So non citizens can vote in UK, France, Germany, China?

No way!

So these people should become citizens.

Although the world seems to hate America it also seems to eat big mac and kfc and drink coke. People are not very joined up in their thinking.

By the way did you know that non citizens can vote in local elections in UK. That is why Labour get in, they vote for Labour because the Labour nannies give them free housing plus plus

I laugh every time I read how much power and say non-citizens and illiegal immigrants want to have.
If you want to benefit from a country's offering - then become a citizen!!! But, as I seem to recall Germany does not allow dual-citizenship, so that could be the thorn in the rose...
Ms.Rudinger- if you become a citizen of the United States of America, I say "vote away" - your voice will now actually matter. But until then, you really are but a guest in another country other than the one you have legal citizenship in.

#1 You can fool most of the people most of the time.

Apart from that, I don't think they should get a vote till they become citizens. In any event, as non-citizens, they probably still retain the right to vote in their own countries.

Voting is a right of citizens. Colonial Americans were citizens of the British Empire, but they had no representation in parliament. There is no valid comparison.

I do believe though that legal permanent residents who are on the path to legal citizenship should be given the right to vote.

In South Africa, in order to vote you must be a citizen and present your bar-coded ID Book. Mind you, that doesn't say much as you can buy one for about R400 on a street corner.

5. Guga, Rockall

Don't you feel lost without your other conspiracy theorist Wally from AZ here to back you up?

#8 Munroe. What's the conspiracy when we are discussing voting rights? Are you on the right thread? Maybe you've been listening to too many Bush braodcasts.

9. Guga, Rockall

Nope, you already called Bush a war criminal tonight.

#10 Munroe. And he isn't?

11. Guga, Rockall

Only in deranged minds.

#12 Munroe. That must mean the majority of the world's population is deranged, apart from you of course.

re. story...

"... Maryland ...non-citizens ...vote in local elections. ...Chicago, non-citizens ...vote in school board ballots... Massachusetts...non-citizen voting at the local level,..."

Didn't know it, and am surprised. Shouldn't be.

Hmmmm.

What does citizenship get you? The chance to sit on a jury? To run for office? Yea, you don't have to be a citizen to join the military and serve in a conflict!

Don't have to be a citizen to work. To rent. To own. To drive.

Puts a crimp in the patriotic ferver crew, doesn't it?

I'm not knocking immigration - I wouldn't be here without it - but the USA is (OK, don't jump down my throat) is the PRIME candidate for IMMIGRANT POSTER CHILD! Makes me wonder some...

14. Pelon, NM USA

I just looked up Maryland, Chicago, & Massachuetts. All 3 are heavilly populated with your liberals like Gore who depend on illegals to vote for them.

Here is my point- recently while applying for student loans for 2 of my college kids, the full truth was a kicker. IF we were illegal immigrants but had enough documentation to show we were had earned money in the US, my kids could get GRANTS, not loans mind you but grants that did not have to be paid back. Also, not only were the loan amounts petty compared to what the cost basis is, the LOANS have a 8% cummulative interest rate. So I get the privilege of working hard enough to pay for the illegal immigrants while I try to find enough loans to cover my own children's tuition. The stupidity of it is, where my oldest son went to school, the university had a region the kids called "Tienamen Square" - and almost all of those kids were going to school on MY dollars! Those students were here on Visas yes, but on US funded tuition....what a sad state of affairs... and to Pelon- yes, my grandparents were immigrants too, so I really don't get your point since ALL of us were immigrants unless you were a Natvie American Indian???? But, those immigrants all strived to become citizens! I dare say I can't go to Mexico or Canada even and expect them to let me tell them how I want to run the show but don't really want to be a citizen of their country...

