Letting Non-Citizens Vote in NYC- The King of Bad Ideas?

[Dreadnaught]

Shit like this makes me doubt the sincerity of some of the organized groups who loudly oppose voter identification.

New York City May Let Non-Citizens Vote
HENRY GRABARMAY 09, 2013

The New York City voting rolls may be about to undergo their largest expansion since women's suffrage.

The City Council will begin a hearing today on a bill to give non-citizen residents the right to vote in city elections. With 34 of the body's 51 members sponsoring the legislation, it looks like it will have enough votes to pass despite Mayor Bloomberg's opposition.

Nearly three of eight New Yorkers are foreign-born, according to the Census, though it's not clear how many of those 3 million people are citizens, legal residents, or of voting age. (Despite efforts from congressional Republicans, the Census does not have a citizenship question.) Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at CUNY who supports the proposal, has written that 22 percent of New York City adults are non-citizens.

In any case, it seems clear that the measure would extend voting rights to hundreds of thousands of people. First-time voters would need to be legal residents of the United States, and provide proof that they have lived in New York City for at least six months, in the form of a gas bill or other document.

Supporters of the concept, like Daniel Dromm, the Queens councilman who chairs the City Council Immigration Committee and first proposed the legislation in 2010, frame it is an issue of "taxation without representation." They argue that non-citizen voting has a long tradition in the U.S., where until the early 20th century, 40 states allowed non-citizens to vote and hold public office. School board elections in New York and Chicago have more recently allowed non-citizen suffrage.

But the movement's recent progress has been slow. In New York, a similar bill failed in 2004. More modest campaigns to let non-citizen residents vote have fallen short in San Francisco and Portland, Maine. Only a few U.S. cities, the largest of which is Brookline, Massachusetts (pop. 58,000), have extended the vote for all municipal elections.

Is this a turning point? It seems now that the proposal has gained the favor of New Yorkers as well as their council members: a 2011 poll [PDF] by Hunter College researchers found that slightly over half of the city was in favor of allowing non-citizens to vote. Still, experts are unsure whether the city has the power to decide its own voting requirements, or whether that responsibility might be claimed by the state, or disputed in court.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/pol...ens-vote/5542/

[Flixy]

Why? I don't think it's odd to let legal non citizens vote in City elections if they do live there. It's the same here, if you, say, are Dutch but live in Antwerp: vote for Dutch general elections, but for Antwerp city elections. Makes sense, because if you live in a city you should get to vote for it.

[RandBlade]

For local elections that is not all that unusual. To vote in UK local (as opposed to national) elections any legal not just British citizen but any EU or Commonwealth citizen living there can vote to. I know Aussies who've voted here.

That's not as widespread as everyone from everywhere but the idea is that local government serves those who live locally, not the nation, so local residents should be consulted.

For cosmopolitan, international cities like London and New York especially that is important. I have no facts to hand but I imagine a reasonable proportion of London's electoral register for London elections are not British.

[wiggin]

What does voter ID have to do with this question, Dread?

[LittleFuzzy]

What does voter ID have to do with this question, Dread?

Liberulz!

[GGT]

A hearing, on a proposed bill, that would allow legal residents who've lived at least six months in NYC to vote in municipal elections....is the King of Bad Ideas?

[Dreadnaught]

What does voter ID have to do with this question, Dread?

For one thing, during the voter ID debates many on the left insisted that current voter integrity systems were either adequate or needlessly overprotective when it came to vetting voter-eligibility. Now those people turn around and dilute the value of citizenship by opening voting to noncitizens. What's the purpose? What's the pressing need here?

Secondly, and most laughably, these people are proposing that these non-citizens' voter eligibility be vetted with photo identification. How long until that standard gets diluted too so that politicians can mobilize blocs of voters whose identities and citizenship is effectively impossible to vet?

Our voter eligibility vetting is a complete mess and these people think this is a good idea? That's madness.

Why? I don't think it's odd to let legal non citizens vote in City elections if they do live there. It's the same here, if you, say, are Dutch but live in Antwerp: vote for Dutch general elections, but for Antwerp city elections. Makes sense, because if you live in a city you should get to vote for it.

For local elections that is not all that unusual. To vote in UK local (as opposed to national) elections any legal not just British citizen but any EU or Commonwealth citizen living there can vote to. I know Aussies who've voted here.

