Can foreigners vote in local elections in Germany?

Are foreigners allowed to vote for local / municipal ... I really want to vote but no one is sure if I am allowed to and I have been phoning around but gotten no answeres ... the reason bein is that this weekend our village is holding an election which affects the schools, kindergarden, freibad, postal code of our village etc etc and I really want to have my say in the matter...

does anyone know more please help ---???

EU citizens can (in municipalities where they are local residents).

I hold a south african passport - heck - it should be a basic human right - they can't just decide what they want to do with foreigners and foreigners have NO SAY in the matter - I'm really upset

You do realize that immigration and other legal issues of interest to foreigners are not dealt with at the municipal level, right?

I think the right to vote at all levels of government should be granted to all adults living in that community.

All the bitchiness from German conservatives about Turkey in the EU has less to do with real human rights issues but more to do with deliberate disenfranchisement.

MT, are you suggesting that non-German citizens should have the right to vote in German state and federal elections?

One other thing, MT, what about those people who are here in Germany illegally, should they, in your opinion, also have the right to vote at all levels?

It seems rather odd to say that German conservatives don't want Turkey in the EU just to keep Turks living in Germany from being able to vote in local elections. Surely there are more substantive issues with regards to Turkey than voting in local German elections.

The ARE issues with Turkey that need to be clarified before candidacy for EU membership: The role of the army, the Armenian genocide and of course the whiole Kurdish and Kurdistan issue.
But the reason the German centre to right of the political spectrum wants to stop Turkey joining the EU is to keep Turks living in Germany disenfranchised and to make it harder for Turks to migrate to Germany.

I think that any adult who has lived a year in community X should be entitled to vote in community X for all levels of government.

I agree*, after all, if you're allowed to live there, why shouldn't you have the right to express an opinion at ballot? This is why the EU allows there citizens to vote in local elections, and it doesn't really make sense to keep people from expressing that opinion on national affairs - the government is happy to take your tax money.

*Although I think it should be longer than a year, maybe 4-5 years, roughly the term of a parliament.

Here is some information on foreigners' voting rights worldwide from an unrelated (actually school-related) thread. This was over two years ago so the situation may have changed in some places.

OK, anything to back this up? Your reasoning doesn't hold water because there are many Turks who are eligible for German citizenship but never apply for it. Some don't want it, some don't want to lose their Turkish citizenship, and others don't want to have problems from Turkey, such as being prevented from inheriting property and money there if they are no longer Turkish citizens. It would be a different story if Germany refused to give Turks citizenship, which is not the case (I know some naturalized Germans who originally had Turkish citizenship). If a long-term resident does not apply for German citizenship, how can it be that they are being disenfranchised, unless voluntarily, something for which the German state and the center-right can hardly be held responsible?

There are indeed a number of people who want to see less Turkish immigration to Germany; however, there are some preferential agreements between Turkey and Germany which make it possible for Turks to come here and Turks, as is the case for foreigners from any other country, can certainly marry a German citizen or legal resident and thus come to Germany.

If that is indeed the goal of the center-right, MT, they sure are going about it in a very ineffective manner. How exactly are Turks being prevented from immigrating to Germany more so than any other non-EU nationality?


It would be a very negative development for any country's sovereignty if this were the standard (allowing non-citizens to vote at all levels of government, including state and federal elections) and I note that you haven't said whether this should apply to people living illegally in country x. Talk about devaluing citizenship and the franchise of citizens.

As you yourself unwittingly admit the way the law is framed works to stop Turks getting German citizenship.

I'd have no problem with so called "illegals" voting in elections. If you live in a community and contribute to that community then you should be represeneted in that community.
undermine the concepts of citizenship and the state? How is that a problem exactly?

No more than most non-EU citizens (excepting the Middle Eastern states for which Germany allows dual citizenship). Looks to me like Turkish law may actually be a greater hindrance, but I don't see you complaining about that. If a Turkish citizen meets the requirements for naturalization as a German, they get it. I see you can't offer proof that the German state singles out Turks and prevents them from getting citizenship. It doesn't. I personally think that dual citizenship should be permitted for all naturalized Germans, and for all Germans who wish to take on a second or third nationality.


It's a problem because those here illegally aren't supposed to be here at all, much less making decisions about which direction the locality/state/country will go. The debate should end with the revelation that someone is here illegally, and so should the shower of benefits. People voting who should not be here dilute the votes of legal voters and undermine democracy as well as diluting the benefits of citizenship.

