Push Is On to Give Legal Immigrants Vote

[Kris]

April 8, 2004

Push Is On to Give Legal Immigrants Vote in New York

By ROBERT F. WORTH

At first glance, it may seem a long shot in an era of orange alerts and stepped-up border patrols. But quietly and carefully, elected officials, labor unions and community groups are starting to push the notion of allowing legal immigrants who are not United States citizens to vote in New York City elections.

Supporters say it is not an outlandish proposition. They point out that even without citizenship, legal immigrants pay taxes, send their children to public schools and serve in the military. Noncitizens in many states were allowed to vote in local, state and even Congressional elections as recently as the 1920's. Until New York City moved to abolish its school boards two years ago, all residents had the right to vote for and serve on them. And although a proposal to open city elections to immigrants was raised 10 years ago without success, some people believe that the time may now be right.

In the last decade, five towns in Maryland have allowed noncitizens, even illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections. Campaigns for immigrant voting rights are under way in several cities, including Hartford; Cambridge, Mass.; and Washington, where Mayor Anthony Williams has said he supports giving legal immigrants the vote in District of Columbia elections.

Those initiatives may be taken more seriously in a campaign season when politicians in both major parties are making overtures to immigrants, as President Bush has with his proposal to grant temporary legal status to millions now living here illegally.

For the moment, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has declined to express an opinion on the subject, and Gifford Miller, the speaker of the City Council, said this week that he was still studying the legal issues. Several union locals have quietly indicated their support, though only one has formally joined the coalition that is promoting the idea.

At a minimum, it is an intriguing prospect in a city with about a million legal immigrants of voting age who are not citizens — equivalent to more than a fifth of the total number of current voters. Granting those people, most of them Hispanic or Asian, the right to vote could change the electoral calculus in a number of arenas, from the races for mayor and the five borough presidents to ballot questions on city borrowing and building projects.

The new voters would be more likely to elect minority candidates, political analysts say, and could force politicians to become more responsive to issues like deportation policy and immigrant access to health care. If voting rights were extended to the state level — truly a long shot at this point — the effects would be even greater, forcing redistricting that could affect the balance of power in Congress. Although all residents are counted when district lines are redrawn, normally only eligible voters are included when the new districts are challenged in court under the Voting Rights Act.

"This would be seismic in its impact," said Roberto Ramirez, a political consultant and lawyer who has served as a state assemblyman and chairman of the Bronx Democratic Party. "Both parties would have to develop a different mindset to address policy issues for those residents who have historically not been part of the political process."

Nationally, there are more than 10 million legal immigrants who are not citizens, according to estimates based on census figures. Some are waiting to become citizens, a process that often takes as long as 10 years with the current backlog of applications. Others are not eligible for citizenship because they are here on temporary visas, or have simply not applied.

In New York City, the latest proposals are still being drafted by two council members, Bill Perkins and John C. Liu. Supporters all agree that whatever measure surfaces, it should extend the vote to legal immigrants who are eligible to become citizens. Some would prefer a broader law to include anyone who pays taxes, regardless of immigration status.

There will certainly be opponents. Critics say that giving newcomers the right to vote would undermine the very idea of citizenship.

"Extending voting rights to noncitizens eliminates the last distinction between people who have accepted permanent membership in the American people and those who have not," said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that favors greater restrictions on immigration. "That distinction is important to maintain."

The political landscape affecting the proposal has changed in recent years. When the idea was first broached in New York and Washington in the early 1990's, some black community leaders opposed it, seeing immigrants as political and economic competitors. That is no longer true, at least in New York, where a number of black leaders and elected officials say they see the effort as an extension of the civil rights movement. Mr. Perkins, one of the councilmen drafting legislation, is African-American.

A stumbling block was removed this year when lawyers for the City Council reviewed state election law and decided that the city could alter its voting statutes without the approval of the State Legislature, where noncitizen voting measures were introduced without success three times during the 1990's. Nothing in New York State's Constitution forbids voting by noncitizens.

