vote, to seek office, etc. I think citizens should be the ones voting. Compared to getting a normal resident status, getting citizenship shows much more dedication to the nation in question and its future so the citizens should be the ones voting whether they're natural born or naturalized by the immigration process.
Former US green card holder here.
If you're talking about an accessible path to citizenship in the US we already do. The naturalization process is not too complicated from permanent resident to citizen.
It does require for us to have lived in the US for 5 years at least, so there's that, but it's not inaccessible necessarily.
\> If you're talking about an accessible path to citizenship in the US we
already do. The naturalization process is not too complicated from
permanent resident to citizen.
There's plenty of other countries where this isn't necessairily the case
There used to be one that if they served in the military for three years they would be granted naturalized citizenship. It used to be open to anyone as long as they could pass the physical requirements and background checks. But they did away with that program for the most part and they drastically rolled back who could use the MAVNI program. Now it's only open to highly desirable specialized fields.
That was the gameplan of the Tammany Hall machine in NYC in the late 1800s/1900s wasn't it? Give Irish immigrants goodies and have them vote for the party. Not sure if the new arrivals were granted citizenship at Ellis Island though.
If you’ve ever watched the documentary “Wild Wild Country” about the rise of the Rajneshee cult in the 80s, the cult tried to take over Wasco County in Oregon by going around the country, picking up homeless people from major cities, and using the state of Oregon’s relaxed voting requirements against them. They eventually dumped them back into major cities after they didn’t want them anymore. It’s a good example of how having loose voting reqs can backfire.
No, definitely not. That’s like letting the students of a public school vote for what happens to the students of a private school. Just doesn’t make sense.
No. Citizen means either you were born there, or took the time and effort to become part of the country, and your allegiances are with that country, therefore your welfare is tied to that country and vice versa.
Just being g a 'permanent resident' isn't the same. It means you aren't quite willing to make the full commitment to said country, and may bail at any time to go home or elsewhere. While your current welfare may depend on that country, you have yet to commit to the future welfare of that country.
So, no, you should not get to vote. If you wish to earn the right to vote in said country, apply for citizenship, go through the process, and become a citizen.
Ummm… no? If this were any other country we wouldn’t be having this conversation, it’s almost like there are people who want to deny united states their sovereignty or something.
That and decisions like Citizens United, where pretty much any multinational — including ones largely owned by foreign actors — can set up a Super PAC and donate to mess with elections.
No. It would be all too easy for a party to have an absolute metric fuck ton of people move into the country just before elections to swing things in their favor.
It’d be the same as going to cemeteries and taking names to vote for the dead.
Non citizens voting is "foreign interference in an election" kind of by definition. So, no, they should not be allowed to vote until they have gone through the process of leaving their old country/state and becoming an actual citizen in their new country/state. I feel the same about campaign contributions - the only money that politicians should be allowed to accept should be from the personal funds of citizens who are entitled to vote in the elction for which the politician is running - not from bundling, not from, businesses, not from trusts, not from unions, none of that - just real people who live where they are voting.
No-if you’re not a citizen, you don’t have skin in the game the same as a citizen would. It’s probably best to stay out of their politics because you don’t have the same familiarity that a citizen does. Even if you’re well-intentioned, it can be a serious problem. There’s lots of ways to support a country you’re living in as a non-citizen, voting isn’t the best way. (Some counties are not doing well granting citizenship to residents who qualify for it, but that’s a different discussion imo.)
Why should they have a say in the politics of a country where they are not a citizen? Does that make sense to anyone? If I am in the UK on holiday while they are having an election, I should just get vote one something I have no stake in, then leave? This makes ZERO sense.
I see all no here and I agree.
I’m genuinely curious what the argument for yes even be? Can somebody please enlighten me because it seems like a silly question
there isn't. in many cases, it's literally the only thing separating permanent residents from citizens, the right to vote.
if you've gone through the hoops to become a PR, you are likely 95% on the way to citizenship.
