Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Mikeintx, May 27, 2010.
So does this mean if a school had a pet Gerbil, then the Gerbils parents could vote as they are a non citizen and have a child in the school.........
....just a thought. >.<
I stand by my comment as long as the furry little critter could register to vote, and be able to hold a pen in its paws to mark an ex he could vote....
...my only issue is he may nibble and gnaw to pieces the voting slip.
I think the guy behind this was just trying to be practical. It makes sense to get parents involved, especially since a growing proportion of students and young people in this country are Hispanic, a number of them born to illegals (but are themselves citizens).
Furthermore, non-citizens are allowed to vote in several states and localities in the country (though California, as I understand it, is not one of them). Granted, such rights are technically for resident foreigners and such, but the nature of law leaves loopholes open for *all* non-citizens to vote, period.
Eh? I've always known that the citizens of their country "dictate" the politics of their own country.
It's a nice thought, but.. we're not there yet in my opinon. If they can vote in state politics would that allow them to vote in federal politics? I suppose not, but I think the two should be aligned on such a fundamental aspect, considering what is tied into the freedom that allows you americans to vote. Wouldn't it stir up issues of illegal vs legal on other basis? It just gives more power to people who have disregarded a countries laws.
It really is a nice thought to reward the people whom contribute to the society they live in when they have entered the country illegally(or are staying illegally). But brideging the procedures people have to go through to to become citizens with this sort of law is .. I donno? Insulting? Im not american so I couldn't say, but those laws aren't there to discrimate.
Which states allow that Zurk?
Let's see what the statue of Liberty thinks.
That's a good point, but this particular situation is politics only in the loosest and most technical sense. As a nation of immigrants, and thus many non-citizens (i.e. residents), we've historically broken the mold in terms of the influence we often grant to non-citizens. I do see your point concerning such limited rights eventually paving the way for changing up the whole system though.
David Chu, the man behind this idea, isn't trying expand suffrage to illegal residents completely. He merely wants to grant limited involvement with respect only to the School Board of Education.
In a local context, it's common to evoke such community involvement even from people who may not legally be involved. I understand the trouble with it, but I also understand the merit. Interestingly, this exact idea was on a city ballot initiative six years ago, and got rejected by just 2%.
I agree with you for the most part. Ultimately, the initiative is indeed flawed. I'm only trying to point out, not to much to you, that we shouldn't judge this as part of a foolish liberal agenda (as many commentators on the article did), but rather as a practical, if legally misguided, idea.
To expand on my earlier point, the man behind the initiative is on the school board, and thus his priority is improve educational quality, which could only be done with community and parental involvement (including the 1/3 of such parents who are non-citizens). As legal citizens themselves, the students are entitled to a good public education as per Chiu's job. Thus one ultimately confronts a difficult situation in attempting to deliver that, since it would require fudging the law (and, as far are many people are concerned, common sense).
My statement was in error. I meant to say that most states (around 40) did at some point grant voting rights to resident aliens, though most repealed such rights before the mid-20th century.
If I remember correctly, a few states, such as Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas, and New York (among some others) are trying to initiative measures on the state level to allow non-citizens participation in elections within municipalities.
At the very least, however, this shows a precedent for the idea, given that it was in practice for some time and that there are some cases being made for it, however limited.