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

[Vylo]

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

The measure would allow non-citizens who have been lawful permanent residents of the city for at least 30 days, as well as those authorized to work in the US, including Dreamers, to help select the mayor, council members, borough presidents, comptroller and public advocate.

Dreamers are young migrants brought to the US illegally as children who would benefit from the never-passed Dream Act, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows them to remain in the US if they meet certain criteria.

I personally disagree with this. Voting is a right that comes with citizens, and non-citizens should not get to vote. If people want to vote, they need to become citizens IMO

Thoughts?

 

[TLK Valentine]

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



I personally disagree with this. Voting is a right that comes with citizens, and non-citizens should not get to vote. If people want to vote, they need to become citizens IMO

Thoughts?

Agreed to a point, but let's remember that this applies only to local elections.

If you live in a city, work in a city, and pay taxes in a city, you are entitled to some say in what happens in the city... "no taxation without representation," after all...

 

[disciple Clint]

Agreed to a point, but let's remember that this applies only to local elections.

If you live in a city, work in a city, and pay taxes in a city, you are entitled to some say in what happens in the city... "no taxation without representation," after all...

It all starts with the first step

 

[disciple Clint]

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



I personally disagree with this. Voting is a right that comes with citizens, and non-citizens should not get to vote. If people want to vote, they need to become citizens IMO

Thoughts?

We need to stand up to the erosion of the rights we have or they will be gone.
Many states now register voters based on the drives license data base, nothing stops those people from voting even though they are not citizens. We need to open our eyes to what is going on in our nation.

 

[durangodawood]

....I personally disagree with this. Voting is a right that comes with citizens, and non-citizens should not get to vote. If people want to vote, they need to become citizens IMO

Thoughts?

I used to agree with you. Then I learned about the long history of who's allowed to vote and realize this isnt some new "liberal" power grab, but has an old precedent.

In the early years of the Republic it seems most states did not have a citizenship requirement for voting.

Still I think a citizenship requirement has merit.

 

[bekkilyn]

I thought slippery slope was supposed to be a fallacy. Problem is that the slippery slopes all seem to be coming true and NYC is sliding down into the crap pile faster than the rest of them.

 

[durangodawood]

It all starts with the first step

Everything taken too far is bad. So, what? Never do anything?

I'm skipping dessert because next thing you know I'll eat the whole cake. It all starts with the first bite!

 

[Hans Blaster]

It all starts with the first step

God forbid they become actual citizens, right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It all starts with the first step

The first step happened when we gave the vote to non-landowners.

 

[public hermit]

What is the purpose of having only citizens vote? Isn't it because citizens have a stake in the outcome and, therefore, will care about what happens and seek to be well-informed? Can non-citizens fit that criteria, too? I think they can.

What I find more concerning are those who are citizens and yet don't seem to care about anything except toeing the party line. I doubt the biggest threat to our democracy is letting non-citizens select the mayor of NYC. Even if that were extended to a national level, who cares? They will just fall in line with one party or the other. Well, most likely just one party lol. See, even this issue has the potential to become partisan because that is what we are.

 

[public hermit]

I thought slippery slope was supposed to be a fallacy. Problem is that the slippery slopes all seem to be coming true and NYC is sliding down into the crap pile faster than the rest of them.

Perhaps you know this, and please forgive me if you do, but a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. Unlike formal fallacies, which are fallacious due to structure, informal fallacies are fallacious in regard to content and context. It's not that slippery slopes do not actually happen, they do; it's just that the contingencies of events do not justify predicting such a slope as if it follows, somehow, necessarily. Take virtually any example of a slippery slope regarding contingent events that seems to have obtained; regardless of that outcome, things could have occurred differently.

For example, it might seem that allowing non-citizens in NYC to vote would simply open the floodgates to allowing non-citizens to vote nationally. Yes, that could happen, but it could just as well not happen. It could be the case that it goes no further than NYC (perhaps the outcome of allowing non-citizens to vote in NYC will be so disastrous no one else will try it). Who knows? Whatever the case, to argue that this one event will invariably unleash a chain of like-events, as if one follows necessarily from the other, is fallacious, at least in this instance.

 

[Occams Barber]

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



I personally disagree with this. Voting is a right that comes with citizens, and non-citizens should not get to vote. If people want to vote, they need to become citizens IMO

Thoughts?

Reading through the pearl clutching in this thread you could be forgiven for thinking that non-citizen voting was some kind of rare immoral act verging on Biblical sin.

In fact non-citizen (typically residents) voting happens all over the world to a greater or lesser extent. In some cases there are restrictions on which non-citizens can vote and in others, restrictions on which elections are open to non-citizens. Local government appears to be one area where non-citizen voting is not uncommon. The justification for allowing non-citizens to vote is often along the lines of :

"No Taxation Without Representation"
​

Americans may be familiar with this reasoning

I live in a country where non-citizen voting is not allowed (apart from Brits who arrived with the First Fleet ).