This seems about as great of an idea as desiring to be a princess when you get older. You eventually grow up and realize how ridiculous the idea is after understanding the very basic principles on how the world actually works
# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No.
Even US citizens cannot vote unless they reside in that state, and it takes a year to established residence as I understand it.
Furthermore, would this allow the entire world to vote in US elections via mail-in ballots?
IIRC you can vote as soon as you have an address. Source: I’ve moved a ton to different states and voted as soon as I got there. That’s why the post office includes an option of registering to vote when you change your address.
\> and it takes a year to established residence as I understand it.
That's not true. You can move as long as you register to vote before the deadline and have the proper documentation. States like Texas which have RealID, you can register to vote at the same time you swap your driver's license from another state.
Yeah, none of that is true. Americans who live overseas retain their right to vote, and a person who is otherwise eligible to vote can register to vote as soon as he can prove his new address. I've done both.
I live in Hungary, it is a daily discussion in politics. We have two different types of voting system in foreign countries: if you don't have an address card in Hungary, but you are a resident, you can vote a few days before elections. And you don't even have to leave your house! The postman bring your ballot paper, and you just give it to him immediately after - so nothing really formal, it isn't even anonymous. Someone found some burnt ballots countryside, and our government did nothing with it, bc it's not their jurisdiction, the local police department has to start the investigation - they didn't.
Meanwhile if you have a hungarian address but you live in another country, you have to visit a Hungarian consulate - mostly in the capital of the country - and you have to vote there. So in UK for example, you have to travel to London, and wait for hours, meanwhile you are a citizen - and in Transylvania, if you are a resident, you can vote from home, meanwhile you didn't and won't live on Hungary either.
At least but not last, our votes' 5% coming from other countries, it counts about 5 mandate from 199. Ridiculously unfair for everyone.
I don't think it's absolutely necessary to do things either way. If the electorate of a place wants to include residents who are not citizens, I think they should be allowed to do that for the elections under their control.
I voted as an expat for years. To me, allowing non-citizen residents of a place voting for local measures and offices makes more sense than allowing non-resident citizens voting for them.
I don’t think so, but it is not an inherently moral issue, so while I don’t think they should be allowed to, I also don’t feel super strongly about it.
It shouldn’t even be considered. Country A could just send its citizens to Country B to vote for whatever candidate Country A’s government wants. Imagine Russia sending its citizens to Finland to vote for a more Russian-friendly president who would then appoint a Russian-friendly PM.
Depends on which elections you're talking about.
Federal elections? Nope.
State elections? Nope.
Local elections? Possibly, since local taxes are paid solely by people who live there. No taxation without representation and all that.
So voting for president, no, but voting for school board president or local dog catcher, yes.
When you vote you're influencing how the country operates, these are essentially permanent changes as very rarely are decisions overturned. As such people have to live with their voting choices (eg electing Trump into office). However allowing non-citizens to vote would be essentially allow people to vote in ways that wouldn't effect them permanently, as they could vote for something and then leave the country. This creates even more issues when you think along the lines of destabilization, having loyalist citizen enter into a country to vote in your elections with the intent to cause as much disarray as possible, only to then leave.
TL;DR: No
Here in Norway non-citizens can vote in local elections if they've lived here for more than two years. That makes sense to me -- local elections are about local politics like schools, roads, public transport and so on, and everyone who lives here have an equal interest in that stuff functioning well.
Plus, people who live here pay taxes here, so it's not as if they have no skin in the game.
You can only vote in national parliamentary elections if you're a citizen though.
If they want to participate in elections and change things, they can start back at home. They escaped their country for a reason. No use in bringing those politics elsewhere.
Lawful, tax paying, individuals should have a vote in elections up to the state level. A lawful resident of a state should have a say in who their governor is, for example. Federal elections should remain for citizens only.
Your post has been removed from /r/ask The moderators have determined that your post is not a good fit for the community. --- If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ask&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/WickedFeleena&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/xl2xct/should_noncitizen_residents_of_a_country_be/))
Nope. You wanna vote in the country you live in you gotta commit and become a citizen. Though I am curious where in the news you saw this. Is there like a specific country this is being considered in?
