Should foreign residents be eligible to vote?

Foreign resident can apply for naturalisation

Question: Should foreign residents be eligible to vote?
Position‹2 of 4›: No, foreign residents should not be able to vote
Argument1 of 2›: Foreign resident can apply for naturalisation

A foreign residents willing to vote can apply for becoming a national

The argument

Most states, at given conditions (such as minimum residence, period, crimnal record, knowledge of language) allows foreigners to apply for naturalisation. This will provide the possibility to vote to everybody; the right to vote however should be conditioned to the fact that by naturalisation the foreign person is willing to accept the customs of rules of the country

Context

A foreign nationals can prove its integration by applying for nationality

Premises

[P1]Most states already let foreign residents apply for naturalisation once they meet conditions like minimum residence, a clean criminal record and knowledge of the language. [P2] Naturalisation gives everyone a path to the vote, but the right to vote should be conditioned on the willingness — shown through naturalisation — to accept the country's customs and rules. [C] Because that path already exists and voting should follow the commitment of naturalisation, foreign residents should not be able to vote.

Counter-arguments

Naturalisation in most countries is a lengthy process that requires fullfillment of several conditions and might be expensive. Expatriates that plans to live in a country for a limited period of time, such as a few years, as in the case of a company transferee will be excluded.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The availability of naturalisation is not its accessibility. Qualifying residence periods run to many years, applications carry fees and tests, and several states bar dual nationality, so a formal path can remain closed in practice — including, as the counter notes, to transferees and temporary residents who will never qualify. [Rejecting P2] The premise introduces a criterion the argument never defends. Obeying a country's rules is already required of every resident by law, and treating naturalisation as the proof of it makes the reasoning circular: non-citizens are excluded from voting because they have not become citizens. It also leaves the sibling position untouched, which asks only for a local vote on the ground that residents are governed by local decisions whatever their nationality.