Democracy dictates that the authority or the power of the government should be approved by the people or citizens of any particular country. This means that the country’s power is in the hands of its citizens.
The common way in which people exercise their power is by choosing a legislative body that will be responsible for creating governing laws (Hayduk and Renshon, 82).
This notion has been based, especially in USA, by the phrase “no taxation without representation”. This means that any citizen who is being taxed should participate in choosing a representative. Almost everybody agrees with the principle of democracy, but there has been a debate on who actually are the citizens.
Initially, the people who were eligible to vote were few. This was due to the restrictions set on who qualified to vote. Some were disqualified on the basis of their wealth, race, sex and even age.
However, over the years, the rules have become less and less strict allowing more people to vote than earlier before. For example, in 1893, New Zealand was the first country to allow women to vote; USA followed suite 27 years later.
The legal age of voting was also reduced from 21 to 18 in 1971 and all races were allowed to vote in USA in 1965. USA has a population of about 300 million people and 225 million have reached the age of voting.
Out of the 225 million, 19.5 million are not allowed to vote because they are non citizens of the country (Hayduk and Renshon, 83). This issue is the reason of debate; Ron Hayduk says that non citizens should be allowed to vote while Stanley Renshon says they should not.
Hayduk starts by reminding his readers that non citizens are allowed to vote by law and for along time, they have been voting in the American soil. However, his strongest point is the very core of democracy.
He talks of the social contract; this is where the government’s authority is determined or directed by the people. It makes sense to think that the citizens should have a hand in the formulation of the rules they follow. Also, it means that the representative elected can be held responsible for the decision they make on behalf of their people.
Non citizens in USA pay taxes like everybody else; in fact, they pay more than the benefits they receive. They are also found in almost all sections of the economy, such as education, entrepreneurship, banking and transport.
Some of them have even served in the military where a number of them have lost their lives defending the USA. Other than that, they have introduced culture and social diversity in the country (Hayduk and Renshon, 86).
It is quite unreasonable to ask such a person not to participate in formulating the laws that he follows. One might wonder why some Americans are against the non citizens voting. To answer this, Hayduk says that the Americans fear the reforms the foreigners might bring to their country.
Stanley Renshon disagrees with Hayduk and says that non citizens should not vote. He first says that the people who support the voting of non citizens only do so to gain popularity or to feel accepted.
Some of the politicians have been supporting the voting of non citizens as a tactic of gaining popular votes during election. Renshon opposes this motion primarily because the non citizens do not often have enough knowledge about USA or what it means to be an American.
He argues that most of them do not know the history of the US and also how the country is run. It would be wrong to let a person who knows very little of USA to be let to have a hand on how America should be run.
Therefore, he says that; in order for a non citizen to be allowed to vote, he must undergo a naturalization process (Hayduk and Renshon, 93). This is where a person would be taken through lessons of the American history and on the governance of the USA government. Also, the immigrant must be taught how to read and write English. Without the naturalization process, Renshon does not think a non citizen should vote.
Renshon and Hayduk have both argued well and have clearly defended their opinions. Even though Renshon has a point on the legality of the non citizens voting, Hayduk provides an even stronger reason on why they should be allowed to vote.
Renshon’s argument capitalizes on the fact that the non citizens do not know the American way of life and governance. First of all, not many Americans really know about the history of America.
Also, knowing the history does not necessarily make one a patriot or ‘American’. It takes a lot for one to be passionate about his country and act accordingly.
There is no better way of showing your loyalty to your country than serving it. All of the non citizens as mentioned earlier serve in various sectors found in America. Furthermore, there is no better way of learning the ‘American way’ than experiencing it first hand.
USA accommodates immigrants from all over the world and even more than any other country. That is one of the reasons why it is a great country.
What is even greater is its democracy. Democracy is the definition of USA and going against this principle will mean going against the founding belief of this country. Therefore, the democratic right of voting should extend to all, even the non citizens.
Work Cited
Hayduk, Ron and Stanley Renshon. Allowing Noncitizens To Vote:Expanding Democracy or Undermining Citizenship? New York: Borough of Manhattan, 2009. Print.