Poking holes in the SJ pro-noncitizen voting tax argument

As San Jose is exploring whether to follow in the footsteps of cities like San Francisco and New York City and expand voting liberties to noncitizens, advocates claim in the SJ Spotlight that their stance is constitutionally supported by “no taxation without representation.” Jeff Duncan breaks down pro-noncitizen voting lobby’s commonly refrained—yet insufficient—rationale in the National Review. To receive daily updates of new Opp Now stories, click here.

The social-contract argument [in favor of noncitizen voting] boils down to “no taxation without representation.” In other words, aliens are required to pay taxes and potentially serve in the armed forces, and therefore they’re entitled to voting representation. But aliens are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to Americans. For instance, someone with a green card who commits a crime can be deported from the United States, a penalty that would not be available or fair for a naturalized citizen. Other rights not universally afforded to aliens in the United States are the right to serve on juries, run for public office, or access certain government jobs.

If the social-contract argument is taken to be legitimate, then no country is entitled to distinguish between citizens and noncitizens, provided that the noncitizens pay taxes. It would preclude countries from providing different rights to different people based on immigration status. At any given moment, there are millions of people who live and work in our country on temporary employment visas, receive Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or occupy other immigration categories who cannot vote. Their residence is either permanent or semi-permanent…

Part of the reason that none of the stated arguments put forward by leftists hold up to logic is that, even when advancing the radical policy of noncitizen voting, they can’t state their true view: that drawing a distinction between citizens and noncitizens of the United States is immoral. It’s the same principle that leads them to oppose both securing the border with a wall and enacting effective immigration enforcement measures. But, in the same way that a strong border is what protects the citizens of the United States from drug trafficking and terrorism, a strong border between who is and is not a voting member of our Republic based on citizenship protects and upholds the legitimacy of our institutions. Opposing the radical position on noncitizen voting is certainly a worthy effort for conservatives.

This article originally appeared in the National Review. Read the whole thing here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity