An example of a challenge to the cultists (and the rest of us) pops up in the pages of WaPo:
A network of out-of-state political consultants, secret donors and activists with close ties to President Trump is behind an effort to change the Florida constitution to explicitly state that only citizens may vote in elections, a measure that would amplify the issue of immigration in the 2020 battleground state. …
The exact legal effect the amendment would have remains unclear. While federal law explicitly bars noncitizen voting, the language in the Florida constitution — like that of many states — says that “every” citizen who is 18 may vote. The proposed amendment would change the language to say “only” a citizen may vote.
To which I mumbled, Sounds silly enough. Some political maneuvering, no doubt. But wait, there’s more:
Updating the constitutional language is necessary to challenge any future local laws that allow noncitizens to cast ballots, he said. “It needs to be in the constitution,” [John Loudon, chairman of Florida Citizen Voters,] said. “You have to be a citizen to vote.”
Noncitizens can cast ballots in local elections in about 10 Maryland towns or cities, such as College Park, and in local school elections in San Francisco and Chicago. Some Massachusetts towns also have passed resolutions supporting such laws. Supporters say immigrant voting, which was permitted in much of the United States through the 19th century, helps promote civic participation among all residents.
And then there’s GOP political strategist Tim Mooney:
Mooney cited the number of local jurisdictions that are considering expanding voting rights to noncitizens, such as Portland, Maine.
“Leftist activists have termed noncitizen voting ‘the newest civil right,’ ” he said, adding, “How is this possible? Citizen Voters wants every state to pass the Citizen Voters Amendment.”[1]
Clearly, this is an attempt to use nationalism to stir up the Republican base, and that’s very unfortunate because this sounds like an issue that could use a good discussion. After all, what is the point of citizenship?
It varies from location to location, doesn’t it? In some places, it just means you live here and owe taxes, and maybe we’ll defend you next time the insurgents come. Other places, like the United States, it can mean much more: the right to representation in local, state, and national governments, the right to Social Security, the right to sign up with the military services, even the right to become an elected member of government.
And the right to vote?
It may be worth enumerating all the problems that might pop up if the citizenship requirement is removed. Let me be paranoid, way out on the extreme, just to start, and then we’ll move towards more likely problems:
- The possibility of the flooding of localities with non-citizens who have a substantially different agenda than might be desirable for those localities. That is, an invasion of hostiles whose weapon is the vote. Sure, that’s paranoid. Really paranoid. But it’s not impossible.
- It devalues the entire notion of being a member of the nation. Millions of immigrants over a couple of centuries – much to the dismay of the American Indians – have gone through varying amounts of work and stress to earn their citizenship, and part of that citizenship is the right to vote. The vote is the passport to participation in American society, and to make it worth so little – near nothing – is dispiriting.
- This may have strategic consequences for the Democrats. The Democrats would like to think they have a coalition of many groups and ethnicities, but one of the largest, the Hispanics, have shown signs of leaning towards stronger enforcement of immigration laws. I suspect this is a case of “we did the work to earn citizenship, why shouldn’t they?” It’s a valid and strong question.
Now, I’m not here to come to a final conclusion on the question. I’m here to suggest that if the Democrats react to this Florida Constitutional Amendment by suggesting, in blind counter-reaction, that citizenship should be passed out like peanuts, we’ll be missing out on a valuable debate. The Democrats should not permit themselves the lazy luxury of simply opposing everything the Republicans want. They must give it a good debate – and, occasionally, rise above petty jealousies and agree with the Republicans.
Even if the Republicans are blindly unable to do that themselves.
The strategic realities of not doing so may cripple them.
1 This is known as strategic incredulity, and is a signal, often fake, that the position being criticized is so out in left field that it’s over the wall and shouldn’t even need discussion. Such a critical approach is often a signal that the critiquers are trying to hide something, and often persuade me to look deeper than I might otherwise look.