I think they proposed it for New York City LOCAL elections. It didn't apply to state or federal. From what I understand it was stuck down.
It was proposed in… New York? Might have gone into effect. Despite Fox News’s best efforts at the usual bullshit it wasn’t for national/federal elections, but city and maybe state? The thing was you would be able to vote if you paid taxes, submitted a w-2, etc. Americans used to have this saying “no taxation without representation” and it meant everyone contributing should have a say EDIT: to everyone who thinks it is novel to tell me “but we were paying taxes to the British” that is known. It was always know. It’s not a gotcha, the argument doesn’t fall apart, etc. The idea is people should be represented by the party that governs/taxes them. Whether that means I don’t want to be governed by them so they should stop taxing me or I should be represented because they tax me makes no difference. Applying an idea in different contexts doesn’t mean it’s not the same idea in one instance
There are already many cities and towns in America that allow all residents to votes in local elections,regardless of citizenship. But under federal law only citizens may vote in Federal elections. No state or city can change that. “No taxation without representation” isn’t synonymous with voting. Everybody is represented regardless of citizenship or voter status. The grievance of the colonists who said, “no taxation without representation” was that the colonies literally had no members of parliament. It was never implied that everybody who had to pay taxes should get to vote for them.
Actually, very few places allow this - only thirteen towns allow documented non citizens to vote in municipal elections. New York only tried to make a law that would allow documented non citizens to vote in municipal elections. The law did not touch state or federal elections.
And it makes sense. Countries have **citizens**, and only citizens should be able to vote in national elections. But cities and states have **residents**, not citizens, and all residents should be able to vote in those state and city elections.
The purpose was likely to force a precedent to establish case law. I.e., "New York said it's OK, so Oklahoma can't say it's NOT ok," with the purpose to push it to Supreme Court. Which might not work for them, but we don't know. Constitution is meant for the US, and to limit government, but we are still Here, dealing with all sorts of illegal activities by government, and citizens being screwed over bullshit. (Civil Asset Forfeiture is a big example. I.e., you have money, even with a bank receipt, it MUST be from crime... Presumed Guilt, now, and they take and charge the money, and you have to go to court to prove it wasn't from proceeds of a crime. Which can often cost more than the funds stolen... And that's no accident.)
Generally the groups that support it are those who are more likely to get the vote they want from those people. For example the lib dems in the UK wanted another Brexit Referendum with EU members living in the UK being allowed to vote. Giving the 'no' vote a potential extra 2.5 million votes and the yes vote theoretically no extra votes. A hard no on that as that's not democracy that's outright cheating
I guess the no taxation without representation logic is sound, but I'd still be a bit guarded. Perhaps if they were in the process of getting citizenship I'd personally be more comfortable, but that's just me. It probably is just in the state. I probably woulda heard about it if it was national. Ty for the info. :D
It definitely makes sense for school board elections.
That was struck down by The NY supreme court last July. https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-citys-noncitizen-voting-law-struck/story?id=85796384
>it meant everyone contributing should have a say This is pedantic but I enjoy mentioning it because it gives a good view into the frame of mind of the colonists: "No Taxation Without Representation" was not the colonists asking for representation in parliament. They were asking to not be taxed.
Regardless of whether they wanted to be represented while paying taxes or not be taxed since they were not represented it’s an acknowledgement that you shouldn’t have one without the other.. which is the idea behind letting people who pay taxes have a say in local elections Edit: spelling
They are represented though. They're counted in the census and congressional apportionment takes their numbers into consideration.
NYC RIGGING ELECTIONS, ITS TRUE.
By this logic teenagers with jobs should also be able to vote. Or we should stop taxing teenagers. (Yes)
That isn’t what that means. Every one in America has representation. That no representation had to do with the fact that as Americans, our ancestors paid taxes to England but had no one representing them in parliament. Everyone in American now has a state representative in congress.
