Which basically means rich people who probably don't pay taxes.

Lots of empty apartments/condos in London's Square Mile and NYC and Seattle "occupied".

The rich get richer and avoid paying their fair share - or even half of the tax burden the 99 percent shoulder.

I doubt it will just be Fox News viewers who have a problem with this. It gets to the question of what it means to be a citizen. There will be legal challenges, and despite the historical precedents you cite there is every reason to believe that the courts may find that the NYC City Council exceeded its authority in granting the vote to noncitizens. This issue could have legs.

@1, you are a moron.

Democrats keep wanting to boost the voting rolls in cities because that is their strongest showing. They will do anything to get more voters because jobs and population continue to exit to the jobs rich suburbs which do not require the heavy duty government services that employ them.

@4 - I lol'd.

@1 & 4: This would only be binding in NYC municipal elections, also since most of the people in the U.S. live in cites, #4 is correct, the Democrats have their strongest showings among the majority of Americans

Seattle could do this too(allow non citizen residents to vote in citywide elections) but I believe it would require the state legislature to amend the state constitution with some kind of a Home Rule allowance. Any lawyers out there that can shed more light on this?

"No taxation without representation." Says the guy who's all in favor of other states taxing his internet purchases. Are you really that dumb?

@3 you should actually read how people have shamed the UK and US into going after this, or what even the IMF internal reports show is widespread non-compliance. Just look at the trillions sitting offshore.

There's a hole in the bucket. And we didn't put it there.

@9 those taxes go back to where you file taxes and provide proof you live. No stateless people exist, only those who deny they exist.

#9: Goldy has never said that he wants other states to collect taxes on his internet purchases, he wants taxes that the law says must already be paid, to be collected.

@9 Are you an idiot or a liar? You choose. Because it's been explained again and again that the Marketplace Fairness Act does not allow other states to tax my Internet purchases, but rather it allows Washington State to collect from out-of-state retailers the sales tax I already owe on the purchases I make.

Personally, I think you're a liar. But my apologies if you're just an idiot.

@4 John, Kent is hardly rich in jobs or money, especially compared to Seattle.

@7: for me, the interesting question is: in the post-globalization 21st century, what is the distinction between a citizen and a noncitizen? Does the distinction still have relevance, or has it become as quaint anachronism as the nation-state itself?

I submit that the right to vote is fundamental to citizenship. I acknowledge that's not how it's currently viewed in the law, but the law is not not fixed and inviolable. Laws evolve.

Citizenship is a concept the Romans invented to forge an empire larger than Latium, larger than Italy. By granting privileges to conquered peoples they gave the assimilated a reason to shift their allegiances to the empire. Citizenship is a vital innovation without which we would still be a fragmented group of cities unable to band together against raiders, pirates, or natural disasters.

The core of Citizenship, then, is having a stake in the welfare of the state. That is where I would draw the line. I have no problem in conveying the benefits of a society upon visitors or prospective citizens. But the franchise, no. That should be reserved for citizens, for it represents a fundamentally different level of commitment.

I'm in favor of allowing non-citizens to vote as long as they have permanent resident status or otherwise have applications for U.S. citizenship pending.

@18: I'm curious then. To you (or anyone else reading), what is it that distinguishes a citizen from a noncitizen? Does the concept of citizenship even hold any meaning for you?

What rights ought a citizen to possess that are withheld from a noncitizen?

At 62, I have never once voted in an election. That's because I'm a Canadian citizen, but I've never been resident in Canada when I've been of age and there's been an election (Canada doesn't allow absentee voting). And as a U.S. resident, I'm not eligible to vote, even though I pay my taxes just like anyone else.
On the plus side though, I don't get called to serve on juries. I've given up worrying about it.

@10 "you should actually read"

Oh Will. Have you been reading InBev again?

Nope nope it is all true, I know plenty of elite rich socialist liberals hell bent on undermining "true American Values" who buy homes in swing States just to shift their Electoral College vote at will.

LOL

Josh Marshall thinks this is, on the whole, a bad idea. Citizenship should mean something, distinct from residency or taxing status. Otherwise, what's the point of it? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20…

@23 The point is to involve all stakeholders in the process of governance. The alternative is one class of people dictating to another, which, except in narrow cases, is a lousy way to develop public policy.

I think we ought to take a page from Turkey's squatter laws which give legal rights to squatters if they can show that they've made permanent households/communities, even if its on private land. The humane fact of the person who has made a home somewhere ought to trump the abstract property rights of an absentee landowner, just as the practical fact of being part of a community ought to trump the abstract notion of "citizenship."

@19,
If I actually had any real authority, my definition of 'citizen' would be a person who would voluntarily sacrifice their life if their country, as a whole, as a majority, asked for it, and in return, the country, as a whole, as a majority, would sacrifice itself if the citizen asked for it.

I know that's totally abstract, so I'll give a more real-world, working definition: A citizen is someone who gives themselves to their country, and the country agrees to claim responsibility for the person/citizen.

