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

Thank you for the extensive analysis regarding the American Constitution and its amendments. But looking it from a legitimacy perspective we must answer two important questions:DefinitionsVote in this case is defined as the ability to participate in the functioning of political institutions, with a legal tender to elect the government according to the individual's discretion Non-Citizens refer to all permanent residents, immigrants who have registered with the US immigration department, possessing legally active visas Firstly, why has the US allowed the settlement of Non-Citizens 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. Secondly, why they must be allowed to vote 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. 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. 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. Going by your argument, where you have stated that the Oathrefers 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. 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. Now I will be dealing with direct rebuttal to your case, from the same legal perspective that you have adopted The 15th Amendment, declares that no citizen can be denied the right to vote on the basis of caste, gender, creed or previous status of servitude. You have stated in the end of your argument that when the Oath is fulfilled, you are legally a citizen and I have clearly shown in the analysis above as to why the people can be considered as a citizens even though they're not given a legal tender. Furthermore the Amendment declares that the status of previous servitude does not serve as a barrier to restrict the right to vote, it explicitly allows the non-citizens to vote due to the benefit of doubt that has been given. There is a blatant contradiction in the argument (and the Constitution perhaps), where Article 14 advocates only the male citizens to participate in, and not be denied of the franchise only to the male citizens, which is highly sexist for a democratic constitution. Subsequently 19th Amendment requires that gender is no barrier to vote, and be denied the right to vote, which seems to be a likely inclusive remark. As your case was based solely on law, and the oath of citizenship your verdict is rationally justified, and I concede with that the law is supreme and the oath is built upon the law. But in the above analysis I have proved in detail why the law indirectly allows non citizens to vote and how the oath proclaims it. Therefore Con believes that your case has fallen on this basis For the above justifications I believe that all people should be allowed to vote irrespective of their identity and origin.