>If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime.
This is actually an interesting idea worth thinking about more. If the concern for those on the right is that more immigrants to the US would cause a permanent electoral Blue Wall by flipping Texas in a couple election cycles, and those on the left see economic migration through a humanitarian lens, then re-thinking what Citizenship means and the rules for participating in a democracy could be on the table as part of a compromise. I imagine a sizable percentage predicate their reason on wanting to come to the United States on earning money, not voting in elections (though I could be wrong, but I don't think I am and I doubt this question gets asked to newcomers). The natural reaction to such a proposal would be that we'd be creating tiers of citizens (Native Born vs Full Citizens vs residents or something along those lines). I don't have a problem with that, per se, but I can see how a lot of people would.
No taxation without representation is a huge part of the culture of the US. I'm guessing suggesting open immigration without voting rights will have a large amount of detractors for this reason. Unless the immigrants aren't taxed, which is kind of the current situation anyway for illegal immigrants.
First of all, the system as described in the article is already effectively in place: once you get your green card, you have to wait 5 years (3 if it's through marriage) before you can naturalize. In that time - or more, if you don't apply immediately - you pay taxes etc, but you cannot vote.
It's even more amusing with non-citizens who aren't green card holders, because not only they still pay all the taxes, but they're denied most of the benefits those taxes fund (so e.g. you still pay social security on your wages, but you don't get to actually claim any payments when a citizen could).
So I don't think there's any insurmountable political obstacle here.
But even beyond that, "taxation without representation", as originally used, didn't actually mean voting rights per se. The complaint, rather, was the lack of anyone specifically representing the interests of the colonies, because they were basically arbitrarily assigned to districts in Britain proper for the purposes of parliamentary election. So not only colonials didn't vote, but their MP would typically never even set foot on the territory he supposedly represented... which is why it was pointed out that it's not really representation.
However, representation was not equated to vote - keep in mind that the original franchise wasn't even universal among white males. However, those that couldn't vote were still deemed to be represented, on the basis that they lived in the same district as the voters.
Even today this principle still applies: while only citizens vote, the number of congressional seats, electors etc is calculated on the basis of the entire state population as of the last census, which doesn't distinguish citizens and non-citizens. So areas with large non-naturalized immigrant populations effectively award more voting powers to their resident citizens to "represent" the rest of the district. And this practice was explicitly blessed as valid by the Supreme Court in Evenwel v. Abbott.
Many illegal immigrants do pay taxes. They can't get almost any job without an ITIN and paying taxes. Their employer needs an SSN or ITIN for the paperwork:
How did it go though? I've seen a large number of politically charged statements about it, but little actual fact (I've done some research, and would appreciate a competent citation)
Germany originally planned to bring Turkish guest workers for two years at a time on a non-immigration basis. Maintaining that temporary status proved impossible. In the oughts, Germany had to change its naturalization laws to provide a mechanism for permanent residency and citizenship. But decades of living as second-class non-citizens resulted in lack of assimilation: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/turkish-immigrat....
(The integration part is a touchy subject in Germany. My point more directed at the idea that you can have a country with a permanent class of non-citizen immigrant workers. You probably cannot do that in a liberal Western democracy.)
I lived in Germany for a few months so I got to have a few conversations. Most of their transport network was built by Turkish men that were imported. That's why Turkish street food is everywhere. They also were not able to bring their families as migrant workers but I think lots slowly migrated in the late 80s to early 00s.
They also have had issues with "assimilation" for every ethnic culture but lately MENA has caused a divide. It resulted in them limiting their intake. You can read a lot about it via the recent refugee crisis. There were stories of gangs of migrants roaming the streets, I only heard about a case of rape but there might be more. I don't think its right to throw everyone together in the clump referenced. However, from talking with folks there — their collective German culture and German ways of doing things is very important to them. If you don't act or think German you certainly are an outsider. I also never got the vibe it was ever a skin color thing, but it is a language and cultural assimilation thing.