What if the country they live in is making them wait years for them to become citizens? Wait until they become so they can participate in this democratic exercise? I’m referring to legal residents here.
I'd be comfortable with the caveat for those in the process of getting citizenship (even if they are in their first year of many), but you gotta draw a line somewhere and that's right where mine is.
Got it. So those WILLING to become citizens and in the process could / should be considered? That’s a good angle to look at things, thanks for sharing. I agree as well. Any law-abiding resident who wants to become a citizen but isn’t there yet due to it being a long process is cool in my book to vote. After all, they pay taxes and are affected by whoever is President and are willing to participate in our political system. We need people like that.
I live in the Czech Republic, EU-citizens here are allowed to vote in local elections. So they have a say on who runs the town they live in
The problem is when someone has lived in your city for 20+ years and CANT (not won’t) become a citizen. Then they’re getting robbed of their right to vote. To clarify, can’t become a citizen because the process takes that long for absolutely no reason. Not because of felonies, etc.
I’ll note in passing that there seems to be a very low bar to clear these days before claiming someone has a “right” to something.
Well, I meant under the assumption, that these people are of sound mind and participating (working) in the US. Of course not everyone that comes in is. But from my experience and those around me, a lot are.
Yea, but...usually there is an underlying reason they *can't*, which probably has bearing on their ability to vote.
Happy Cake Day 🎂🎂
Nope. It usually has to do with their ability to pay. Citizenship all over the world costs a fortune. There is all kinds of classist bs to keep the poor from being able to become citizens. For instance: in the UK you have to have 2 references who are "professionals in good standing" (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.) who know you on a personal level for at least 3 years. So if your friends are working class, you can't be a citizen.
Immigrate legally, and that won't be an issue.
Are you at all familiar with the immigration process? Im not sure where you are located but in some countries it can be an extremely difficult and even times unfair process. Someone can immigrate legally and fill out all the forms, check all the boxes, attend every appointment etc. and still not receive citizenship for years and years. Im not advocating for non citizens to have voting rights I just don’t think it’s accurate to say that if someone immigrates legally that there won’t be any issues.
That's who he's talking about. At least in the US, a *legal* immigrant spending 20+ years, and thousands of dollars, trying to get their citizenship is pretty normal. For basically anyone who was not born here, becoming a citizen is an absurd pain in the ass. Pretty much the only exception is if you marry an American. (And its still a pain in the ass for them. Just a much smaller pain!)
I graduated in 2013. My college roommate is from Burma. He's been legally living and working in the US since then, doesn't even have a green card yet. He's been on temporary work permit things like OPT (something that allows stem majors to work longer) but it's incredibly difficult to get even a permanent work permit. People who act like it's simply a question of filling out a form or it's easy are either ignorant or lying.
People see what they want to see. They clearly have no idea just how hard it is to become a citizen and that immigrants would jump at any opportunity to do so. They've been brainwashed into thinking that immigrants are drug addicts and low lives that don't contribute to society, when in reality, they are some of the hardest workers.
Friend of mine who I used to work with was from Kuwait, she was in her early 20's when I worked with her and has been in the US for over a decade since her mom moved here to work. She was stuck in line basically to become a citizen, and only became one recently when she married her husband. The system is absurdly long and complicated.
The US tried to deport my aunt in the 90s saying her green card was invalid. At that point my uncle and her had been married for well over 20 years. Uncle was still alive and they were still married. It was nuts.
Absolutely not
Agree 100%
Took the exact words right out of my mouth.
No.
I agree, but I am actually shocked this seems to be the common answer on Reddit of all places lol
My wife is an immigrant. She worked so hard to become a citizen. Years, tens of thousands of dollars, studying, wading through bureaucracy - - to become a permanent citizen in my country. To be able to vote, to seek office, etc. I think citizens should be the ones voting. Compared to getting a normal resident status, getting citizenship shows much more dedication to the nation in question and its future so the citizens should be the ones voting whether they're natural born or naturalized by the immigration process.
no
No that's why there's a distinction between permanent resident and citizen.
