You Won’t Believe This: Top Democrat’s Radical Plan to Let Illegal Immigrants Vote

Andy.LIU / shutterstock.com

The House decided on Thursday that foreign nationals should be barred from voting in local Washington, D.C. elections. Cue the outrage from Democrats and their media buddies, who are dubbing this move as yet another “Big Lie.” They argue that non-citizens are already prohibited from voting in U.S. elections, and, as they assure us with a straight face, violations are super rare.

One of the most vocal opponents of the legislation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), has openly defended the idea of “Alien Suffrage.” In a 1993 paper for the American University Washington College of Law, where he is a Professor of Law Emeritus, Raskin argued against excluding non-citizens from voting. He stated that resident aliens, subject to governance, taxation, and conscription, have a democratic claim to local voting rights.

Raskin, who is the leading member of the House Oversight Committee responsible for D.C., voted against the bill, along with 142 other Democrats. However, 52 Democrats supported the measure, reflecting widespread American sentiment that voting should be reserved for U.S. citizens.

In Maryland, several cities have allowed foreign nationals to vote in local elections for years. Takoma Park celebrated the 30th anniversary of non-U.S. residents voting in local elections. Seth Grimes, a community organizer, stated that non-citizens have a stake in civic affairs and should have a voice in governance.

However, polling indicates that most Americans disagree with this view. An RMG Research, Inc. survey for Americans for Citizen Voting found that 75 percent of respondents opposed allowing foreign nationals to vote in local elections.

Raskin’s 1993 paper also suggested that the global market and diminishing national boundaries should encourage us to view local governments as inclusive polities where all residents, not just citizens, can vote. He described “alien suffrage” as part of a fundamental human right to democracy. Whether Raskin still holds this view is unclear.

Following the House vote, it’s apparent that many Democrats support allowing foreign nationals to vote in local elections despite public opposition. Media outlets have been defending this stance, with some acknowledging that non-citizens have voted in federal elections but insisting these cases are rare. Republicans argue that the legislation is essential to protect the integrity of the election system, particularly in light of the influx of illegal immigrants since President Joe Biden took office.

Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), House Minority Leader, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have also supported voting rights for foreign nationals. Ocasio-Cortez compared the House’s bill to historical disenfranchisement linked to slavery.

In contrast, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, argued that the bill was necessary to counteract the D.C. City Council’s decision to allow non-citizens to vote, which he described as subverting American citizens’ voices.

While the House bill and the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act are unlikely to advance in a Democrat-controlled Senate, the debate highlights the divide between the parties. Many Americans who oppose non-citizen voting now understand where each party stands as the November election approaches.

Jack Tomczak, national field director for Americans for Citizen Voting, disagreed with Rep. Raskin’s support for the ‘dilution of national boundaries.’ He emphasized that most United States citizens share this view. The organization is actively working to change state constitutions to ensure that only citizens are eligible to vote.