New York will allow non-citizens to vote under controversial law

[TLK Valentine]

They are different, for the reasons I mentioned in my reply to the other poster.

One was a case for a group of citizens to rightfully have their voice heard and have a say in their government.

The other is an attempt by a political faction to "pad their stats" so to speak.

You say "citizens"; I say "people."

And the motivations were entirely the same.

Right, but this isn't that time...and as noted, the motivations were different as were the dynamics.

The historical situation you're describing involves a group fighting for their right to have their voice heard.

This involves a political faction (that already has quite a bit of stroke) trying to bolster their own influence.

Sorry, but the Republicans were supporters of Woman's suffrage (and the Democrats were split on it) for partisan reasons. Your analysis is mistaken.

To make it an adequate comparison, this would be like if during that historical period, a group said "hey, we know women are typically in line with ideologically, so let's try to get the law changed so they can vote and help us beat our rivals"

But that wasn't the core of the women's suffrage movement.

But it was the core of the Republican support for it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You say "citizens"; I say "people."

And the motivations were entirely the same.

So the motivation was "we should give group XYZ the right to vote simply because we know they'll vote our way"? If that's true, then the women's suffrage movement wasn't ethical at all if the motivating factor was to use them as pawns.

You can say "you say citizens, I say people" if you want.

I know that's just a cheap semantic trick to make a position sound more noble.

Everyone are "people", and deserve to be treated with respect, it doesn't mean anyone/everyone has the right to influence the policies of the country they just so happen to be in if they haven't gone through the proper channels to become citizens there.

If I rent an apartment for 2 months in Tokyo, I don't expect to have the right to vote in their local elections.

Sorry, but the Republicans were supporters of Woman's suffrage (and the Democrats were split on it) for partisan reasons. Your analysis is mistaken.

The "Republican" vs. "Democrat" back then meant something different than what it means now. The "southern strategy" changed a lot of things with regards to the dynamics of the two parties.

And much of politics back then was more of a "north vs. south" thing that a "democrat vs. republican" thing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So the motivation was "we should give group XYZ the right to vote simply because we know they'll vote our way"? If that's true, then the women's suffrage movement wasn't ethical at all if the motivating factor was to use them as pawns.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Welcome to the world of politics, my friend... congratulations for figuring out that some things never change.

If I rent an apartment for 2 months in Tokyo, I don't expect to have the right to vote in their local elections.

Tokyo is not NYC. Difference cities have different laws... let alone different countries.

This can't come as a surprise, can it?

The "Republican" vs. "Democrat" back then meant something different than what it means now. The "southern strategy" changed a lot of things with regards to the dynamics of the two parties.

And much of politics back then was more of a "north vs. south" thing that a "democrat vs. republican" thing.

Indeed -- and there were some folks that a large chunk of a political party didn't want to vote... because they knew they'd vote for the other party.

As I said: some things never change.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Welcome to the world of politics, my friend... congratulations for figuring out that some things never change.

Should that really be a goal to aspire to? Only pushing voting rights when it suits a particular political agenda?

And as I noted before, "more influence" doesn't always equal "better"

I seem to recall, in 2016, there was a big to-do about the potential negative impact of foreign influence on our political process yes?

It seems counterintuitive to suggest that one one hand, non-citizens should be able to vote, but on the other hand, non-citizens shouldn't even be able to post on our social media.

At the risk of sounding a tad idealistic myself, we're one of the few major countries on the planet who's identity isn't based on a sense of common ethnicity, but on a buy-in of certain set of common values.

Although I didn't agree with Reagan on a lot of his stances and rhetoric, on this particular speech/sentiment, he said something that had some truth to it:

"You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk, but Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American."

Instead of looking at it as "we should allow non-citizens to vote", a better question would be "what barriers are stopping a non-citizen from becoming a citizen if they share our values?".

The people impacted by this proposal...I have no problem with them becoming citizens and enjoying all of the rights and privileges that go along with it. (which includes voting)

I'd be more interested in the answer to the question "If a person has been living here and working here for 20 years, why haven't they become a citizen??"

In some cases, the answer to that question may be something that shines a light on problems that conservatives have caused or their inflexibility with regards to undocumented immigrants becoming full citizens... but I think answering that question is more beneficial than simply changing the rules to allow non-citizens to vote.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Should that really be a goal to aspire to? Only pushing voting rights when it suits a particular political agenda?

We're not talking about goals to aspire to; we're talking about the way it is... and has been for a very long time.

If you actually think that American Politics used to be about nobility and altruism and only recently became self-serving and manipulative, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We're not talking about goals to aspire to; we're talking about the way it is... and has been for a very long time.

If you actually think that American Politics used to be about nobility and altruism and only recently became self-serving and manipulative, I honestly don't know what to tell you.

With regards to political action, there have been ups and downs throughout history with regards to whether or not a particular political action had a truly altruistic purpose vs. "self-serving" reasons.

If, in your own words, "we're not talking about goals to aspire to", then are you basically conceding that this effort being discussed in this thread is simply a case of one political faction padding their vote tally?

And the other part of my post that you replied to that you didn't quote:
"The people impacted by this proposal...I have no problem with them becoming citizens and enjoying all of the rights and privileges that go along with it. (which includes voting)

I'd be more interested in the answer to the question "If a person has been living here and working here for 20 years, why haven't they become a citizen??""

Any thoughts on that part? Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate what barriers may be stopping them from doing that vs. rewriting voting policies as a means to grant those individuals the ability to vote?

In my estimation, that would actually solve more issues facing those individuals (including their ability to vote).

 

[TLK Valentine]

With regards to political action, there have been ups and downs throughout history with regards to whether or not a particular political action had a truly altruistic purpose vs. "self-serving" reasons.

If you say so.

If, in your own words, "we're not talking about goals to aspire to", then are you basically conceding that this effort being discussed in this thread is simply a case of one political faction padding their vote tally?

Of course -- why else would any politician or political party actually encourage voting?

And the other part of my post that you replied to that you didn't quote:

Because it wasn't relevant to the discussion.

Although I will point out that the NYC law allows DACA members to vote, and they are permanently ineligible for citizenship.

That will never change because the GOP gains nothing from allowing them citizenship... so don't hold your breath.