4 ms·

So, I hold a non-immigrant visa and I've made a personal decision not to actively electioneer or participate in anything electoral in the US or California. Mos

by dotBen 16y ago

So, I hold a non-immigrant visa and I've made a personal decision not to actively electioneer or participate in anything electoral in the US or California. Most people agree it was disgusting and inappropriate for people based in other states to phone-bank Californian voters over Prop 8, and the same logic kind of applies to me given that I'm non-immigrant (but living here for 4.5 years). I also don't like it when non-citizens get involved with politics and elections in my home of UK and so I have to abide by that when the boot is on the other foot.

wnoise 16y ago
The laws of the state you're in affect you directly. I personally think it's entirely fair game. The logic for people out of the state doing so appears different enough for me to distinguish. > I also don't like it when non-citizens get involved with politics and elections in my home of UK and so I have to abide by that when the boot is on the other foot. Then why are you even commenting here? There is no bright line between discussing likely consequences here and more general advocacy.
WildUtah 16y ago
Your position is up to you but it is strongly against the ethic of the society you have chosen to join. In America, everyone in the community has a voice and right to participate. We even tolerate rallies by illegal immigrants. Democracy is too important to be limited to just citizens. If you live here and you have ideas worth listening to, you have a responsibility to participate. We'd like to have you at the phone bank, or driving old people to the polls on election day, or writing letters to the editor.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Just bear in mind that prohibition remains official federal policy for now, and that immigration is also federal. Immigration officers evaluating visa renewal, adjustment or naturalization have wide latitude to make decisions affecting a person's future in the US, and may not agree with your inclusive vision of civic life. Electoral activities in particular are tricky. Voting or claiming US citizenship without the right to do so is almost always a felony, and can easily result in mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion (mandatory as in not subject to discretionary or judicial review). Campaigning is generally not illegal, but would probably attract unusually close scrutiny during review. Mistaken decisions can be appealed, but that's a long and expensive process. I understand and agree with the substance of what you're saying, but 'the ethic of the society' and the letter of the law don't always match up. In immigration matters, the burden of proof is almost always on the non-citizen rather than the government. So he's not just making excuses.
- jmaygarden 16y ago
  > Democracy is too important to be limited to just citizens. The founding fathers and US Constitution beg to differ on that point. In fact, franchise was initially limited to a subset of the citizenry. We have a representative republic, not mob rule.

by dotBen 16y ago

wnoise 16y ago

The laws of the state you're in affect you directly. I personally think it's entirely fair game. The logic for people out of the state doing so appears different enough for me to distinguish. > I also don't like it when non-citizens get involved with politics and elections in my home of UK and so I have to abide by that when the boot is on the other foot. Then why are you even commenting here? There is no bright line between discussing likely consequences here and more general advocacy.

WildUtah 16y ago

Your position is up to you but it is strongly against the ethic of the society you have chosen to join. In America, everyone in the community has a voice and right to participate. We even tolerate rallies by illegal immigrants. Democracy is too important to be limited to just citizens. If you live here and you have ideas worth listening to, you have a responsibility to participate. We'd like to have you at the phone bank, or driving old people to the polls on election day, or writing letters to the editor.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Just bear in mind that prohibition remains official federal policy for now, and that immigration is also federal. Immigration officers evaluating visa renewal, adjustment or naturalization have wide latitude to make decisions affecting a person's future in the US, and may not agree with your inclusive vision of civic life. Electoral activities in particular are tricky. Voting or claiming US citizenship without the right to do so is almost always a felony, and can easily result in mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion (mandatory as in not subject to discretionary or judicial review). Campaigning is generally not illegal, but would probably attract unusually close scrutiny during review. Mistaken decisions can be appealed, but that's a long and expensive process. I understand and agree with the substance of what you're saying, but 'the ethic of the society' and the letter of the law don't always match up. In immigration matters, the burden of proof is almost always on the non-citizen rather than the government. So he's not just making excuses.
jmaygarden 16y ago
> Democracy is too important to be limited to just citizens. The founding fathers and US Constitution beg to differ on that point. In fact, franchise was initially limited to a subset of the citizenry. We have a representative republic, not mob rule.