There is Argument for Giving the 'Illegal' Immigrant the Right to Vote

   You may think this preposterous at first, but listen up. I shall provide a good argument for it.
   I speak of giving the "illegal" immigrant the right to vote.
   I think of women's rights, of the suffrage movement, of how they began to protest in the middle of the 19th Century, and how it took decades before the effort reaped results. But, in 1920, the 19th Amendment awarded women the right to vote.
   I think of how it was considered a radical change. It was. And, well, giving "illegal" immigrants the right to vote certainly would also be a radical change -- even more radical. If I were to do a survey today, I'm sure there would scarcely be a person thinking it a good idea.
   Many would just laugh and laugh and laugh. And, the ones not laughing would would be outraged at the very thought.
   So, if you think this is going to be a difficult sell, hang on.
   I begin with a basic observation: The people who live in a community, are that community. And, if  everyone in the community deserves a voice, you don't leave some of them out. You include them all.
   You, I would guess, are going to reply that, no, you don't include them all because some of them don't even have the right to be here.
   I beg to differ.
   I think back on how it was when America was just getting started. I think of the words of the Declaration of Independence, of how one of the reasons for going to war was that the king wanted to restrict immigration.
   I think of how, in those days, there were no visas and there were no quotas. People just came. No one stood at the border and asked to see your papers. Back then, it was . . . well, would I be within bounds to say it was an inalienable right? I don't know that I know how the founding fathers felt, that I should speak for them, but I do know that, like I said, the king's restricting immigration was one of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War.
   And, is it an inalienable right? Think of it this way: Regardless whether government denies them the right to vote, they are, in actuality, residents of that community. In the sense of who is here, they are "citizens." Do we say, then, that, yes, they are here, but they don't belong? The only reason they don't belong is that someone says they don't belong. You have the people arriving first telling those coming later they cannot come, that they have no right to come.
   You have one person telling another person what his rights are. If we allow one person to limit the rights of another, what kind of free country are we?