There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This only works if you are at least fairly sympathetic to either the (rather similar on this one) liberal or woke framing and values on this issue.
For someone in a democracy in some part of the world that is aggressively hostile to immigration for example, it's probable they see this as something like America doubling down on one of its most misguided policies, a Democratic immigrant-favoured majority enfranchising even more immigrants to make it permanent. Maybe it's time for their country to consider repealing the right for even naturalized foreigners to vote.
For someone in a more solidly liberal progressive background, it seems perplexing. Obviously you need to naturalize these people, the numerically largest and most vulnerable group that supports the moral backbone of the argument. Surely most if not nearly all of the long-term who haven't been violent criminals must become US citizens as soon as feasible. Once that is done, establish a more comprehensive asylum and refugee program and grant asylum or deport as appropriate. Everyone in the country legally as a long term resident, should have a path to citizenship. Now you have almost no residents without status, no associated human rights abuse because of it, you can be a shining beacon of liberty for the world's huddled masses, and you get to maintain self-definition of the political body.
And autocratic societies will simply applaud politely or jeer, depending on whether the universal franchise is something they for PR reasons officially subscribe to. If anything. In the background, they will be insinuating it's just to pacify the American people even more. Their votes never really mattered, and neither will those of the newly enfranchised.
> at least forty-five countries presently allow noncitizen residents to vote in their local, regional, or even national elections.
It's behind a paywall, but from the references it seems it's possible for non-citizens in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium to vote. (One of the citations is "Local voting rights for non-nationals: experience in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium".)
Zainichi. Literally "in Japan". Those who were born in Japan. Today mostly children (but increasingly grandchildren) of those who came as workers in the 80s. But some go back as far as the early 20th century. In some cases they only speak Japanese, went to Japanese schools, as did their Zainichi parents and they are partially assimilated in some communities. They marry with ethnic Japanese more as the world in general slowly sheds superstitions.
But they are Korean citizens and have no rights as citizens in Japan. They and their children have been granted indefinite residency, access to social welfare and a few other things. The right to vote comes up often as a subject of debate. Japan does naturalize people who are fluent and culturally assimilated and considered promising citizens, though not a great number. Zainichi are many of those. But neither country allows dual citizenship so the other must be revoked.
One must choose, as far as the historical laws and attitudes of both countries were concerned. The warming of Japan - Korea exchange (shipping if perhaps not affection) has made life easier since the countries are just... closer. Reforms in recent years to allow easier naturalization or dual residency. But it isn't fundamentally resolved. It affects Korea too in ways: should the Zainichi have the right to vote in Korean elections?
Now this is perhaps a policy that can sustain if such a population isn't already resident. Otherwise you get a disenfranchised population. Usually a rather small minority, at least at first. I know to some degree it is my cultural bias and blinders but this doesn't seem like a great social dynamic to have emerge.
In comparison to where I came from (New Zealand), there you can vote in all elections if you have permanent residency, have lived there for more than a year, and have been in the country within the past one year. For citizens, you need to have been in the country within the past three years.
This stuff is messy, both sides have legit arguments.
It's also, frankly, quite boring when media outlets exhibit such consistent partisanship. If a media outlet functions as a vehicle for party propaganda why bother reading? Why not go straight to the source?
The DNC has nothing to do with this.
> like this and the New York Times instinctively cheerleads.
It's an editorial, is clearly marked as such at the top, and the writer does not work for the Times.
I don't really understand your comment, except that you've seemingly taken the article as an excuse to complain about how you see the NYT.
They are the stuffed husk of the serious journalistic entity they were at one point.
Would not fly today.