I'm a legal resident here in the US, jumped through all the immigration hoops (that was fun, such a happy bunch of people work for INS). I work hard, pay my taxes,(doing American taxes is fun as well) have all the rights that a US citizen has with the exception of two I don't have. Can't be President, that's ok I make more than Junior anyway, and I can't vote, again that's ok don't know were the polling station is anyways, and with the cost of applying for citizenship doubling in price to $600 I'll keep my green card and renew it every ten years. Apart from that I love it here, get to drive a huge 4X4 and nobody complains about it ;<)

Ooops, forgot, can't do jury service so make that 3 things, a real kicker or what ;<)

LOL, ok I don't really make more than George Junior, but hey I'm working on it.

US Mother, you were asking on the Edinburgh Evening News site what a council house was. It's a house owned by the local county council and rented out to folks who apply for one.

In Australia it is illegal not to vote, unless you are illegal when it is illegal to vote. Until quite recently it was illegal for legal aborigines to vote.

In both the USA and the UK, a minority of people voted for the governments, but Bush and Blair do what they like with no mandate.

This democratic system of ours is difficult to understand, no wonder many countries don't want it.

"2. Navvy
So non citizens can vote in ... Germany, No way!
Oh, don't tell me ANOTHER "German expert".

Well for your information laddie, aye they damn well can, in local elections, which is what Rudiger is asking for in New York.

"3. US Mother, But, as I seem to recall Germany does not allow dual-citizenship, so that could be the thorn in the rose..."
Depends. People from the E.U can have dual citizenship, people from countries that do not allow their citizenship to be given up are allowed "dual" as well.
But as far as I am concerened NO country should offer dual citizenship. If you wish to live in a country then you do it 100%, not hedge your bets by having a passport collection.
Assimilation, NOT integration.

It should be noted that residents of Washington, DC have no voting representation in Congress, and therefore, they have taxation without representation. There is a non-voting representative who is allowed to speak on the house floor but not to vote.

This is supposedly a holdout from the 18th century when DC was a newly created small town populated solely by Congressional employees. Over 200 years later, of the city's nearly 600,000 residents, only 35% are white. The excuses given as to why DC residents can't have congressional representation are breathtaking in their audacity. It should also be noted that DC residents have an unusually high tax rate because of the drain put on the city for police and security (if a street in front of a federal building is blocked off, it's the city which pays for it, not the federal government.) Puerto Ricans, by contrast, have no vote in Congress but do not pay federal income tax. Washingtonians do.

Having moved from DC to Scotland, where as a non-EU citizen I cannot vote or register to vote, I can honestly say that I have had taxation without representation my whole adult life.

23. HMB, Glasgow

I suggest you move to Iraq, where they have free and fair elections, and a government supported by the most powerful nation on earth. They are looking for immigrants as they are running out of people. You would probably qualify for representation without taxation there.

#21 Hiya Bill, strictly speaking you don't have to vote here. You have to (if not you risk a fine) go & get yer name ticked off the role. Then you can do what you like with the forms. As it turns out only about 5% "donkey vote". Indigenous Australians have had the vote in most states since 1962 -- Queensland 1965 -- www.naa.gov.au/fsheets/fs150.
I reckon those who don't want 'non-citizens' to vote think that the 'non-citizens' will be more progressive than themselves. (Judging by the quotes in the article & on this post.)

"Has this city gone nuts?" one reader wrote to the New York Post. "If you don't like it here, go home or become a citizen."
"Until you're a citizen, I don't think you should vote," Mr Bloomberg said last week.
Mr. Bloomberg, please sir. I want to vote also. I mean you went to Iraq without any visa or passport so why can’t I vote in New York. It makes both crazy. The news is good, I may become president one day hee he hhe he he he crazy..

No7
I am in Tanzania. Why spoil the fun. Let us all African vote vie email. INTERNET AND EXTERNALNET. Ok?

George You write good too much let us just vote dont wite vote he he from Iceland to Canada to Switzerland to Holland all LANDS

No 1
Carpentor
Remove screws just vote you live only once then coffin...

25. Yane, wi the pixies

Gidday!

I like the term 'donkey voting'. Most people here in the UK do that; they vote blindly for the reds or the blues in the fond belief that they represent their interests - nothing could be further from the truth with political parties who represent nobody's interests but their own.

