"Diversity."

Just think about it for a moment, and the absurdity flows over you in waves.

This has been fun.  I am about to get on a plane and will not come up for air for almost 24 hours on the other side of the world.  So I will leave this in all your capable hands.

There are many impassioned views about what it means to be a citizen.   The argument that people should become citizens if they want to vote is strong.  On the other side, though, is how much freedom a city, village, burg or town should have in managing its own affairs.   My view remains that within their jurisdiction, they should be free to do this, even if they're sure to screw it up.

OK, I see your point - we are going round in circles.  I'm not interested in a discussion about what it means to be a citizen, because the subject is people who are not citizens.   I will offer that I see citizenship as a concept at the national level.  People become citizens of a country.  What I don't see is why national citizenship must be a requirement for local elections.  If your position is simply that all voters must be citizens, the discussion is over.

If the good burghers of the great City of New York want to allow non-citizens to vote, I don't see why you or I should have any say in the matter.

No, I think that would be different, because at the state level they would be voting for representatives that would serve in the federal government.  In that case I think congress could step in.

Disagree on 1 and 2.  I don't really think of myself as  a "citizen" of NJ.    My son recently moved to NY, got a drivers license, registered to vote there, pays resident income tax.  No promise of allegiance or anything like that.  If that's "becoming a citizen" it sure is weak tea.  Personally, I only think of myself of an American citizen.

On number 2, remember that we're technically voting for electors for Pres/VP, and the candidates win or lose by state.  Congressional elections are intensely state-focused.  That these have national implications does not make them national elections.

Leigh, thanks for bringing up question 2.  I would say that the state would have a legitimate basis to step in.  Congressional action would be a stretch.

If I ask whether a city can allow non-citizens to vote it its local elections, and you respond that only citizens can vote, who is avoiding the question?

Why should ownership of property be required of non-citizens if it is not required of citizens?  

Let me clarify, however, that the city should certainly have the right to require property ownership.  I just don't see why they should.

Interesting that "Citizenship" is conferred at the national level, yet there really is no such thing as a "national" election.  So if a jurisdiction wants to allow those who are not citizens of the nation, but are contributing to the local "social compact" the opportunity to vote, why is that unreasonable?

Certainly the devil is in the details.  You want to make sure that the non-citizen voters are legal, and have skin in the game.  The skin does not have to be owning real property, but I think paying business tax or city income tax should qualify.  After all, we wouldn't want to see New York elect some hyper-pr0gressive nanny-stater.

The irony that they would have to implement some kind of voter ID requirement may be my favorite part.

I suspect that working, legal immigrants who care enough to pay taxes and vote, might have more conservative values than most New Yorkers.  I have no empirical basis for this, just a gut feel.  

Thanks for good comments from both sides (e.g., Aaron, Estonia, John.)  I doubt this will go through, since Nanny Bloomberg is opposed.  But can't help wondering if allowing legal immigrant non-citizens to vote might actually move NYC slightly rightward.

(Some of you might like to see NYC literally move to the right, which would put it somewhere in the Atlantic.  That's not what I meant!)

NY has its problems, but it's still not an undeveloped third world country.

I may be way out of my depth here, but here's how I see it.  

Let's say a bunch of people buy an apartment building. They would have the right to set it up as a co-op or condo structure.  They could establish the rules people must follow in order to live there.  They could decide on  a totalitarian governance, or more likely allow the residents a voice.  They could decide who gets to vote.  Not sure why NY shouldn't be allowed to do the same.  

Maybe they are trying to circumvent immigration policy, but maybe they would inadvertently strengthening it by insisting that only legal immigrants may vote.  They'll probably have to implement some kind of voter ID program.

The concepts of states rights and no taxation without representation seem to apply hear.  I don't think we should be afraid of this.  At the least, it could be entertaining when the state and feds have to decide whether to voice their objection by withholding funds from the city.

Nobody said anything about illegal immigrants, and I specifically noted this was limited to the city and not the state or nation.  The proposal is to allow people with valid visas and green cards who reside in the city to vote there.  Many (can't say all) are taxpayers.

Why not?

I didn't know that!  I'll redact the title next time I play it.  ;-)