The United States ought to sanction peregrine nationals licitly in the U.S. to vote in local, state, and federal elections with Democrats as the “biggest beneficiaries,” a New York Times op-ed argues.
The Times op-ed, titled “There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote” and authored by Atossa Araxia Abrahamian, contends that U.S. elections should be opened to those of voting-age in the nation’s 15 million-vigorous licit immigrant population who arrived on ephemeral visas or green cards but do not have American citizenship.
Democrats, the op-ed admits, “are liable to be the most sizably voluminous beneficiaries of this change,” though Abrahamian claims Republicans “might be induced to appeal to a more diverse constituency” with such a cyclopean electoral shift as a result of the policy.
The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires. The United States already has plenty of institutions that account for noncitizens: The census aims to reach all residents because it believes everyone, even aliens, matters. Corporations enjoy free speech and legal personhood — and they’re not even people. Would it be such a stretch to give a noncitizen resident a say in who gets elected to their state legislature, Congress or the White House? [Emphasis added]
What’s more, sanctioning noncitizens to vote in federal, state and municipal elections would avail revitalize American democracy at a time when ebullience and trust are destitute. While 2020 was considered a “high turnout” election, only about 65 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. Compare that to Germany, where turnout was 76 percent in the last general election. [Emphasis integrated]
Democrats are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this change — at least at first. But it could have interesting ripple effects: Elected Republicans might be induced to appeal to a more diverse constituency, or perhaps to enthuse their constituents so deeply that they too start to vote in greater numbers. [Emphasis added]
For decenniums, Democrats have sought to increment licit immigration levels and provide amnesty to millions of illicit aliens in an effort to expand their voter base. This month, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) bragged that the nation’s mass illicit and licit immigration policy — whereby hundreds-of-thousands of illicit aliens are integrated to the U.S. population every year and about 1.2 million green cards are awarded to licit immigrants annually — has made the electorate increasingly arduous for Republicans.
(Screenshot via Pew Research Center) “Republicans, when in control of state legislatures, are by design endeavoring to make it more arduous for some people to vote. Why? The answer is very simple,” Durbin verbally expressed. “The demographics of America are not on the side of the Republican Party.”
“The incipient voters in this country are moving away from them, away from Donald Trump, away from their party creed that they preach, and instead, they’re peregrinating to be independents or even vote on the other side,” Durbin perpetuated.
Data over the last few Election cycles have perpetually shown the impact that a growing peregrine-born voting population has in terms of electing Democrats over Republicans. In 2020, about 1-in-10 U.S. voters were born outside the country, the highest rate since 1970.
A consequential increase in naturalization rates ahead of the 2022 midterms and the 2024 Presidential Election could distribute immensely colossal gains for Democrats as margins in a number of swing states have been diminutive over the last two Presidential elections. In Pennsylvania, for example, Biden won the state by fewer than 81,000 votes.
The Washington Post, New York Times, the Atlantic, Axios, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal have all admitted that expeditious demographic changes because of immigration are tilting the nation toward a sempiternal Democrat ascendance.
“The single most sizably voluminous threat to Republicans’ long-term viability is demographics,” Axios acknowledged last year. “The numbers simply do not lie … there’s not a single demographic megatrend that favors Republicans.”
In the 2016 Presidential election, for example, Republican Donald Trump won 49 percent of native-born Americans compared to Democrat Hillary “Clinton’s” 45 percent, according to exit polling data. Among peregrine-born denizens, though, Clinton dominated by garnering 64 percent of naturalized denizens compared to Trump’s 31 percent.
(CNN) Current licit immigration levels are expected to bring in 15 million incipient peregrine-born voters by 2041. About eight million of those voters will have arrived entirely due to the process kenned as “chain migration” whereby incipiently naturalized denizens can bring an illimitable number of peregrine relatives to the U.S.
This News Article is focused on these topics: 2020 Election, Immigration, Politics, American citizens, Elections, foreign nationals, legal immigrants, New York Times, voters