Ok, that's kinda abstract too. Really, I feel that a person who truly is invested in the country, who WANTS to be a citizen, should be afforded the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. Those who are just here for the ride are treated as vacationers.

/still too abstract?

Here's my anecdotal experience with citizenship, for anyone interested...

I was dating a Lithuanian citizen, who had been living in the U.S. as a 'permanent resident' for years and finally her citizenship application came up to be accepted/rejected.

I helped her with her citizenship test. The testers will ask something like 8 or 9 out of 65 total possible questions, and some of them are bitches (e.g., 'name the original 12 American colonies... the original 12 "states." It's not that easy). She did fine though, because I quizzed her on it relentlessly. I learned a lot myself too... for example... did you know that the number of Supreme Court Justices isn't defined? If President Obama (or any President) really wanted, they could add another right now. Or 10 more. There's nothing in the Constitution that says how many or how few SCOTUS Justices there have to be.

I digress.

She lived her for years and years. Always paying taxes. Never getting to vote on how her tax money was spent. That bugged me. There are plenty of stupid government programs that I don't want to fund (e.g., the military) but at least I can put my one, single voice in there as a vote against it. My ex couldn't. She just had to give them money and had no say as to where it went. No say as to where it went. No vote. They could have spent it to specifically target her personally for deportation and she still wouldn't have had any say in the matter. None.

Anyway. That bugged me. And it got me thinking about what it means to be a citizen or a non-citizen. A lot.

Aside... we went to some fourth of July fireworks thing. And this was in superconservativeflorida, and the guy on stage, I guess the guy in charge, said we all have to stand and be patriotic because the national anthem was about to start. And I told my Lithuanian gf at the time, "fuck that shit... you're not a U.S. citizen. you don't have to stand or salute or put your hand over your heart or do any of that. They haven't accepted you... you shouldn't have to accept them. Just stay sitting during the national anthem and if anyone gives us shit, Ima gonna unload on their asses!!!" But no one cared. Just thought I'd share because I like that story.

@25: Citizenship is not entirely abstract, it is defined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and is an important basis for ensuring due process and equal protection under the law. Citizens enjoy greater legal protections, and that will continue to be the case regardless of whether the franchise is limited to citizens only.

I do think it's a rather weak argument that the franchise should be extended to people who are here legally and pay taxes. I may legally visit Italy for a couple of weeks and pay taxes while I'm in the country but certainly don't expect to vote. Permanent residents are another matter. They can still be deported and do not enjoy a full citizen's legal protections. But should that extend to voting? I haven't yet heard a convincing argument for that - "Avoiding one class of people dictating to another" is rubbish given that legal nonresidents still have reduced legal rights regardless of whether or not they can vote. Why should permanent residents expect the right to vote? If they want to enjoy that right, let them apply for citizenship to demonstrate their commitment. That seems reasonable to me.

@27: there were 13 original colonies, not 12. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia.

Historically, aside from being the 18th Century equivalent to a bumper sticker slogan - and a dodgy one at that- "No taxation without representation" wasn't about taxes at all, it was about home rule for the colonies. The British wised up after the American Revolution and granted Dominion status to several (but not by any means all) of their colonies.

"No taxation without representation" has never been an operating principle in the American system of government.

@4 and 6: it raises some legal questions about what kinds of issues noncitizens would be allowed to vote on. Certainly not state or federal elections, so the argument about the Democrats is a red herring. But could they vote for Mayor, for instance? Local elections boards can set the "time, manner and place" for voting, but there are numerous laws preventing them from deciding who is eligible to vote.

@20 - of course Canada allows for absentee voting. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir…

@12: it's not just that you are a sad little failure who bites the hands of those who subsidize your (meager) paycheck. It's not just that you give a pedantic argument for a bill that clearly expands the legal authority to apply sales taxes. It's that you are the house monkey for the failed Democratic leadership in Olympia and DC that cravenly insists on regressive after regressive sales taxes and user fees instead of the more fair and sustainable taxation based on income or wealth. Shame on you for deflecting your failure bile on 5280 instead of where it belongs, your political overlords (I've seen your minstrel show at Democratic events...)

My best friend became a US citizen a couple of years ago because it was cheaper than renewing her green card. I haven't applied for citizenship because my green card is valid until 2022 so I don't want to waste the money right now, and going for citizenship would kinda make me feel stiffed on the green card fee I paid last year (which was $590, on top of the maybe $2000 I'd chipped in previously for my conditional residency plus medical fees).

The immigration process has taught me that citizenships are valued in $$$ and have no other meaning. I have a hard time drawing meaningful lines around social groups bigger than 'my community' and smaller than 'the world'. Being able to vote would be neat, I guess. Maybe we could vote for a less intrusive and expensive immigration system.

@20 there is an election right now in BC. You can vote at any embassy or consulate. There's one in Seattle.

Thanks for the link @34.

@30,

D'oh!

I knew that. I must have lost one of the colonies to the last beer I had last night.

@35 Ooh, snap! :D

Does this comment make me look old? What are the kids saying?