Skip to main content
added 17 characters in body
Source Link
Peter
  • 13.6k
  • 7
  • 38
  • 56

In short: When you argue that non-citizens should not be allowed to vote, despite living in your country and being affected by its laws, you kind of have to allow citizens to vote, despite not living in your country.

Or, if looked at from the opposite directionThus, ifcitizenship gives voting rights.

If you tierestrict voting rights to people living in yourcitizens that live inside the country, you could create a case for allowing non-citizensgiving everybody who livelives in your country and pays taxes to have a right to vote.

Thus, citizenship gives voting rights.

In short: When you argue that non-citizens should not be allowed to vote, despite living in your country and being affected by its laws, you kind of have to allow citizens to vote, despite not living in your country.

Or, if looked at from the opposite direction, if you tie voting rights to people living in your country, you create a case for allowing non-citizens who live in your country to vote.

Thus, citizenship gives voting rights.

In short: When you argue that non-citizens should not be allowed to vote, despite living in your country and being affected by its laws, you kind of have to allow citizens to vote, despite not living in your country.

Thus, citizenship gives voting rights.

If you restrict voting rights to citizens that live inside the country, you could create a case for giving everybody who lives in your country and pays taxes to have a right to vote.

Source Link
Peter
  • 13.6k
  • 7
  • 38
  • 56

In short: When you argue that non-citizens should not be allowed to vote, despite living in your country and being affected by its laws, you kind of have to allow citizens to vote, despite not living in your country.

Or, if looked at from the opposite direction, if you tie voting rights to people living in your country, you create a case for allowing non-citizens who live in your country to vote.

Thus, citizenship gives voting rights.