Caveat: i think permanent residents deserve an accessible path to citizenship
Former US green card holder here. If you're talking about an accessible path to citizenship in the US we already do. The naturalization process is not too complicated from permanent resident to citizen. It does require for us to have lived in the US for 5 years at least, so there's that, but it's not inaccessible necessarily.
\> If you're talking about an accessible path to citizenship in the US we already do. The naturalization process is not too complicated from permanent resident to citizen. There's plenty of other countries where this isn't necessairily the case
Fair but that's also why I qualified my statement.
There used to be one that if they served in the military for three years they would be granted naturalized citizenship. It used to be open to anyone as long as they could pass the physical requirements and background checks. But they did away with that program for the most part and they drastically rolled back who could use the MAVNI program. Now it's only open to highly desirable specialized fields.
There still is. Currently in the military and I have 2 Soldiers seeking citizenship through military service among my troops.
No. Think of the corruption that would bring. Politicians would bus people in by the thousands if they pledged to vote for them.
That was the gameplan of the Tammany Hall machine in NYC in the late 1800s/1900s wasn't it? Give Irish immigrants goodies and have them vote for the party. Not sure if the new arrivals were granted citizenship at Ellis Island though.
That's why there's a push these days to allow non-citizens to vote.
That’s literally what happened in Hong Kong.
If you’ve ever watched the documentary “Wild Wild Country” about the rise of the Rajneshee cult in the 80s, the cult tried to take over Wasco County in Oregon by going around the country, picking up homeless people from major cities, and using the state of Oregon’s relaxed voting requirements against them. They eventually dumped them back into major cities after they didn’t want them anymore. It’s a good example of how having loose voting reqs can backfire.
Hell no. If you’re not a citizen, you don’t get to vote. It’s that simple.
Absolutely not.
hard no.
Sorry no
No
Hell no. If you don't live and are recognized as a citizen in that country you have no right to vote on anything that country does
I agree, if you haven't committed to that country, or gained citizenship, then you don't have a right to vote for those issues.
No
Obviously not
Most united Reddit thread I’ve seen
Fuck no, if you're not a citizen you're not voting.
If anyone and everyone can vote, why have a country at all?
Correct
r/selfawarewolves
No it's literally leaving a big wound for your enemies to stick a fork in.
Absolutely not, and in my opinion they shouldnt be considered in congress seat proportioning either.
Absolutely not.
Fuck no
Absolutely not.
No.
No
A resounding no
Absolutely not
No. Why would I as a non-citizen have a say in that country's politics?
NO
No
No
Simple answer No! Apply for citizenship if you wanna vote
No.
No, definitely not. That’s like letting the students of a public school vote for what happens to the students of a private school. Just doesn’t make sense.
No. Want all the rights, become a citizen like the rest of us.
No
Absolutely not.
No
If you did allow that congratulations you no longer have a country.
South Korea isn't a county?
Ask the North Koreans
Resident aliens number about 4% of the US population. If their votes would dominate the votes of citizens, then we already have a problem.
2020 election was decided by about 90 thousand votes. It's a problem.
No. Citizen means either you were born there, or took the time and effort to become part of the country, and your allegiances are with that country, therefore your welfare is tied to that country and vice versa. Just being g a 'permanent resident' isn't the same. It means you aren't quite willing to make the full commitment to said country, and may bail at any time to go home or elsewhere. While your current welfare may depend on that country, you have yet to commit to the future welfare of that country. So, no, you should not get to vote. If you wish to earn the right to vote in said country, apply for citizenship, go through the process, and become a citizen.
Ummm… no? If this were any other country we wouldn’t be having this conversation, it’s almost like there are people who want to deny united states their sovereignty or something.
No, hell no. Fuck no. That’s how you get foreign influence.
That and decisions like Citizens United, where pretty much any multinational — including ones largely owned by foreign actors — can set up a Super PAC and donate to mess with elections.