New Zealand, on the other hand has allowed permanent (non-citizen) residents to vote since 1975. The sky is yet to fall.

Right of foreigners to vote - Wikipedia

OB

 

[bekkilyn]

Perhaps you know this, and please forgive me if you do, but a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. Unlike formal fallacies, which are fallacious due to structure, informal fallacies are fallacious in regard to content and context. It's not that slippery slopes do not actually happen, they do; it's just that the contingencies of events do not justify predicting such a slope as if it follows, somehow, necessarily. Take virtually any example of a slippery slope regarding contingent events that seems to have obtained; regardless of that outcome, things could have occurred differently.

For example, it might seem that allowing non-citizens in NYC to vote would simply open the floodgates to allowing non-citizens to vote nationally. Yes, that could happen, but it could just as well not happen. It could be the case that it goes no further than NYC (perhaps the outcome of allowing non-citizens to vote in NYC will be so disastrous no one else will try it). Who knows? Whatever the case, to argue that this one event will invariably unleash a chain of like-events, as if one follows necessarily from the other, is fallacious, at least in this instance.

Well I was halfway making a mockery of someone who responded to a post of mine a while back that implied the impossibility of a slippery slope (mine, of course) coming to pass. Of course, it's likely no one in this thread would have any knowledge of it, but I quite enjoyed it in my own mind and it just seemed fitting!

 

[Occams Barber]

Well I was halfway making a mockery of someone who responded to a post of mine a while back that implied the impossibility of a slippery slope (mine, of course) coming to pass. Of course, it's likely no one in this thread would have any knowledge of it, but I quite enjoyed it in my own mind and it just seemed fitting!

There are a few reasons why the slippery slope argument needs to be avoided.

Firstly, it can be equally applied to any change. If we accept slippery slope as a legitimate argument then change will never happen. It’s no coincidence that ‘slippery slope’ is the conservative argument of choice.

Secondly it implies that the change being debated cannot be discussed on its own merits. This also applies to any alleged ‘slippery slope’ consequence.

Thirdly it’s often used to drag a discussion to ridiculous extremes, e.g.,

“If we allow SSM the result will be legalised inappropriate behavior with animals”​

Fourthly it distracts from the argument at hand. Introducing slippery slope shifts the debate away from the issue and towards arguing the alleged potential slippery slope consequences.


In my experience ‘slippery slope’ is normally used as a desperate substitute for a rational argument.

OB

 

[bekkilyn]

There are a few reasons why the slippery slope argument needs to be avoided.

Firstly, it can be equally applied to any change. If we accept slippery slope as a legitimate argument then change will never happen. It’s no coincidence that ‘slippery slope’ is the conservative argument of choice.

Secondly it implies that the change being debated cannot be discussed on its own merits. This also applies to any alleged ‘slippery slope’ consequence.

Thirdly it’s often used to drag a discussion to ridiculous extremes, e.g.,

“If we allow SSM the result will be legalised inappropriate behavior with animals”​

Fourthly it distracts from the argument at hand. Introducing slippery slope shifts the debate away from the issue and towards arguing the alleged potential slippery slope consequences.


In my experience ‘slippery slope’ is normally used as a desperate substitute for a rational argument.

OB

I honestly wouldn't even be surprised at legalized inappropriate behavior with animals at this point. I'd strongly oppose it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all considering how many of these slippery slopes have been coming true. And I wouldn't at all be surprised if, when I opposed it, I didn't get dogpiled by a group of people calling me a bigot or hater for having such a rational belief. A decade ago, there was such a thing as a ridiculous extreme. Not anymore. Not in a world in which a major portion of the population has no sense of objective reality. You really can't argue logic when madness has been adopted as a norm.

 

[Vylo]

I thought slippery slope was supposed to be a fallacy. Problem is that the slippery slopes all seem to be coming true and NYC is sliding down into the crap pile faster than the rest of them.

Slippery slope fallacy is simply assuming that something leads to another thing down the road that is negative.

This is just negative in itself. One should have to be a citizen to vote.

 

[disciple Clint]

God forbid they become actual citizens, right?

Citizens have rights those rights are available to all citizens regardless of how they became citizens, those rights were paid for in blood, they do not come free and they should be valued.

 

[Nithavela]

Over here in germany, non-citizens (refugees etc.) are allowed to vote for a local council that advises the elected officials on matters regarding the non-citizens, giving those people a voice to be heard without any direct influence into how things are run.

I think that's fair.

 

[Nithavela]

The first step happened when we gave the vote to non-landowners.

The first step happened when there was a vote for anyone except the tyrant in the first place.

 

[Nithavela]

Citizens have rights those rights are available to all citizens regardless of how they became citizens, those rights were paid for in blood, they do not come free and they should be valued.

I don't think something needs to be "paid for in blood" to be valid.