That's not as widespread as everyone from everywhere but the idea is that local government serves those who live locally, not the nation, so local residents should be consulted.

For cosmopolitan, international cities like London and New York especially that is important. I have no facts to hand but I imagine a reasonable proportion of London's electoral register for London elections are not British.

Yes, but you two live within the EU framework where you have a system for residency across multiple countries with strong systems to verify voter identity. Plus, while I suppose we could have a semantic argument about this to the end of time, you've opted to be part of a confederation in this respect.

We have none of that in the US. This is like having Russians who aren't citizens of any EU country vote for the next mayor of Amsterdam.

[RandBlade]

For one thing, during the voter ID debates many on the left insisted that current voter integrity systems were either adequate or needlessly overprotective when it came to vetting voter-eligibility. Now those people turn around and dilute the value of citizenship by opening voting to noncitizens. What's the purpose? What's the pressing need here?

What's the purpose of government?

What about issues of taxation without representation? What about ensuring government deals with people's concerns? There are 3 million foreign-born legal residents of NYC, that's pretty serious.

Secondly, and most laughably, these people are proposing that these non-citizens' voter eligibility be vetted with photo identification. How long until that standard gets diluted too so that politicians can mobilize blocs of voters whose identities and citizenship is effectively impossible to vet?

So these people supporting this are open to the idea of photo ID and you reckon that means they're against photo ID? I don't get what you're getting at.

The requirements are that these be legal residents of NYC so why would their identities be unidentified?

Yes, but you two live within the EU framework where you have a system for residency across multiple countries with strong systems to verify voter identity. Plus, while I suppose we could have a semantic argument about this to the end of time, you've opted to be part of a confederation in this respect.

No. I said EU or Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the EU. That means any Australian (whom I know some living here), Canadian, Indian, Pakistani etc living legally can vote in the local elections. Note that's not a requirement of the Commonwealth and not the same in reverse, that's our choice.

We have none of that in the US. This is like having Russians who aren't citizens of any EU country vote for the next mayor of Amsterdam.

If that Russian is a legal resident of Amsterdam I have no qualms with that.

[Khendraja'aro]

Aye. If you're paying taxes in a city, working in a city and living in a city - why on earth shouldn't you be allowed to have a say as to the future of the city?

[Aimless]

For one thing, during the voter ID debates many on the left insisted that current voter integrity systems were either adequate or needlessly overprotective when it came to vetting voter-eligibility. Now those people turn around and dilute the value of citizenship by opening voting to noncitizens.

First of all, no, what they have mostly insisted on is that voter ID laws of the type that have been proposed risk reducing voter participation disproportionately among minority ethnic groups and the socially disadvantaged and that the extra security would therefore not be worth it.

Secondly, how do you know it's the same people?

Thirdly, what the what? I think you're reaching for straws.

Secondly, and most laughably, these people are proposing that these non-citizens' voter eligibility be vetted with photo identification. How long until that standard gets diluted too so that politicians can mobilize blocs of voters whose identities and citizenship is effectively impossible to vet?

I might be able to find an appropriate photo response to this in Nessie's photo collection

[Aimless]

Also:

“copy of a valid photo ID, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or some other government document that shows your name or address.”

[Flixy]

What Khen said, basically.

[Aimless]

Aye. If you're paying taxes in a city, working in a city and living in a city - why on earth shouldn't you be allowed to have a say as to the future of the city?

Because you're diluting the purity of citizenship. You of all people should understand

[RandBlade]

For local (not national) politics why should national citizenship matter more than local legal residency?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm pretty sure that Aimless wasn't serious

[Dreadnaught]

What's the purpose of government?

What about issues of taxation without representation? What about ensuring government deals with people's concerns? There are 3 million foreign-born legal residents of NYC, that's pretty serious.
So these people supporting this are open to the idea of photo ID and you reckon that means they're against photo ID? I don't get what you're getting at.

The requirements are that these be legal residents of NYC so why would their identities be unidentified?
No. I said EU or Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has nothing to do with the EU. That means any Australian (whom I know some living here), Canadian, Indian, Pakistani etc living legally can vote in the local elections. Note that's not a requirement of the Commonwealth and not the same in reverse, that's our choice.
If that Russian is a legal resident of Amsterdam I have no qualms with that.

