Not how the US immigration works. For certain specific countries 2 years is a complete fantasy (perhaps for reasons you describe, no idea though).
I know people who lived here for over ten years waiting for a green card. These are people who went to school here, started families, have a steady job paying a ton in taxes, and yet are still nowhere close to being a citizen. Imagine having no real connection to any other country and still getting anxious every time you cross the border.
My post isn't about the US. I said this much in my note at the very top.
Don't argue about irrelevant localized details. If you want to have a conversation about the merits (or lack thereof) of the concept of the dangers of "remote voting" then go at it. Don't divert the conversation towards irrelevant US-specific details.
There are countries around the world where even a million people could play a serious role in all kinds of elections. This is where simple majority systems could be vulnerable. Just looking at the recent presidential elections in Argentina, I think the delta between the two candidates was around three million votes.
Probably closer to a bad movie plot than reality though.
The inverse is also interesting. Let’s say a group of people think the country is going in the wrong direction, but they don’t have the power to oppose it directly. They leave the country, and then absentee vote as extremists of the side they disagree with in order to trigger a backlash. Art of War!
For example, a bunch of countries in Europe have populations between 5 and 10 million. The question there becomes: How many controllable voters would you have to inject into such nations in order to have degree (not absolute) or control in elections at various levels, from local to national? I don't know enough about their voting systems to be able to guess.
Obviously, as you get to nations with tens of millions of people this becomes harder and harder to execute.
The part that isn't hypothetical is the idea that citizens who have left nation A can cast votes remotely and affect those living in country A (at a local to national level) while not suffering the consequences of their votes. This is real today.
Obviously, if expats from A are obligated to pay taxes in A while living abroad, they should have the right to vote. A deeper look is likely required because the rule might have them paying zero taxes (they have to file, yet credits make it zero) or the voting ought to be restricted to the kinds of taxes they pay. For example, they get to vote on national elections only and can't vote on state/provincial elections.
I know many people living abroad for decades. None of they pay taxes. Some of them vote. And that's the point. They are completely disconnected from the consequence of their vote. I don't think that's right.
US citizens who live outside the US and earn money outside the US still pay US taxes.
Also, people don't become US citizens by staying here a certain amount of time.
Irrelevant. Also, not absolutely true.
My post isn't about the US. I said this much in my note at the very top.
Don't divert the conversation towards irrelevant US-specific details.
Where your statement isn't true is in that there are myriad taxes and other proposals and laws people vote for that only affect someone locally. For example, the dopes in our area voted to tax ever square foot of property that blocks rain from making contact with raw dirt. Someone in Australia could vote for that measure. It would not affect them one bit.
There's so much that never even touches income taxes, which is what would affect people living abroad. And, in reality, there are foreign income tax credits and other rules that change the tax equation for anyone living outside of the US.
And then there's the political/ideological allegiance element I mentioned. A citizen from country A emigrates to country B and retains voting rights in country A. Knowing they are not coming back and wanting to benefit their new country, B, they vote for measures and politicians in country A that would benefit country B.
How is that a good idea?
Again, get away from US-centric thinking here. This is about the general idea of the relationship between countries A and B, when a citizen who can vote in A's elections permanently relocates to country B.
P.S not a US citizen
That's actually a bad example, because US citizens have to pay US taxes even if they've lived abroad for many years. As a result they also have to have at least a US mailing address and a US phone number since they still have business with the government (Uncle Sam). Also the opposite is true, you would be incentivized to vote for tax cuts instead, because you wouldn't reap the benefits of any social program that isn't tied to Social Security.
> That means you have been a part of the affected population recently enough and long enough to have "skin in the game".
You're take is a little too cynical in my opinion. Americans that move abroad don't magically stop being Americans, and they usually don't stop giving a shit about their country. Also as a superpower, what happens in the US likely still affects their life abroad. More likely though is that people who have lived abroad for many years are actually out of the loop, don't really know what's going on in the US and what's relevant or important, and so wouldn't make good voting decisions.
> billions of people under totalitarian regime sends millions of people to another nation. They instruct them to stay there long enough to become citizens of that nation
This is one of many variations of security issues, another might be foreign adversaries buying up properties or businesses, etc. I'm pretty sure the military is aware of these threats and has ways to prevent them from happening. They probably also have ways of dealing with circumstances that are technically legal but still a threat to national defense, as I'm sure things like this have happened many times over in different ways over the decades, and continues to happen.
> the potential nefarious use of "remote voting" in any nation
A valid concern but a bit too specific and slightly xenophobic. Really the problem is more general than that, as there are all sorts of conflicts of interest when it comes to voting, so an actual comprehensive solution would need to take all of it into account, if it's possible to sort it out.
For example, a poor person would be incentivized to vote for social programs that are targeted to support them economically, because they won't be paying for it in taxes. A rich person would be incentivized to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy. A religious conservative would be incentivized to vote for policies that align with their religion. A progressive would be incentivized to vote for policies that align with their progressive ideology. Etc. And as you can see, it can be complicated if not (currently) impossible, to sort out "valid" democratic participation over invalid participation.
And yet, I made it very clear that my post isn't about the US. Just a thought exercise choosing any two nations, A and B.
People read what they want to read I guess.
> xenophobic
C'mon! Geez.
There are many things in election systems I don't really understand. One such example is being able to vote while not living in your country of citizenship for a very long time.
NOTE: I am only using the US here as an example. The issue is likely present in many other nations.
I have a friend who moved his entire family to Australia twenty-five years ago. They have no intention to return to the US. They can, however, vote one every election. Of course, the reason is that they are US citizens and they our laws grant them this right. And yet, I think it would be just to consider that this should not be allowed.
Why?
If you have relocated to another nation and become a citizen of that nation, your vote is forcing a choice on those living where you used to while you do not have to live with your decisions.
Say you vote for a tax increase. Everyone pays. You don't. Say you vote for a serious change to laws pertaining to education. Everyone has to live with your decision, you don't. You vote for a lunatic for president, governor, minister, whatever. No consequence to you. Not the same for those still living there.
Perhaps the requirement should be that the person has to have lived in-country for a minimum of five contiguous years prior to casting a vote. That means you have been a part of the affected population recently enough and long enough to have "skin in the game".
There is another side to this idea which takes a very different path:
Voting as a weapon.
Imagine a scenario where a nation with billions of people under totalitarian regime sends millions of people to another nation. They instruct them to stay there long enough to become citizens of that nation. In the US that would be about two years. After that, they are forced to repatriate (perhaps there's an implied threat to their family, which ensures repatriation). Once back, these millions of people can be ordered to legally vote as citizens of the other nation. They would vote as directed by the adversarial government. This government could use remote voting as an economic tool and, in many ways, a weapon of war.
What happens if this adversarial government systematically plans and executes such a strategy over decades. At some point they could have control over tens of millions of votes in other nations through their planted naturalized citizens. They could, quite literally, sink entire economies into chaos.
Impossible?
Well, the laws, as far as I know, would not prevent such a scenario.
Either way, I sometimes feel that those who chose to leave a country behind and emigrate to other lands should not have to right to vote and influence life in the country they left.
EDIT: Wow. Really? Why are people arguing about US-specifics that are utterly irrelevant rather than discussing the concept of the potential nefarious use of "remote voting" in any nation? Didn't read my note at the very top?
Geez.