Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The City of San Francisco now has a non-citizen on its Election Commission --
The San Francisco Elections Commission has, for what is believed to be the first time in history, appointed someone who isn’t a U.S. citizen—who isn’t legally allowed to vote—to serve as an official. The officer, Kelly Wong, was sworn in on Feb. 14, local news outlet KQED reported. It said that Ms. Wong, an immigrant rights advocate, is a native of Hong Kong who arrived in the United States in 2019 for graduate studies. She was sworn in by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin during a ceremony at San Francisco City Hall after winning unanimous support from the board.
Is this a big deal? Well, yes and no. San Francisco voters passed an ordinance, initially struck down by a court but later upheld on appeal, to permit non-citizens to vote in local school board elections. Here are the requirements --
Non-citizens who meet these qualifications are eligible to register and vote in local School Board elections.
*A caregiver is someone who signs the affidavit to enroll a minor in school and consents to school-related medical care on behalf of the minor. This is determined by state law, in CA Family Code §6550-6552.
- Resident of San Francisco and do not plan to move before the date of the School Board election.
- At least 18 years old on the day of the School Board election.
- Parent, legal guardian, or caregiver* of a child under 19 living in San Francisco.
- Not in state or federal prison for the conviction of a felony.
- Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court.
The theory, of course, is that the people most affected by an act of government should be able to determine the leadership of that government. That's representative democracy. The eligible voters (presumably) have given a specific right to non-citizens in a matter of only local impact. In effect, citizen-voters have agreed to share power with non-citizens for a specific purpose.
The problem is that the logic for power-sharing is that the group with whom power is shared has some unique interests that cannot be reflected in the preferences of those granting the power. If true, then the grantees predictably move the policies of the governing body in a direction that the grantors would not prefer. This seems so blatantly obvious that it can only be justified if there was an insurmountable barrier to citizenship. But, then again, having an insurmountable barrier would be justified precisely to avoid the potential for changing voter preference in government.
And the great irony is that an action reflecting a globalist attitude is to be sold to others on the basis that "it is only a local matter that should be decided by locals." Residence replaces citizenship as the basis for who can determine who leads our governments and what that leadership does. You can have open borders or citizen-run government, but not both.
Discussion (43)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Another problem is the lack of any indication that the immediately enfranchised non-citizen voter has any understanding of the system of governance on which that voter is voting.
Yes, I know that plenty of naturally-born citizens of the U.S.A. have an astonishingly poor understanding of the United States system of governance, but we at least hope they pick up on some of it as they grow up.
But a recent arrival from who-knows-where?
I used to read a business publication headquartered in western Europe. It was interesting for its take on international business that was not America-centric. But then the publication started delving farther into American politics, and the publication's lack of familiarity and understanding of American history and governance became so grating, and caused its observations to be so off-point, that it was a pain to read.
And that was from people in western Europe (part of "Western Civilization").
How are people from places farther afield (China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) going to treat the power to vote? What do they think the power to vote means? Affirmation of a ruler who will punish you if you don't vote for that ruler? Power to provide for yourself by taking from someone else? Power to punish those you hate or with whom you disagree? Power to oppress a minority group?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I know how to say "this is stupid" in Mexican, but how does one say it in Chinese? Oh, never mind - but this IS stupid!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Sure you can have both. Why not?
Now, if the powers that be were to attempt to fundamentally transform America (hypothetically, of course), then they may seek to institute open borders, and they may seek to decrease the power of American citizens over their government.
But that's just a hypothetical. Of course.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The woman appointed said how excited she was to speak for people whose voices aren’t being heard. I’ll submit that they are being heard but they still may not vote. And those who vote get to disregard those (mostly) illegally entered in the US voices. That’s the part she may not like.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Giving the riht of the vote to men without property was a mistake. We should make it harder for non citizens and for those with a low I.Q. to vote.
We should also genetically engineer people to have 105 I.Q. so they can become freer as well as better voters.
You're seeing five of 43 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.