Posted on 04/10/2004 1:53:54 AM PDT by sarcasm
ayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that he opposed giving legal immigrants who are not United States citizens the right to vote in New York City elections, putting him at odds with many immigrant groups and others that have been pushing for such a change.
Mayor Bloomberg, who had declined earlier this week to express an opinion on the issue, discussed it at length yesterday on his weekly radio program on WABC-AM.
The mayor said that while he sympathized with the plight of immigrants, particularly those who pay taxes, he still believed that "the essence of citizenship is the right to vote, and you should go about becoming a citizen before you get the right to vote."
"There's been an awful lot of people over the years that have fought and died for the right to vote - for giving you and I the right to vote - and I don't think that we should walk away from that concept," the mayor said. "If you want to have full rights, and voting is a very big part of full rights, become a citizen."
The mayor's stance clashes with that of a number of elected officials, labor unions and community groups who have quietly pushed for extending voting rights to legal immigrants. It may also hurt the mayor, who faces re-election in 2005, with Latino and Asian voters, with whom he has tried to make inroads.
In recent years, immigrants and their advocates have mounted campaigns in other cities for voting rights, including Washington, where Mayor Anthony Williams has said that he supports letting legal immigrants vote in District of Columbia elections. Several towns in Maryland have also let noncitizens vote in local elections.
In New York City, these advocates point out, there is already a historical precedent for immigrant voting. Until the city moved to abolish its school boards two years ago, all residents had the right to vote for members of these boards and to serve on them. But a proposal to open city elections to immigrants was floated a decade ago and failed.
The City Council speaker, Gifford Miller, a Democrat who is expected to challenge the mayor next year, said through a spokesman that he was still studying the legal issues but signaled that he was leaning toward supporting the current law as it is. "The speaker believes that encouraging citizenship is the best way to increase participation in the voting process," said David K. Chai, Mr. Miller's press secretary.
But several City Council members, led by Bill Perkins and John C. Liu, said that they were forging ahead and drafting legislation that they hoped to introduce in the next few months. "This effort is as American as apple pie," Mr. Perkins said. "The tradition of expanding the franchise is one that has been seen over and over again in this country."
Several advocacy groups also criticized the mayor's position as shortsighted and unrealistic given the sheer number of immigrants living in the city. By some estimates, there are about a million legal immigrants of voting age who are not citizens. Others sided with Mayor Bloomberg, saying that they, too, felt that giving newcomers the right to vote would undermine the notion of citizenship.
"The mayor couldn't have said it any better," said Michael Long, chairman of the New York State Conservative Party. "I think he's right on target. Citizenship is something you have to earn, and work for."
Why? Why licensing acts? Fear that jobs may be taken by someone else? I'm required to have a piece of paper from the state government that says I can work for a living. My father never had one--I'm a second generation carpenter.
But by now, government licensing is so much a part of our society that questioning it rarely happens. And I've even run afoul of a federal agency who mucked with my ability to work for a living--Rural Development--a lady called for an estimate on a window--her window had frost covering all but the top 3-4 inches. I provided her with an estimate, we agreed to terms, we signed a contract, I placed an order. Rural Development, through whom she was receiving financing on an existing loan, would not allow her to use my services--her story. Their story is that she chose another. She did? She still does not have a window and doesn't want to get involved.
What is constitutional about an executive branch of government appointing bureaucrats to a board to regulate and legislate and adjudicate on an individual level?
Doesn't matter. We've willingly surrendered our wages to the convenience of a pay stub and have tamely surrendered our liberty to the safety of someone else protecting our interests that it is rather ironic that though the kettle is still on boil, and we've all easily melted away, the costumed immigrants of the past have left Henry's pot wearing coats and ties and have gladly marched off to foreign climes, employing foreign workers--wonder if they have surrendered more than a decade of their paychecks to fund our society?
Or sum'pin.
Well-stated.
We've lost all perspective on immigration. Historically, immigrants came here in recognition of the greatness of our country -- our freedom and our opportunity. They wanted to be part of it, and we welcomed them to come in and assimilate.
But somewhere along the line, diversity became not a consequence of the mixing of cultures, but a PC, mandated outcome. Today's influx of immigrants come not to celebrate the our greatness, but to change and dilute our heritage.
The Constitution says that our Creator granted inalienable rights to all, but the judicial system has confused rights with privileges and benefits which should be restricted to citizens of our country, not just anybody who manages to walk across our borders, legally or otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.