I think you are right that people who don't want non-citizens to vote are against progress. Presumably non-citizens move to another country because they like it and have something to contribute, so why not let them? It has to be better than whinging and stopping any change.

1. Carpenter

I have read many of the posts made by the 2nd through 5th of the persons you name. I have never interpreted their posts as anti-American, but rather as in favor of what America was meant to be, but too often is only in words.

They have learned to decipher neocon Newspeak. Most of those who most loudly tout our democracy and freedoms are the same people who most strongly back or are actively working with that prime traitor to the true America, George Bush, to limit or abolish our democracy and freedoms.

As for immigration rates proving anything, what they prove is that there are worse places. There are a lot of emigrants fromt the US as well. (I know several.)

Do your trolling elsewhere.

When Bush addresses "My Fellow Americans" why does that sound like "People of the World"? Because it usually does affect us all. Therefore, by extension, shouldn't we also have a vote in the American elections?

It beats the Norwegian elections hands down! We must have the most boring government on earth - well, except maybe for the Swedes!!

And why would anyone want to be an American citizen.

31. Alec in Chicago

I agree him, he should have added you to his list. Why do you and a few others result to name calling like "trolls" when yiu disagree with others?

As an ex-New Yorker, and American citizen..I do not think anyone should have the right to vote unless you are a citizen of that country.
If you want the "perks" of that city or country, become a citizen. Like US Mother said, there are illegals who are getting lowered tuitions, student loans, grants, housing and more that cost less than what legals and american citizens are getting. I say ENOUGH!!! It is time to assimilate into the the society you choose to live, and be responsible like everyone true American.
Bank America, here in the states, has decided that if you have the need, are not here legally, you can get $500.00 limit on a credit card!!!
Don't they realize that when they run that limit, and decide to go back to where they came from, it will never be collected!! Needless to say MANY are leaving as depositors into Bank America!!!

To vote you must be a citizen. Now we do have LEGAL immigrants that are taking steps to becoming citizens. I can see that when a person is taking the steps that at some points along the road they should be allowed to vote in local, then state elections. They do pay taxes and are taking the steps and that a progressive right to vote will help them understand our political system. I wouldn't have a problem with that. However the democratic party leaders and Hollywood wants all immigrants, INCLUDING illegals to vote. Why? Because they know that thew will give them entitlements they shouldn't have and in reture they will get their votes and stay in power. California wants to give, if they haven't already give illegals driver license. Also they are pushing for a national drivers license to be used as valid identification. A backdoor way of getting illegals the rights they haven't and don't intend to earn. It also is an other nail in the coffon of the 10th amendment.

Sorry for any errors on above, but due to glogial warming, we have had two feet of snow for the past month, wind chill factors as low as -20 degrees farenhight and gusty winds. Washington D.C. is a territory, admisitered and paid for by the fedderal government, carved out from the states of Maryland and Virginia. I think it is time that the pernament citizens be given the right to vote. Using the original boundry they could vote in either state.

39. Aoda, Pennsylvania Wilds

Since DC was set aside for Congress to do it's business and every person that moves to the district knows that it's not a US State but a district. Why would those residents of the district demand representation? They should just move to a State! It's like building your house next to a runway of an airport and then the next day protesting the airport to be shut down because of the jet noise.

...what did I say about audacious excuses?

It is not like building your house next to the runway of an airport; it is like the airport bulldozing over the neighbourhood where you were born and raised and giving you no say in the matter while forcing you to pay extra.

If you are born a citizen of a country, you pay taxes to that country, and you can be drafted to go to war for that country, you should be able to have a say in how your country is governed. Those who would beat their chests over spreading democracy to the heathens of the third world are quite happy to overlook the complete lack of it happening blocks from their offices.

Under your logic, residents of Edinburgh would have no voting representation in the Scottish or Westminster parliaments because they "choose" to live there.

