You've got to be kidding

E Rin and I drove back from Monticello (or more accurately floated back from Monticello) and she told me that there were cases out there revolving around whether non-citizens should have the "right to vote."

Read the headline of this entry.

Citizens are, by definition, members of the state. Non-citizens are, by definition, not members of the state. The absurdity of suggesting that non-citizens are entitled to vote, that the right to vote ought to be protected for people who are not members of the state, almost defies argument. This is the usual problem with absurd arguments: if someone actually believes that UFOs are landing every night in Newburgh stealing our TOC bids, it's hard to come up with a logical argument against this position that anyone who believes that UFOs are landing every night in Newburgh stealing our TOC bids would accept.

Oy.

Of course, by the same token of this absurd, non-citizens ought to be allowed to hold office, n'est-ce pa? If you don't need to be a member of the state to vote, the same logic would protect the right of non-members of the state to be, say, President of the United States. Which means that if Osama bin Laden snuck in from Canada tomorrow, i.e., became a resident non-citizen, we would need to defend his right not only to vote but to stand for office.

Then again, maybe these vote folks are only defending the right of legal immigrants to vote. But nothing in the topic separates legal from non-legal non-citizens. Even ignoring that, though, non-citizens should be entitled to vote the minute they get through immigration control? Jeesh! Why do you think there's such a thing as naturalization? Why do you think it's not instant, where I take one frostback, add water, and presto, you're an American?

Let's stick with Canada (it's either hard to offend Canadians or it's permissible, compared to any other group where it's neither). A group of frostbacks sneaks over the border. Do they have the right to assemble? Publish a newspaper? Petition the government (US) for a redress of grievances? Bear arms? Are they subject to search and is their property subject to seizure any differently than the average Kansan? Are they entitled to a grand jury indictment? The usual process of a fair trial we would give to Kenny Kansan? Are they entitled to a trial by jury?

Same group, but they enter legally. Ask yourself the same questions as above.

Now, are you telling me, with all that meat on the plate, with all those potatoes, with all that gravy, with all that debate nourishment, you are so craven as to turn away from this forensic meal so that you can argue the absurdity of non-citizens voting?

You are, certifiably, insane.