Foreign resident can apply for naturalisation

The argument

This argument holds that the franchise should follow a formal commitment to the country, and that a route to making such a commitment is already open to every foreign resident. The factual premise is that naturalisation is generally available. Most states allow foreigners to apply for naturalisation once given conditions are met — typically a minimum period of residence, a clean criminal record, and knowledge of the language. Those conditions are not arbitrary hurdles on this reading but the content of the commitment itself: residence establishes a settled stake in the country, the absence of a criminal record establishes willingness to live by its laws, and command of the language establishes the capacity to take part in its public life. Because the route exists and is defined by criteria an applicant can meet, nobody is permanently barred. The possibility of voting is in that sense already provided to everybody. The normative premise concerns what the vote should be conditioned on. Voting is not merely the expression of an interest in outcomes; it is participation in deciding how a political community governs itself. The argument holds that this should be reserved for those who have signalled that they accept the customs and rules of the country rather than merely residing within its borders. Naturalisation is precisely the act by which that acceptance is declared and recorded, which is why it is treated as the appropriate threshold. Extending the vote to foreign residents as such would sever the connection between the two. It would confer the decision without the declaration, and so remove the significance of the step that naturalisation represents. Because that path already exists and voting should follow it, foreign residents should not be able to vote.

Context

A foreign nationals can prove its integration by applying for nationality

Premises

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.