41. HMB, Glasgow

You obviously know nothing about the District of Columbia and what it's purpose is and why it was set aside as a District and not a State. You sound silly arguing this as you do not have a clue. Your argument makes sense if you talking about any other place in the United States.

Everyone who moves to the District of Columbia knows it's a District and not a State. They waive their representation when they move there. If they have children after moving there they need to move if they want to have representation. I'm not in favour of making DC a State, that would be ridiculous. I'm sorry you do not understand our system of government, there are several Americans who do not have a clue either and think DC should be a State as well.

41. HMB, Glasgow

Your comment below is apples & oranges as we do not have identical systems of government. The DC thing is nothing new....

"Under your logic, residents of Edinburgh would have no voting representation in the Scottish or Westminster parliaments because they "choose" to live there."

#39--Aoda---after our gov't moved from "Philadelphia to N.Y" the "founding fathers", when writing the Constitution, decided the Gov't should sit alone as a district, not a state, because of the enormous influence it would have in the elections. that is the way it is & the way it will remain. they never envisioned the influx of people into the city, at that time.

#42--archibald fan--well done!! that would give us 2/more US Senators! ugh!!

#15--Munroe--Maryland & Chicago, big union state's
& they need new members to replace those leaving
their unions in droves.
Massachusetts, Kennedy land, need i say more?
NYC...the democrats are losing many of their moderate dem's & need replacements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/citizenship_clause

#44 Sandy, Yes, I knew that but I was talking about the average citizen, not the elected or appointed offials. To give them the right to vote in the state, or should what would have been the appropiate state for state elections. After thinking about it, I will say that my thinking is wrong. Reason is that they are not citizens of that state. It is true that they didn't think of the influx op people. They didn't think about political parties either but if you would read some of the anti-federalist papers you will find out that they predicted political parties. It was also their intention that one would be elected a couple of times and then leave but we see our represenatives making a career out of it and getting rich doing it.
In getting back to the article, rethinking I think it is a bad thing. Experience is that if the government opens the door just a crack then it will tear it down. In this case anyone in country including illegals will be given the right to vote. Best to keep it the way it is.

No 42 I have no desire to get into a personal argument, however I assure you I write as an American (expat by choice) and a former resident of the District of Columbia. I lived in neighbourhoods which both tourists and Washington's smug, suburban dwelling working populace never set foot in. I do indeed know what I'm talking about.

I watched gang wars take place on my own street, unattended by police and unreported in the media, while the administration two miles away sent billions of dollars of troops and war machinery to the other side of the world. Believe me - I know the real Washington.

You do not "waive" your representation by moving to the District. That representation simply does not exist; you make it sound as if you sign some sort of contract by moving there. The Edinburgh comparison is not apples and oranges; after all, part of that town was set aside for government purposes as well.

I truly don't understand your illogical resistance to allowing taxpaying citizens to vote. Could it be because the District has traditionally voted 80% Democrat during presidential elections? Better to keep a minority disenfranchised than risk them voting for the "wrong" party?

It's attitudes like yours that make me look forward to taking up British citizenship and handing in my US passport.

48. HMB, Glasgow

Please do hand in your US passport. I don't care if DC was 100% conservative, DC is a district set aside for the Congress. No one holds a gun to anyone's head and makes them live there. If they want representatives they can move to MD or VA. Sounds like you only want to break up tradition because most of it's full time residents are either criminals, gays, or on welfare which means they would vote your way. The population is deceiving as a large part of the "city" is transient and are officially residents of other states so those do have representation.

The City itself can't even govern it's self, Congress has to bail them out every few years even though Congress is already flipping the bill for a big part of the city's budget. The full time residents who are allowed to vote can't ever seem to vote for anyone that has their head screwed on right. The voters are racist and voted for Marion Barry several times even after he was busted on camera smoking crack with that prostitute. You want to give a representative and 2 Senators to a group of people like that???