Aye. If you're paying taxes in a city, working in a city and living in a city - why on earth shouldn't you be allowed to have a say as to the future of the city?

I know what the Commonwealth is. For brevity I just focused on the EU because Flixy isn't part of the Commonwealth. Regardless, whether it's Commonwealth or the EU, those are all legally established unions among nations. We're talking about people outside of a confederation.

But the taxation without representation thing is BS, or at least a very low standard. If the right to vote in an election is conferred simply by living somewhere and paying local taxes, why can't I start voting in local French elections the moment I land and start paying their stupid VAT? Voting is a right and responsibility of citizenship, and it's up to any given country to set its bar for determining who gets to immigrate and become a citizen.

It's also not true that NY has 2.9 million legal foreign residents. The 2.9 million figure is from our last Census and our Census explicitly does not ask about citizenship (to encourage people to participate). It's reasonable to assume that a substantial portion of that 2.9 million are not legally in the US. Which I have little problem with because our immigration laws need serious fixing. But chipping-away at voting rights to let them vote is completely ludicrous.

First of all, no, what they have mostly insisted on is that voter ID laws of the type that have been proposed risk reducing voter participation disproportionately among minority ethnic groups and the socially disadvantaged and that the extra security would therefore not be worth it.

Secondly, how do you know it's the same people?

Thirdly, what the what? I think you're reaching for straws.


I might be able to find an appropriate photo response to this in Nessie's photo collection

Yes, the extra security isn't worth it...when you can bring any piece of paper with your name on it into the voting station and be authorized to vote. It's a pretty clear attempt to make a key component of citizenship less valuable.

[Aimless]

But the taxation without representation thing is BS, or at least a very low standard. If the right to vote in an election is conferred simply by living somewhere and paying local taxes, why can't I start voting in local French elections the moment I land and start paying their stupid VAT?

1. Tax-free shopping

2. Do you work there? Are you going to live there? For a few years?

Voting is a right and responsibility of citizenship

Except in Holland, the UK and perhaps soon in NYC

and it's up to any given country to set its bar for determining who gets to immigrate and become a citizen.

As well as to decide what citizenship entails in terms of rights and responsibilities.

Yes, the extra security isn't worth it

Indeed, the extra security may not be worth it considering the negligible incidence of in-person voter fraud compared to the real risk of disenfranchising actual citizens. I'm surprised you don't get this because I thought you viewed the right of citizens to vote as being so important

...when you can bring any piece of paper with your name on it into the voting station and be authorized to vote. It's a pretty clear attempt to make a key component of citizenship less valuable.

Or more

[Ominous Gamer]

The examples that aimless so kindly colored are slightly more than "any piece of paper". They are all regulated and forging them is a punishable offense.

[Aimless]

At this rate NYC will have turned into Malawi by next year...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_o...igners_to_vote

[Khendraja'aro]

Not to mention that "citizenship" historically was often (not always, though) tied to a city, not necessarily a state or country. Honestly, Dread, maybe you should at least sometimes look up where a word actually comes from (It's called "etymology").

By the way, I also don't get to vote for city- or state-specific issues the moment I move to the city or state. Three months is the usual waiting period over here.

[LittleFuzzy]

For the most part I'm in agreement with our European brethren. This is not state or national, it's local and I see nothing wrong with local politics being decided by local legal residents voting. The one thing that makes me a bit squiffy is the extent to which locally-managed services get funded by or are partially funded by, money coming from the state or federal level. The disconnect could potentially cause problems for the city in the long-term.

[RandBlade]

Seems 8 European nations (including the Netherlands) grants the right to vote to all residents (including all non-EU) who've been resident for a certain time. So a Russian living in Amsterdam could vote for its mayor*

Ireland doesn't even have a time requirement, which is quite extreme.

Seems the right of non-citizens to vote in municipal elections is remarkably common globally.

* I have no idea if Amsterdam has an elected mayor before a pedant corrects me.

[Dreadnaught]

1. Tax-free shopping

2. Do you work there? Are you going to live there? For a few years?

Ah, so a country sees fit to tax me differently based on my citizenship but I can still vote? That's totally inconsistent.