A dozen New York organizations have formally joined a coalition that is actively promoting the cause; they have organized community meetings and held a conference last month at City College in Manhattan. Half are immigrant-based groups like the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and New Immigrant Community Empowerment, and some others have links to organized labor. Immigrant sponsors have a clear self-interest: their politicians would presumably get new votes, and their communities would get more influence.

Seven or eight other organizations, including three union locals and some nonprofit political and legal groups like Common Cause, say they support the idea as well.

The groups say their optimism is based in part on the Bloomberg administration's general receptiveness to immigrant concerns.

"In the past two years New York has passed strong laws that protect immigrants and give them better access to government, and we are confident New Yorkers will support voting rights once they fully understand the issue," said Bryan Pu-Folkes, the executive director of New Immigrant Community Empowerment, based in Queens.

Noncitizen voting is sometimes dismissed as a left-wing hobbyhorse that can succeed only in overwhelmingly Democratic places, like the towns in Maryland where such laws have passed.

Still, it is not at all clear that the new voters would favor one party over the other, said John Mollenkopf, the director of the Center for Urban Research at the City University of New York. In their last elections, Mr. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki each drew more than a third of the Hispanic vote in New York City, Mr. Mollenkopf estimated, a strong showing for Republican candidates. Asian voters are even more likely than Hispanic voters to lean Republican, he said.

Whatever the political fallout, some opponents argue that noncitizen voting is bad policy and would remove an incentive to becoming a full United States citizen. The idea's proponents counter that getting the right to vote could help provide a political education for new immigrants and give them an appetite for voting in presidential elections, which is restricted to citizens by federal law.

"In many ways, this prepares people," said Gouri Sadhwani, the executive director of the New York Civic Participation Project, one of the groups pressing the issue. "They start local, and then they become citizens and vote in national elections."

All of these arguments have long histories. From the founding of the nation until the early 20th century, immigrants had a civic voice that many citizens, including blacks and women, did not. At various times, they voted in 22 states and federal territories (though New York moved early, in 1804, to restrict voting to citizens).

The practice known as "alien suffrage" was less common in the South than other parts of the country, largely because new immigrants tended to be hostile toward slavery. The first article in the Confederate Constitution banned noncitizen voting, said Jamin Raskin, a law professor at American University and a leader of the modern movement to give immigrants the vote.

State legislatures began narrowing their suffrage laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as huge waves of immigration from southern and eastern Europe led to greater suspicion about political radicalism among the newcomers. By 1928, voting at every level had been restricted to United States citizens.

That remained true until 1992, when the town of Takoma Park, Md., passed a measure allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. Since then, four other towns in Maryland have followed suit. Two communities in Massachusetts, Cambridge and Amherst, have passed similar measures, but have been blocked from implementing them by the absence of enabling state legislation.

Giving immigrants the right to vote will not be an easy sell, even in New York. Some proponents say they will be content for the moment if they can force people to rethink a fundamental issue.

"Whether or not we pass this law in the next year, this is an idea whose time has come," said Bertha Lewis, the executive director of Acorn, an advocacy group for low-income families that is planning rallies to support the move. "You cannot put this genie back in the bottle."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

April 10, 2004

Bloomberg Voices His Opposition to Voting by Noncitizens

By WINNIE HU

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that he opposed giving legal immigrants who are not United States citizens the right to vote in New York City elections, putting him at odds with many immigrant groups and others that have been pushing for such a change.

Mayor Bloomberg, who had declined earlier this week to express an opinion on the issue, discussed it at length yesterday on his weekly radio program on WABC-AM.

The mayor said that while he sympathized with the plight of immigrants, particularly those who pay taxes, he still believed that "the essence of citizenship is the right to vote, and you should go about becoming a citizen before you get the right to vote."

"There's been an awful lot of people over the years that have fought and died for the right to vote - for giving you and I the right to vote - and I don't think that we should walk away from that concept," the mayor said. "If you want to have full rights, and voting is a very big part of full rights, become a citizen."