Dateline: Chicago, Illinois, US of A;

The NEW Mayor Daley, is the old Mayor Daley. The man is the son of a Mayor Daley. This one returns to serve the citizen's of Chicago with an overwhelming majority, 72%, of the CAST votes.

How many "elligible" voters CAST their votes?

30%.

What does it take to get elected in Chicago?

According to a Chicagoan... keep the garbage off the streets. Pick it up.

30% people. 30%.

Ho hum - same old pompous and bigoted arguments that have been dragged out for decades now, with no substance or logical defense to any of them.

You dismiss the city as full of "criminals, gays, and welfare" - obviously you've never set foot anywhere but tourist-land. It's an intelligent, vibrant, amazing city full of people who, gay or not, work 15 hours a day to keep your country running. Government is not about structures and laws; it's about the machine that makes it run. Washingtonians make the machine hum and they do it damn well.

DC has neighbourhoods full of real life, and real character, and lots of real history. It's got culture and arts, breathtaking parks, and an actual character to it. True, if you want to drive a minivan around a cookie cutter development all your life, and raise brain dead suburban brats, you can move to MD or VA. Give me the bright lights of A-M any day.

Sounds like you're desperate to keep up a tradition that goes against the core values of America itself.

Incidentally, by your logic, if people deserve to be disenfranchised for electing representatives who turn out to be incompetent, we have to disenfranchise most of Scotland.

51. HMB, Glasgow

Once again you prove your ignorance, when I was stationed at Fort McNair, I lived in Adams Morgan for 3 years, before Adams Morgan I lived just outside of the post for 2 years. I know the city inside and out. So I speak with authority when I say that small spec does not warrant a representative and 2 senators. I can only assume you lived near Dupont circle.

Again, you shoot yourself in the foot with your unformed arguments - if a small spec does not merit a representative and two senators, the state of Wyoming should lose their representation - as DC's population is actually larger.

I do congratulate you on completely circumventing your own argument. You started out by saying that DC does not deserve voting representation because it's a special federal district. You then went on to add that oh yes, it's full of welfare, criminals, gays, bad budgeters, crack addicts, and prostitutes, and for those reasons shouldn't have the vote. Why the need to personally attack the city's residents with dated and cliched stereotypes if the special federal status is the end of the argument? And why does it matter which neighbourhoods I lived in, as your insinuation about Dupont Circle is an insinuation about my sexual orientation? How does that bear on anyone's voting rights as a citizen?

Debate this me when you actually have something logical to say beyond personal insults and uninformed opinions.

53. HMB, Glasgow

I'm done with you. I doubt you live in Glasgow, you sound like a typical misinformed liberal democrat. Enjoy your rants.

#53--HMB--step outside of your "attractive areas" of D.C., & into the "bowels" of the city where the residents of D.C. live & you'll think different......the murder rate is enormous & much the same w/drug use......

How this article about New York became an arguement over DC is beyond me. I have visited it and it is a beautiful city and it is vibrant and has many excellant historical sites and the Smithsonsion Museum is a must see. My granddaughter went to college there and decided to stay. She is not gay, not a racist, doesn't take dope or drink too much if at all.
The city is like all others, the rich section, middleclass neighborhoods and the slums. It also is the seat of our government. Now just what does all this arguement has to do with NYC?

#57--Aoda--your absolutely right, m'dear.

57. Aoda, Pennsylvania Wilds

You mentioned "How this article about New York became an arguement over DC is beyond me."

It started from post #39 "Aoda", Pennsylvania Wilds

You wrote saying the permanent citizens of DC should have representatives.

:-)

What has to bourne in mind here is that the article is talking about is local elections in the city of New York and in how the city is run.

The Norm in the US, no matter where you are, is that elections are open to only those who are citizens.

For Federal elections, ie for Congress or the President, ONLY citizens may vote for these offices. For any State elective office it is at the discretion of the State - and it's constitution as to who can and cannot vote.