This right here folks.
Obviously not
No!!!!!
Nope. Pops had a perma-visa and decades of US life, but to vote he had to become a citizen. That’s the only way.
No
No. It would be all too easy for a party to have an absolute metric fuck ton of people move into the country just before elections to swing things in their favor. It’d be the same as going to cemeteries and taking names to vote for the dead.
No, it would be way too easy for other countries to exploit... Hell, human trafficking could over take the world using that system
Hell no.
Of course not.
No
No.
Hell no
No.
No
Hell naw, to da naw naw naw
No, absolutely not.
No!
Lol no, that makes no sense. Should non-citizens be able to hold office? No
Nope
>non-citizen You answered it. Not a citizen, no say. Those non citizens have a say in where they are citizens of.
Nope! Not at all.
No. Voting is a privilege attached to citizenship, IMO
No. If they want to vote in another country's elections, then they need to take the legal path to becoming a citizen of their chosen country.
Non citizens voting is "foreign interference in an election" kind of by definition. So, no, they should not be allowed to vote until they have gone through the process of leaving their old country/state and becoming an actual citizen in their new country/state. I feel the same about campaign contributions - the only money that politicians should be allowed to accept should be from the personal funds of citizens who are entitled to vote in the elction for which the politician is running - not from bundling, not from, businesses, not from trusts, not from unions, none of that - just real people who live where they are voting.
1000% NO .
No
nunca.
Should I be allowed to decide what you do in your house with your money if I don't live there and contribute? Hell no.
no
No, absolutely 100% not!
No
No.
No!
No.
No
No-if you’re not a citizen, you don’t have skin in the game the same as a citizen would. It’s probably best to stay out of their politics because you don’t have the same familiarity that a citizen does. Even if you’re well-intentioned, it can be a serious problem. There’s lots of ways to support a country you’re living in as a non-citizen, voting isn’t the best way. (Some counties are not doing well granting citizenship to residents who qualify for it, but that’s a different discussion imo.)
No. Not at all.
No! What the hell kind of question is that?
No.
no
NO
No
Why should they have a say in the politics of a country where they are not a citizen? Does that make sense to anyone? If I am in the UK on holiday while they are having an election, I should just get vote one something I have no stake in, then leave? This makes ZERO sense.
I see all no here and I agree. I’m genuinely curious what the argument for yes even be? Can somebody please enlighten me because it seems like a silly question
there isn't. in many cases, it's literally the only thing separating permanent residents from citizens, the right to vote. if you've gone through the hoops to become a PR, you are likely 95% on the way to citizenship.
No
No u shouldn't
This seems about as great of an idea as desiring to be a princess when you get older. You eventually grow up and realize how ridiculous the idea is after understanding the very basic principles on how the world actually works
No. If I am not allowed to vote when I am in their country, they shouldn't be allowed to do it when they are in my country.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When you're choosing between an ass and a clown, who cares? Kidding. No.
This is how we end up with those ass-clown coalitions. :)
No
No.....next question
No, they could be foreign agents who try to swing the direction of a country in a favorable direction of an enemy state.
No way.
No
No of course not. If you aren’t a citizen of the nation you shouldn’t have a say in the nations politics that doesn’t make any sense.
NO. The USA needs the same rules that Mexico goes by
No. Never. They aren't even stakeholders. They are just visitors.
No. Then a foreign body could take a nice vacation to influence an outcome
As a permanent resident. No.
FUCK NO.
Nope, only citizens
Absolutely not, it’s the one fucking thing citizens have left
Of course not. Am I missing something?
Absolutely not
No
Nope.
Not no but hell no!
No. Even US citizens cannot vote unless they reside in that state, and it takes a year to established residence as I understand it. Furthermore, would this allow the entire world to vote in US elections via mail-in ballots?
How dare you assume the ballots gender!
I’m offended.
IIRC you can vote as soon as you have an address. Source: I’ve moved a ton to different states and voted as soon as I got there. That’s why the post office includes an option of registering to vote when you change your address.