The mayor's stance clashes with that of a number of elected officials, labor unions and community groups who have quietly pushed for extending voting rights to legal immigrants. It may also hurt the mayor, who faces re-election in 2005, with Latino and Asian voters, with whom he has tried to make inroads.

In recent years, immigrants and their advocates have mounted campaigns in other cities for voting rights, including Washington, where Mayor Anthony Williams has said that he supports letting legal immigrants vote in District of Columbia elections. Several towns in Maryland have also let noncitizens vote in local elections.

In New York City, these advocates point out, there is already a historical precedent for immigrant voting. Until the city moved to abolish its school boards two years ago, all residents had the right to vote for members of these boards and to serve on them. But a proposal to open city elections to immigrants was floated a decade ago and failed.

The City Council speaker, Gifford Miller, a Democrat who is expected to challenge the mayor next year, said through a spokesman that he was still studying the legal issues but signaled that he was leaning toward supporting the current law as it is. "The speaker believes that encouraging citizenship is the best way to increase participation in the voting process," said David K. Chai, Mr. Miller's press secretary.

But several City Council members, led by Bill Perkins and John C. Liu, said that they were forging ahead and drafting legislation that they hoped to introduce in the next few months. "This effort is as American as apple pie," Mr. Perkins said. "The tradition of expanding the franchise is one that has been seen over and over again in this country."

Several advocacy groups also criticized the mayor's position as shortsighted and unrealistic given the sheer number of immigrants living in the city. By some estimates, there are about a million legal immigrants of voting age who are not citizens. Others sided with Mayor Bloomberg, saying that they, too, felt that giving newcomers the right to vote would undermine the notion of citizenship.

"The mayor couldn't have said it any better," said Michael Long, chairman of the New York State Conservative Party. "I think he's right on target. Citizenship is something you have to earn, and work for."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

While I think it is a fair arguement that if these people pay taxes, tehy should have a say in where it is spent, I also believe that citizenship should have more rights than just getting a passport from the US.

Maybe there should be some sort of go-between? People who WANT citizenship and who are on the waiting list being allowed to vote? I know that could be abused, but still.

I think people should stop thinking that this is some sort of god given right and view it as simple as it is. You are in a country, a country that will accept you as a citizen (although not easily in some cases). If you want to vote, become a citizen...

As for re-districting, that is a total farce. Why the hell do we need to redistrict? So a candidate can appeal to a more segregated electorate? Pheh! Seismic in its impact. There goes another lawyer using descriptors he is unfamiliar with...:P

[fioco]

This is a difficult issue and I can see both viewpoints, esp. since I considered citizenship in another country and have "experienced" those variables that either can invite citizenship or alienate and discourage assimilation. I treasure my US citizenship, but I wanted to participate fully in the community that was to be my home. In the end, I returned to my native home, the U.S.

Participation in local elections, esp. school issues, by legal immigrants could empower them to seek full citizenship. Their prior experience may have taught them that their "vote" was meaningless or a sham. The experience of voting in local issues (they are tax payers, their children a sizable portion of the schools) could shape their expectations of democracy. Ongoing community-wide campaigns would be needed to encourage legal immigrants to seek the greater privileges and responsibilities of full citizenship. As an educator (one of my many hats), I know that experience is the best teacher. Becoming a citizen is a process -- a concept "foreign" to native born Americans who seldom bother to vote unless its an emotional issue. This process could "grow" citizens from the grassroots.

[Kris]

April 13, 2004

Let Immigrants Vote?

To the Editor:

Extending voting rights to noncitizens ("Push Is On to Give Legal Immigrants a Vote in the City," front page, April 8) is one of the most absurd political ideas I have ever heard.

Everyone pays taxes and everyone consumes the services those tax revenues pay for. It does not follow that paying taxes also confers the right to vote.

