Non Citizens Should Not Be Allowed to Vote In U.S. Elections

Argument: The main idea of allowing migrants to settle in the United States of America is for the fulfillment of the capitalist needs. When there is a surge in the employment opportunities, the government makes processes for the visas as seen during the Bracero Program period thus allowing people to settle and to spur the growth of the economy. When there is a deficit, which cause unemployment for the citizens, and-migrant policies like have been formulated so as to not lose the best minds but expel the less productive people who have slowed the growth of the economy. Counter: It should be worth noting some things left out when speaking of the Bracero Program. Workers were brought to the U.S. to fulfill manual labor jobs with the following basic human rights: Adequate shelter, food, sanitation, and a wage. Furthermore the promise they would not be discriminated, like exclusion from white areas. No where did the agreement promise any kind of political contribution in the areas of which they worked. Why? The purpose of their stay was work related only. Today's Non-Citizen, here legally, is required to be here on a work or student visa - both having clear implications as to their purpose, or a Green Card. Green Cards reflect a legal right to reside and work in the United States, and holders are required to pay taxes, register for selective service, and social security. They are also required to renew the Green Card. Why? Because they are here at the benevolence of the United States. You have to follow the rules, but if you want to have a say in the process, you must become a citizen. Argument: Morally, every person has a responsibility towards the state, and subsequently every state has a moral reciprocity towards their people. Non-Citizens have been an integral part of the American population, thus helping the society to evolve and transform for the good. But it is unfair that the state alone remain the oppressor, not allowing the people to have their say in the governance of the country. Argument: A non-citizen has the responsibility to follow the rules and laws of the state, by merit of the benevolence of the United States granting them the opportunity to reside and work in the United States. Utilizing the Bracero Program as an example, there are human rights which must be afforded by the state, but no-where is it required a non-citizen have political rights, or rights granted to those who fall under the Constitution. Remember, they are guests seeking to come here, not the other way around. I was stationed in Japan for three years. I had to pay Japanese tax, and abide by Japanese laws, and was afforded basic human rights- participating in their elections, and political system, however, was not an option. Argument: The purpose of an election is to represent the views and the ideals of the people and allow it to make a large scale impact. It is integrally defined as "by the people, of the people and for the people". When a person is denied this chance to represent himself in a national sphere, it is same as stripping him of his rights. Counter: If we were to take the view of every person who is not a citizen, and incorporate it in our political system, you would have legislation being passed on the part of individuals who can, at any time, decide to pull up, and move back to their country. There is standard of loyalty. Laws must be passed and rights afforded to people who have a vested interest in their country, not for those who can leave anytime they choose. Argument: Legally it is illegitimate for the oppression of minorities and disadvantaged communities, as supported both by the American law and more importantly International law, ratified by America. Stripping people of the right to vote, not only affects them but also their communities ability to make the problems heard and resolved. When this as the basement of empowerment is not fulfilled, any other minority empowerment program will fail thus wasting the taxpayers money Therefore it is counterproductive to allow the non-citizens to vote. Counter: Minority populations which are citizens. Given we have been living in times where the job market has been difficult, I would find it difficult to believe non-citizens are part of the disadvantaged group of which you speak. First, they are here for jobs - and are obviously getting them. Secondly, per your argument in the first paragraph, we would only be seeking to keep the best minds - I would think that would correlate to a well-paying job, only granted because it benefits the United States or the interests of the United States in some way. The compensation in such cases is monetary and quality of life. Political contributions are not part of the sign-on package. For the reasons I mentioned above. Argument: Going by your argument, where you have stated that the Oath refers to the law several times there is no instance of the first clause of "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" anywhere as a formal law. So for this debate we will be analyzing the case from your viewpoint excluding the first clause due to the absence of legally backed support which your argument is built upon. Counter: Actually the Oath of Enlistment becomes legally binding when administered by a public official. Ergo it infers law, even if it does not have the actual word 'law' other parts of the Oath. Argument: Every non-citizen is required to bear allegiance to the state, without disbanding his homeland when he has to enter the country - This can be inferred from the persecution of several non-citizens for treason, which indicates that law requires them to remain so. They should not actively criticize the constitution which fulfills the demand of being supportive to the constitution as a whole The US Army does not allow all the non-citizens to participate in military activities. This is the inability of the government to not provide opportunities and not their discretion /choose to refuse it. Finally contribute economically to the society, which is the main reason for immigration into America. Counter: First, it's not every non-citizen. You're talking about the term "Allegiance". When it comes to the United States, the following is noted: On the day before the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, Congress declared in the preamble of the Expatriation Act, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyments of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." and Section I one of "the fundamental principles of this government" (United States Revised Statutes, sec 1999). A natural born citizen of a different country and a legal citizen of the United States can possess dual citizenship. The same goes if a person is a natural born citizen of the United States and moves to another country, they can become a citizen. However, if the two countries become adversaries, the individual must make a choice, and renounce the citizenship of one when it comes to the allegiance. That only makes logical sense. Note, in either case, the individual is referred to as a citizen - While another country may allow a citizen to vote, the United States does not, as outlined by law. The U.S. Army does not even allow non-citizens to join the military unless they have a Green Card, and even then, they quickly open the door to the path of citizenship for those who join. I think it could be argued whether the reason for immigrating to the United States is to contribute to the economy. If anything, it's to find a job in the economy, because the economy is probably 10 times better than where they came from. Lastly, the point of bringing up all the Amendments was to point out the verbiage, "Citizen" when it spoke of the "right" to vote. In short, I find it asinine allowing a person which has demonstrated no loyalty to actively pursue citizenship in this country to participate in the political aspects of our country which will have lasting impressions on those who permanently reside within her borders. As I have said before, they could influence legislation, and later on down the line, if they don't like the system of government, up and leave. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right. There are privileges that come with citizenship. You will find the same mandate in many other countries throughout the world. When you take away those privileges, there is nothing to distinguish between a non-citizen and citizen influence in government. So, no. Non-Citizens should not be allowed to vote. Thanks for making me do home-work, and the debate! http://immigration-law.freeadvice.com... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...