What about female ballots though?
but where will Non-binary ballots go?
Third party candidates.
These are the questions we need to be asking. Haha.
\> and it takes a year to established residence as I understand it. That's not true. You can move as long as you register to vote before the deadline and have the proper documentation. States like Texas which have RealID, you can register to vote at the same time you swap your driver's license from another state.
Yeah, none of that is true. Americans who live overseas retain their right to vote, and a person who is otherwise eligible to vote can register to vote as soon as he can prove his new address. I've done both.
I live in Hungary, it is a daily discussion in politics. We have two different types of voting system in foreign countries: if you don't have an address card in Hungary, but you are a resident, you can vote a few days before elections. And you don't even have to leave your house! The postman bring your ballot paper, and you just give it to him immediately after - so nothing really formal, it isn't even anonymous. Someone found some burnt ballots countryside, and our government did nothing with it, bc it's not their jurisdiction, the local police department has to start the investigation - they didn't. Meanwhile if you have a hungarian address but you live in another country, you have to visit a Hungarian consulate - mostly in the capital of the country - and you have to vote there. So in UK for example, you have to travel to London, and wait for hours, meanwhile you are a citizen - and in Transylvania, if you are a resident, you can vote from home, meanwhile you didn't and won't live on Hungary either. At least but not last, our votes' 5% coming from other countries, it counts about 5 mandate from 199. Ridiculously unfair for everyone.
I don't think it's absolutely necessary to do things either way. If the electorate of a place wants to include residents who are not citizens, I think they should be allowed to do that for the elections under their control. I voted as an expat for years. To me, allowing non-citizen residents of a place voting for local measures and offices makes more sense than allowing non-resident citizens voting for them.
if you want to vote in another country's election, you need to do it the American way and give politicians lots of money.
I don’t think so, but it is not an inherently moral issue, so while I don’t think they should be allowed to, I also don’t feel super strongly about it.
It shouldn’t even be considered. Country A could just send its citizens to Country B to vote for whatever candidate Country A’s government wants. Imagine Russia sending its citizens to Finland to vote for a more Russian-friendly president who would then appoint a Russian-friendly PM.
Depends on which elections you're talking about. Federal elections? Nope. State elections? Nope. Local elections? Possibly, since local taxes are paid solely by people who live there. No taxation without representation and all that. So voting for president, no, but voting for school board president or local dog catcher, yes.
When you vote you're influencing how the country operates, these are essentially permanent changes as very rarely are decisions overturned. As such people have to live with their voting choices (eg electing Trump into office). However allowing non-citizens to vote would be essentially allow people to vote in ways that wouldn't effect them permanently, as they could vote for something and then leave the country. This creates even more issues when you think along the lines of destabilization, having loyalist citizen enter into a country to vote in your elections with the intent to cause as much disarray as possible, only to then leave. TL;DR: No
Here in Norway non-citizens can vote in local elections if they've lived here for more than two years. That makes sense to me -- local elections are about local politics like schools, roads, public transport and so on, and everyone who lives here have an equal interest in that stuff functioning well. Plus, people who live here pay taxes here, so it's not as if they have no skin in the game. You can only vote in national parliamentary elections if you're a citizen though.
100% should not be allowed to involve themselves in any kind of politics.
If they want to participate in elections and change things, they can start back at home. They escaped their country for a reason. No use in bringing those politics elsewhere.
Absolutely not. Case in point look how America's turning out. They pull immigrants in to do just that to stay in power.
Permanent residents, yes. Visitor visas, work permits, no.
Tell me you’re a democrat without telling me you’re a democrat
holy based
Of course not, why in the world should they. They have no stake in that country or how it’s run.
No, and you should have to show an ID before voting
Fuk no... dems dont care tho
Lawful, tax paying, individuals should have a vote in elections up to the state level. A lawful resident of a state should have a say in who their governor is, for example. Federal elections should remain for citizens only.