If legal immigrants want to live here and take advantage of what the United States has to offer, fine. If they want to vote here and have a say in policy, they should become citizens.

Perhaps we should consider extending voting rights to individuals who have started the citizenship process, but not to those who have no interest in joining us.

SETH SCHLUSBERG
Brooklyn, April 8, 2004

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[BrooklynRider]

I don't support allowing non-citizens the right to vote. I had the privilege of attending a naturalization service for a friend. The key difference between a naturalized citizen and a non-citizen immigrant is that the naturalized citizen has taken a pledge of allegiance to this country and rescinds their citizenship elsewhere (that's in the oath and pledge).

I don't want people voting in elections who are not educated in the history of this country, the ideals we stand for (however contested), and who can come here, vote, impact our process and then walk away when it no longer suits them. Apply for citizenship or accept that you are at the mercy and graciousness of your host citizens.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Sort of like municipal elections in college towns.

[Kris]

April 19, 2004

A Citizen's Right

The most important privilege that comes with United States citizenship is the right to vote. Recently, a few politicians, union officials and community groups in New York City have begun pushing to give noncitizens the right to cast their ballots in local elections. They argue that these legal residents pay taxes and send their children to public schools, so they should be able to voice their concerns at the ballot box. As compelling as that argument sounds, there is a more compelling one. To quote Mayor Michael Bloomberg, voting is "the essence of citizenship."

This page believes that it is in the nation's best interest to encourage people who live here permanently to become citizens and throw in their lot with the interests of the United States. Extending the most important benefits of citizenship to those who still hold their first allegiance to another country seems counterproductive.

The idea of noncitizen voters is not new for America, and "alien suffrage" was allowed in many states before the big wave of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century. In recent years, some immigration advocates around the country have been pushing to restore limited voting rights for legal immigrants, especially in local elections. In Takoma Park, Md., a suburb of Washington, residents have been able to vote since 1992. Some European countries are also looking at ways to enfranchise residents who are not there permanently. New York City allowed noncitizens to vote in school board elections that were held until city schools were reorganized two years ago.

Mayor Bloomberg is right to resist expanding on those experiences. Instead of pushing for noncitizen voting, New York's pro-immigrant politicians should be pushing to speed up a citizen- ship process that has slowed to a crawl in this country.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

April 22, 2004

Taxes and Citizenship

To the Editor:

Re "A Citizen's Right" (editorial, April 19):

You are right that granting voting rights to noncitizens is a bad idea.

Apart from your general concerns about the nature of citizenship and its privileges, reinforcing any sort of link between taxpaying behavior and constitutional rights is perilous at best.

Despite its deep roots in American revolutionary history, the relationship between taxation and representation is an unfortunate one that, when followed to its logical conclusion, has the potential to disenfranchise millions of poor Americans and give the wealthy an even greater say in public affairs.

By granting voting rights to legal immigrants based on the fact that they pay taxes, we risk codifying the belief that people somehow have to — and can — buy their place in American democracy.

RAVI KLINGLER-DESAI
Somerville, Mass., April 19, 2004

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article...0040423/17/959

Non-Citizen Voting

by Susan Reefer
April 04, 2004

When the idea of extending voting rights to non-citizens resurfaced earlier this month, it was met with equal parts enthusiasm and skepticism. The idea itself is nothing new; in Gotham Gazette last August, Michael Huang wrote about the New York City Charter Commission’s intention to ask for local voting rights for green-card holders who live in the city.

It is now the subject of legislation in the New York City Council. There is recent precedent for this; non-citizens were able to vote in school board elections and serve on school boards until they were abolished in 2002. The new proposals would allow legal immigrants who are eligible for citizenship to vote in all local New York City elections.

Whatever the outcome of this latest effort to extend voting rights in New York City, it raises interesting questions. There are approximately one million legal immigrants in New York City who would be eligible to become new voters if the legislation passed.