Not to mention that "citizenship" historically was often (not always, though) tied to a city, not necessarily a state or country. Honestly, Dread, maybe you should at least sometimes look up where a word actually comes from (It's called "etymology").

Are you joking.

For the most part I'm in agreement with our European brethren. This is not state or national, it's local and I see nothing wrong with local politics being decided by local legal residents voting. The one thing that makes me a bit squiffy is the extent to which locally-managed services get funded by or are partially funded by, money coming from the state or federal level. The disconnect could potentially cause problems for the city in the long-term.

You brought up my next point, which is that the lines between local and national governments can get very blurry. A city like New York exchanges (and spends) hundreds of billions of dollars with the federal government in any given year.

There is no compelling reason to blur the lines here. A sensible immigration/citizenship process keeps the rights and responsibilities of citizens clear, valuable and attainable for immigrants.

Seems 8 European nations (including the Netherlands) grants the right to vote to all residents (including all non-EU) who've been resident for a certain time. So a Russian living in Amsterdam could vote for its mayor*

Ireland doesn't even have a time requirement, which is quite extreme.

Seems the right of non-citizens to vote in municipal elections is remarkably common globally.

* I have no idea if Amsterdam has an elected mayor before a pedant corrects me.

Hardly encouraging. I can't wait for an obscure political group to start mass-forging utility bills and bussing people to the polls.

[Ominous Gamer]

A city like New York exchanges (and spends) hundreds of billions of dollars with the federal government in any given year.

curious what the real numbers are

Hardly encouraging. I can't wait for an obscure political group to start mass-forging utility bills and bussing people to the polls.

because someone, somewhere, may try to fleece the system, and you want to ignore all laws and punishments against that...you want that option to be eliminated completely?

while you're at it, when are you going to push towards banning ATMs? considering the ones in new york city were recently used to steal almost 3 million dollars in a matter of hours.

[Aimless]

Ah, so a country sees fit to tax me differently based on my citizenship but I can still vote? That's totally inconsistent.

Er. What? Do you know what tax-free shopping is? Do you know the rules that apply to voting rights for foreigners in eg. EU countries?

[RandBlade]

Ah, so a country sees fit to tax me differently based on my citizenship but I can still vote? That's totally inconsistent.

Wait, what? Those who are resident in the city must be paying its taxes.

You brought up my next point, which is that the lines between local and national governments can get very blurry. A city like New York exchanges (and spends) hundreds of billions of dollars with the federal government in any given year.

There is no compelling reason to blur the lines here. A sensible immigration/citizenship process keeps the rights and responsibilities of citizens clear, valuable and attainable for immigrants.

Except that the municipality of New York can't unilaterally introduce a "sensible immigration/citizenship process" while most other cities in America won't have so many legal non-citizens living and paying taxes there.

Hardly encouraging. I can't wait for an obscure political group to start mass-forging utility bills and bussing people to the polls.

That would be criminal and can and should be cracked down on. Its also already against the law, you could mass-forge American citizens utility bills just as easily as you could do this with non-citizens.

[Khendraja'aro]

Are you joking.

I am most definitely not joking. You're using a very narrow definition of the word "citizen" whereas one of its other (and actually original) meanings is just that: "Resident of a city".

Which means that anyone residing in a city is a citizen. Your title for this thread doesn't make sense and the fact that practically everyone here is arguing against you should make you step back for a moment and think about your arguments.

Because they don't make a lot of sense.

I mean, just take your "why can't I vote in France?" argument. Are you actually telling us that for New York to be allowed to adopt a new policy, each and every other country in the world also has to have this policy? Seriously?

[GGT]

Hardly encouraging. I can't wait for an obscure political group to start mass-forging utility bills and bussing people to the polls.

That's paranoia and conspiracy-mongering, even in jest or sarcasm. You're conflating national immigration policy with state/local voting eligibility....and working backward to justify your views on voter ID. Besides, you usually defend state or local decisions over "federal control", so what's up with the inconsistency?

Taking your premise to its logical conclusion, you'd have to deny certain parents the ability to vote on their childrens' school board nominations. That would effectively undo their valuable involvement and active participation in their own kids' lives, and disconnect them from their own community.

Why would you want that? I thought you hated Albany as the epi-center for NYC decisions.

