To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I initially missed the change in topic - spiderman and I were discussing illegal immigrants and you shifted to legal immigrants, hence the edit.
I'm not familiar with laws concerning legal immigrants in most countries, so I can't answer your specific question with any confidence. I don't think that requiring a person to become a citizen prior to granting voting rights makes the USA less democratic to any significant degree, since an important part of the naturalization process is learning civics and American history - though I'll reserve the right to change my mind after thinking about it more deeply.
I realize the immigration issue is more complex than we can hope to cover here - but I'm sick to death of apologists creating new names for those who violate our immigration laws. Yesterday I heard a newscaster refer to "self-sponsored immigrants". Huh?!? If I'm traveling 120 mph on I-5, am I complying with a "self-sponsored speed limit"?
Before we can resolve the problem, we'll have to stop pretending that it's not really a problem.
Edited 2011-06-27 22:39 UTC
Green card holders do not vote in the USA, despite being legal residents. They abide by the laws, pay the same taxes, but no voting rights. Is this different in other countries?
Same thing here in France. Residents don't vote: I know, I can't. At least not in presidential or parliamentary elections. Maybe they can vote in local elections (mayors and such) but I couldn't tell.




Member since:
2011-01-28
ricegf,
"They live in violation of our law. By definition - that's why they are 'illegal'. The solution is to obtain a green card and become a legal immigrant by 'living under our law'."
Green card holders do not vote in the USA, despite being legal residents. They abide by the laws, pay the same taxes, but no voting rights. Is this different in other countries?
But anyway my take is that voting is one ingredient for a genuine democracy. But by itself voting is insufficient - the government needs to be transparent to the people, there cannot be secrets from the people. Democratic governments must make laws for the people, not in spite of them or to control them. Whistle-blowing sources like wikileaks are in fact integral to democracy.
I make the claim that, in democracy, there is no distinction between "government" and "the people", they're one and the same. Of course you've mentioned that the US is a republic, and that's true. Effectively it doesn't matter how the people feel about anything if there's an elite political class who entitle themselves to write laws in their own image.
Take for example billionaire mayor bloomburg in NY, who changed the laws on term restrictions in order to continue "serving" as mayor past legal limits. Noone can compete politically against his wealth and power. His single voice overrides millions of critics - that's not democracy.