That’s more than one-fifth of the total voting age population in New York City. Already, political groups, community organizations, and labor unions are lining up on either side of the issue, anticipating additional votes for (or against) their candidates and causes. But while it is clear that this would represent a change in the New York political landscape, it is less easy to identify what that change would look like.

Voting Rights versus Voting Behavior

Extending voting rights to a new segment of the voting age population doesn’t give us any reason to assume that population will vote in any particular pattern. Non-citizens would be eligible to vote, but so are millions of U.S. citizens, less than half of whom typically turn out to vote on Election Day.

Voting behavior can be difficult to predict, but that doesn’t stop candidates and campaigns from trying. Making accurate estimates of who will be voting is a crucial element in any campaign strategy, because it allows candidates to target limited resources to those voters who are going to make their voices heard.

Non-citizens would truly change the political landscape not in becoming eligible to vote, but in actually voting, consistently and in large numbers.

But in order to vote, you have to be not only eligible, but registered.

Voting Registration versus Voting Behavior

Voter registration procedures have undergone some changes in recent years, with the advent of the so-called “Motor Voter” law, intended to make it easier for people, particularly young people, to become registered voters. But making voter registration easier or more convenient doesn’t necessarily make it more likely that new registrants will become new voters.

In spite of that fact, the race to register new voters remains a battlegroundby the two major political parties. It may be true to say that party loyalty has declined in recent years, but party registration, or party enrollment, is still the single most powerful voting cue in American political life today.

New York has long been dominated by Democratic party politics, a fact which is unlikely to change, no matter how many newly eligible voters there are. But it would also be impossible to categorically classify the political leanings of one million people. And at least on a national level, there are indications that immigrants are more likely than the nation as a whole to lean Republican. Even if New York’s one million non-citizen voters didn’t break along the same party lines as the national population, it would create the potential for greater partisan diversity in a city that is diverse in every way except its party politics.

Whatever the results of the newest effort to grant voting rights to non-citizens, it will increase attention paid to the concerns of legal immigrants, at least while the possibility exists that they might have a vote in the next election.

Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.

[Kris]

April 24, 2004

New Test for New Americans

The path to United States citizenship is getting ever steeper. Background checks are needed, backlogs have increased, and the price of applying for citizenship is set to rise to more than $300 by the end of the month. These changes are caused in part by increased security concerns and associated costs. But soon, in what seems to be piling on discouragement and stress for would-be citizens, there will be a revised test of whether appliants possess the knowledge deemed necessary to become an American.

When that happens — perhaps as soon as 2006 — the test will look very different from the quiz now administered by an immigration officer, who gauges an applicant's accuracy and English proficiency with 10 or so questions on presidents, the powers of Congress and the colors of the flag, among other areas. One typical question asks which amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to vote. Many natural-born Americans would be stumped on that one (it's the Seventh), but more than 90 percent of the applicants pass the current exam.

Now the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services wants a more standardized measure of proficiency in American history and in writing, reading and speaking English. The revised test will have some multiple-choice questions and will be part oral and part written; applicants will be asked to describe scenes shown in photographs. The stated goal of the bureau, which has taken up the duties of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service as part of the Department of Homeland Security, is to make the test more meaningful. A spokesman said it should not be harder, although that remains to be seen. It will certainly be longer.

While the bureau plans to design a new curriculum for the community-based organizations and agencies that help immigrants prepare for the test, the government will provide no money to make that process less onerous. That's unfortunate. There is already a tremendous shortage of English classes for foreign speakers, and the demand will certainly increase. Immigrants and their advocates are right to be concerned. A study published by the Urban Institute says that some 8 million people in the country are eligible to apply for citizenship now, 2.7 million in California alone. A chief reason they do not apply is difficulty with English.

While 640,000 people became naturalized citizens last year, the bureau has a backlog of 345,000 applications that have been awaiting processing for more than six months. The nationwide average for completing applications is more than one year. Revising the citizenship test is not a bad idea. But it will work only if the new test is fair, and part of much-needed improvements to the system for welcoming new Americans.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company