Should all immigrants to a host country have the right to vote in that country, irrespective of citizenship status, since the very moment they established their habitual residence in that country?

Question

Answer

Con: Habitual residence means nothing, merely an address. A poor grasp of the host nation&#x27;s language (France and French being a prime example), no idea of the politics or culture of the host country are arguments against allowing voting rights for habitual residents without citizenship.

Answer

Con: It enhances & accelerates the cultural change that results from high levels of immigration, leading to a siege mentality in pre-residents & xenophobic politics. Cultural change always happens but must happen at a managed rate that is acceptable to all. Voting rights should be given to immigrants after some period of acclimatisation - and only if they don&#x27;t also continue to vote in country of origin.

Answer

Con: Immigrants have the right to vote in their country of origin and a second right to vote in another country, the host country, is discriminatory against those who are entitled to vote only once, since their country of origin and permanent residence is the same.

Answer

Con: Immigrants must show a significant connection to the host country so that a vote could be made fully aware of that country specificities, and this is already checked when applying for citizenship, which include the voting rights for that person, if citizenship is awarded.

Answer

Pro: No taxation without representation. Those who pay taxes should have the right to vote. Irrespective of citizenship status.

Answer

Pro: If migrants are not allowed to vote, politicians may not take them into account when proposing and enforcing policies, even when they affect them.

Answer

Con: It would allow for those with far less loyalty or patriotism to have a say in the country, which would be detrimental. This assumes nationalism is a good thing.

Answer

Con: Voting rights for non-citizents, based just on a temporary habitual residence would give rise to an electoral tourism that would negatively affect the more stable citizens interests.

Answer

Con: Non-citizens do not have sufficient significant links and interests into the host country.

Answer

Con: Immigrants have a different national background and cannot make decisions affecting another nation to whom they do not pertain.

Answer

Pro: All residents living under the same governmental unit should enjoy same rights, without preferential treatment.

Answer

Pro: Migrants living in a country are often subject to policies affecting them, without having a meaningful right to express their vote in those matters.

Should all immigrants to a country have the right to vote in their host country?

Should all immigrants to a host country have the right to vote in that country, irrespective of citizenship status, since the very moment they established their habitual residence in that country?

If migrants are not allowed to vote, politicians may not take them into account when proposing and enforcing policies, even when they affect them.

All residents living under the same governmental unit should enjoy same rights, without preferential treatment.

Migrants living in a country are often subject to policies affecting them, without having a meaningful right to express their vote in those matters.

No taxation without representation. Those who pay taxes should have the right to vote. Irrespective of citizenship status.

Habitual residence means nothing, merely an address. A poor grasp of the host nation's language (France and French being a prime example), no idea of the politics or culture of the host country are arguments against allowing voting rights for habitual residents without citizenship.

It would allow for those with far less loyalty or patriotism to have a say in the country, which would be detrimental. This assumes nationalism is a good thing.

Voting rights for non-citizents, based just on a temporary habitual residence would give rise to an electoral tourism that would negatively affect the more stable citizens interests.

Non-citizens do not have sufficient significant links and interests into the host country.

Immigrants have a different national background and cannot make decisions affecting another nation to whom they do not pertain.

Immigrants have the right to vote in their country of origin and a second right to vote in another country, the host country, is discriminatory against those who are entitled to vote only once, since their country of origin and permanent residence is the same.

Immigrants must show a significant connection to the host country so that a vote could be made fully aware of that country specificities, and this is already checked when applying for citizenship, which include the voting rights for that person, if citizenship is awarded.