[Flixy]

Yes, but you two live within the EU framework where you have a system for residency across multiple countries with strong systems to verify voter identity. Plus, while I suppose we could have a semantic argument about this to the end of time, you've opted to be part of a confederation in this respect.

We have none of that in the US. This is like having Russians who aren't citizens of any EU country vote for the next mayor of Amsterdam.

As Rand posted, it's not restricted to EU citizens living here.

But the taxation without representation thing is BS, or at least a very low standard. If the right to vote in an election is conferred simply by living somewhere and paying local taxes, why can't I start voting in local French elections the moment I land and start paying their stupid VAT? Voting is a right and responsibility of citizenship, and it's up to any given country to set its bar for determining who gets to immigrate and become a citizen.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Because you very well know the difference between a tourist and a legal resident. Pro tip: you don't become the latter by simply stepping out of a plane...

And presumably it's also up to any given city who gets to vote for representation in said city.

* I have no idea if Amsterdam has an elected mayor before a pedant corrects me.

Nope, they are appointed. There have been referendums to pick the mayor (who would then be appointed), but they were so stupid that they failed to get the required minimum turnout (for example, in my city I got to choose between two candidates from the same party with no real differences I could discover, so I didn't vote). But the Russians can still vote for city council etc.!

Ah, so a country sees fit to tax me differently based on my citizenship but I can still vote? That's totally inconsistent.

Come on man, I know you know the difference between tourists and residents, so why keep on pretending to be confused by this?

Hardly encouraging. I can't wait for an obscure political group to start mass-forging utility bills and bussing people to the polls.

Out of curiosity, since you guys do not have photo ID laws for voting, how common is that right now? Since it's presumably about the same requirements your regular voters have right now.

I'm also assuming being a legal immigrant wit a green card isn't that easy to fake, because I expect for a lot of people that is worth a lot more than voting for local elections. So if it's really that easy, all your illegal immigrants surely would have done this by now.

[Dreadnaught]

Er. What? Do you know what tax-free shopping is? Do you know the rules that apply to voting rights for foreigners in eg. EU countries?

Wait, what? Those who are resident in the city must be paying its taxes.
Except that the municipality of New York can't unilaterally introduce a "sensible immigration/citizenship process" while most other cities in America won't have so many legal non-citizens living and paying taxes there.
That would be criminal and can and should be cracked down on. Its also already against the law, you could mass-forge American citizens utility bills just as easily as you could do this with non-citizens.

As Rand posted, it's not restricted to EU citizens living here.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Because you very well know the difference between a tourist and a legal resident. Pro tip: you don't become the latter by simply stepping out of a plane...

And presumably it's also up to any given city who gets to vote for representation in said city.

I'm deliberately blurring the lines between tourist and legal resident because there are people in NYC who want to blur the lines between legal resident and citizen. What other government functions should non-citizens be allowed to participate in? Hold elected office? Serve on juries? Hold government jobs?

New York City can't set immigration laws because New York isn't the federal government that has established jurisdiction in this area. It's just a fact of life.

You all keep throwing these examples of how non-citizens can vote in various EU countries as some kind of positive model. Since when did any EU country get a reputation for properly managing immigration? When it comes to immigration, I don't think most people in the US aspire to become more like Europe because we're relatively good at integrating immigrants.

The goal is to make the rights/responsibilities of citizenship clear and substantial (and attainable). The goal should not be to scratch away at the rights/responsibilities of citizenship until being a citizen means little more than getting to vote for some national politicians.

I am most definitely not joking. You're using a very narrow definition of the word "citizen" whereas one of its other (and actually original) meanings is just that: "Resident of a city".

Which means that anyone residing in a city is a citizen. Your title for this thread doesn't make sense and the fact that practically everyone here is arguing against you should make you step back for a moment and think about your arguments.

Because they don't make a lot of sense.

I mean, just take your "why can't I vote in France?" argument. Are you actually telling us that for New York to be allowed to adopt a new policy, each and every other country in the world also has to have this policy? Seriously?

Well, we should just look to the root of every word then, shouldn't we? "Vote" comes from a Latin root for "vowing" or "promising", so maybe we should change voting rules so that voters make promises *to* politicians (instead of the other way around). This is silly.