Indeed we can see that in some of the elections in the UK - The requirements of a voter to be allowed to vote at a Westminster election are tougher than for Holyrood - an example of Tony Blair's 'Parish Council' mentality no doubt - but still - valid - as Holyrood is not treated as a national parliament.

More people are permitted to vote for MSP's than are permitted to vote for MP's - if you are an EU voter living in Scotland you can vote for an MSP - but not for an MP - fact. Read the Scotland act for the details. Also the Scotland act allows Holyrood to amend the franchise for local councils in terms of age and other factors
(not sure if that includes up to the Holyrood level or just the council/holyrood level - I'm not a lawyer and politicos do twist things......).

The parallels are drawn with US elections. If a US State allows a non-citizen to vote or not in local, non federal election, the decision is up to that state - not the politicians in DC.

The state of the US are co-soveriegn with DC not subject to DC for many things. To quote the 10th amendment - and I'm sure other posters will correct my interpertion.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

So if the State set the rules on non fedreal elections - and the electorate say it's fine - then that's the law.

60 -- Your quote is correct -- and one of my favorites. So, in NY, Chicago, SF, Houston, Miami, LA, Boston, wherever... laws are different, true, and pointedly NOT in accordance with DC, unless coincidentally happen to be so. But like Chicago (my post @ 50), the turnout is flat most everywhere. Should immigrants vote? Yes. Why? Someone has to. But what if things go different than the way all the "natives" want them to be? Hoo boy! Tur-abouts fair, init? We get what we ask for, and what we let given to us.

#62, Reading Public... I wouldn't want it any other way myself, but... (there's always one of those, isn't there?)

I never lived in Chicago, but anyone'll pick up something about Chitown, over a half century. The Daleys apparently run (and ran) a tight ship -- the record speaks for itself -- but 30%? That means 70% DID NOT VOTE. In and of itself that can mean those voters are satisfied that events would transpire according to their margin of tolerance. On the other hand, knowing the long history (reported, mind you) of Chicago civic corruption, has voting become pointless? The phrase "paid for" comes to mind.

I don't see this limited to Chicago, and some US cities (and towns... ever been in Arkansas... over night?) are worse, some better. There is always some person, group, entity, organization, and interest trying to get what they want, and, as often as not, using nefarious means in it's attempt to gain their goal. Happens.

Voting means being involved. It means awarness. If an immigrant (illiegality notwithstanding, which suggests that they ARE NOT eligible, and would not be on the poll, and thus COULD NOT legally vote) is politically involved, and aware of their community, they may easily be a more effective member of the community than some twit born here ten generations ago that blames everyone else for his woes.

This is country born of immigration. Maybe if we institute a mandatory sabbatical, where one leaves the U.S. for a period of time (to where I don't know), serving to clarify possible life circumstances (the way others live and die), we may engender a wee bit o' appreciation for how it all goes down in the states. With all things considered, I will always choose this America.

(tears, sobs, fade to black...) :)

Sorry, but it's Sunday morning. This is fun!

no citizen = no vote
some rights have to be reserved for citizens

#59--Jane K--actually it was #23-HMB, that started it all, not Aoda.:))

#64--terrymich--correct! & we must never forget
the "rule-of-law". i fear so many today have forgotten, especially those in Congress & my President, every time they speak of giving all "illegals" already here, "legal-status".

<<for all>> a must read....

www.laweekly.com/general/features/the-town-the-law-forgot...

#67 Sandy...

The story describes... what? That the leading criminals in Cudahy are legal citizens? The leading criminals are illegal citizens? The legal criminals in Cudahy are leading citizens? The leading criminals are legal residents... illegal residents? That the illegal residents are leading citizens? All of the above? Los Angeles... California... Arnold (an immigrant, by the way)... Ronnie (the leading actor)... It does scare the crap outta me - I have family in East LA, and friends in Redondo - but non-citizen voting doesn't impact it. If the terrorized (or simply interested, non-citizens of East LA, or New York, or wherever could safely vote, do you think they'd vote for criminality?

"do you think they'd vote for criminality?"
They voted for Bush.