Right, what I'm suggesting is that in a "globalized" world with free movement birth right Citizenship no longer makes much sense - if it did in the first place.
The United States for the first century or so had open immigration, but citizenship was restricted to "free white person(s)" of good character. The distinction between citizen and resident is therefore quite old, but originally open immigration was simply taken for granted. Immigration police didn't exist, nor police generally. So on the one hand, there wasn't even a hope of enforcing an immigration law, there also wasn't much in the way of government services. We've always had a distinction, but it was originally pretty arbitrary, racially biased, and mostly irrelevant, and the context has entirely changed. I'm not sure what conclusions may be drawn from that.
There's a lot more to that problem than mere political vote flipping or blue waves.
Importing Latin American politics by way of culture would be a terrifying disaster. There is hardly a place on earth with less stable government systems or human rights protections.
Transparency International ranks Latin America as the worst place on earth for corruption, only rivaled by a few parts of third world Africa.
Latin America is the most violent and corrupt large region on earth. People that think the US has a high murder rate, have never been anywhere near a typical Latin American country. The US has a non-murder violence rate comparable to developed Europe; Latin America's rate of non-murder violence is comparable to a war zone (and its rate of murder is best described as a war zone).
London's explosion of acid attacks, stabbing murders, and extreme violence problems are a crystal clear example of how you have to be very careful when you import foreign culture. Cultural adjustment & acclimation is very difficult and takes a long time.
Very few countries in Latin America function at all. They roll from one civil war, dictatorship and disaster to the next. The reason for that is cultural (and no, trying to blame the US for every problem in Latin America doesn't actually work as an excuse; unless you're going to credit the US for Canada's success and any successes in Latin America as well).
If the US is going to import a vast number of people from Latin America, it's also very important to not import the failed cultures of Latin America that have led to extreme murder rates, extreme poverty, extreme violence, and endless failed political systems.
Latin American Socialism is one of the great political and cultural failures of the last two centuries. It needs to die in Latin America, the sooner the better. Turning the US into a Venezuela, Bolivia or Brazil through cultural import is the worst possible outcome.
I am open to your theory that the US hasn’t had a significant influence on Latin American corruption...
But I’d need more than a base assertion... can you address specifically the theory that the U.S. has deliberately propped up corrupt governments sympathetic to US corporations to the exclusion of democratically elected ones?
I love this idea. I think it should be applied to all jurisdictions in the US. If I move to another town or state my vote should count as 1/X increasing by 1/X per year until it's 1/1. I shouldn't have the opportunity to vote at a full 1/1 until I've assimilated to that locale. If I'm moving somewhere I presumably like the status quo there so much that I shouldn't have much need to change things.
Assuming my taxes are applied at an equal percentage. I pay thousands to the state of California and I just moved here. I have a right to my vote if the state has a right to my tax dollars.
All the H1-Bs working in California also pay thousands to it. They also pay taxes for federal social programs (social security etc) that they aren't even eligible for. Do they have a right to vote?
Having someone count as less than a full citizen for electoral purposes has some disturbing historical connotations. I think it’d be difficult to get past that.
I think tying it to time should work out ok though since the value would increase over time by doing nothing. Everyone wants newcomers to have less say. At the federal level your vote would always be 1/1. As far as historical connotations go, that's for representation in congress, those people couldn't vote.
This is actually an interesting idea worth thinking about more. If the concern for those on the right is that more immigrants to the US would cause a permanent electoral Blue Wall by flipping Texas in a couple election cycles, and those on the left see economic migration through a humanitarian lens, then re-thinking what Citizenship means and the rules for participating in a democracy could be on the table as part of a compromise. I imagine a sizable percentage predicate their reason on wanting to come to the United States on earning money, not voting in elections (though I could be wrong, but I don't think I am and I doubt this question gets asked to newcomers). The natural reaction to such a proposal would be that we'd be creating tiers of citizens (Native Born vs Full Citizens vs residents or something along those lines). I don't have a problem with that, per se, but I can see how a lot of people would.