Non-citizens are represented by the same elected representatives as citizens are, and can certainly make their concerns known and addressed- they do have the right to free speech, plus there are all of the other constitutional rights they enjoy.

TBM, MT, I think you should focus on getting the UK to give you back your right to vote as a UK citizen residing overseas. Now that is disenfranchisement.

I guess you might be implying that you want the state to wither away. Just curious, but what other activities which are illegal under German law do you wish to condone, encourage, and reward?

What's "illegal" anyway in terms of residency?
A quirk of fate about where you were born or what your parents where?
What is "citizenship". You can be a memeber of society and part of that society and contribute to that society.
But just becasue you don't have the right piece of paper you somehow don't have the right to be involved in the formal decision making process about the society?

Of course un-doccumented migrants tend not to pay income tax as they work for cash.
But for the millions and millions of doccumented ie legal migrants who live in Germany perhaps we should consider a famous slogan you might have heard of:
No taxation without representation!

As for law in itself.
It's not neutral.
Therefore there are laws that the breaking thereof could be supported and there are non laws that should be law.

And the notion that undoccumented migrants live under a "shower of benefits" is false and quite frankly, vicious, nasty, racist, tubthumping.

Ah yes, the usual rote false accusations of racism when your arguments have no substance. Not impressed with them in the least, nor am I impressed with your cavalier attitude towards the rule of law. That rule of law keeps you from, say, being criminalized for being gay, so you might not want to dispense with the rule of law if those German conservatives are as bad as you think they are.

I would say that allowing someone to vote in a country in which they are not a citizen is a benefit, wouldn't you? Frankly, I think it is racist to suggest that the non-indigneous population doesn't have to follow the laws you expect the indigenous population to observe.

Rather ironic that you want to give extra-legal benefits to people who by being here illegally are violating the law in the first place. I am sure compliance with tax laws is very low among those here illegally, but once again, no one made them come here illegally. What kind of representation do you think those here illegally in violation of German law deserve or need? A lobby for amnesty, for special benefits so that the society can prove its non-racist bonafides? Just what benefits do those here illegally get, and which ones don't they get but would if they were here legally? Perhaps they should come legally, eh?

You don't know what the definition of residing here illegally is? I doubt that the German people would want to be powerless in deciding who comes to their country, and who stays?

One more thing about racism, perhaps you should look at your own comments with regards to Jews.

EDIT: perhaps MT, you should seek garibaldi's opinion on the issue of noncitizen voting, since he seems to have a lot invested in claiming that I am still a guest, or better yet, an "unemployed foreign guest worker" . Perhaps he can explain it to you in terms you will understand. The corollary to the idea of throwing open the benefits of citizenship to non-citizens without them naturalizing as citizens is that there would be much less tolerance for immigration in Germany- in fact there would be every incentive to control it far more tightly than it is now in order for the citizens to keep themselves from being disenfranchised by noncitizens or having noncitizens vote in policies not wanted by the citizens. This is the German citizens' country after all. Look at the UAE if you need a concrete example of this dynamic.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Conquistador on this thread and issue. While citizen ship is bestowed upon individuals based solely on the nationality &/or the geographical location of the vagina from whence they emerged at that moment, the entirety of the planet has accepted that the child of a citizen is also a citizen until such time as that child is of legal age to determine he or she no longer wishes to be. As to whether a country is willing to allow outsiders the chance to become citizens and if so, how they must go about it, is a decision of or on behalf of the people already comprising that nation. Before complaining about the difficulties here I suggest you look at other Commonwealth nations (where your voice holds more sway), starting with Bermuda and their "native son" laws.

woof.

Please feel free to post any evidence you have that I have made anti semitic comments on this board.

Take the law on smoking as an example.
It's legal on 31st December but not on 1st January.
The morality of whether you should smoke in pubs hasn't changed, just the law.

Take theft. I think it is wrong for people to burgle their neighbours houses.
But if someone is poor and goes shoplifting in Tengelmann I'm not gong to lose a whole bunch of sleep over it.

I think there should be equality before the law but their quite obviously isn't.
The ethnicity and social background of the USA's death row prsoners shows that up in an instant for example.

I don't think indigenous Germans should have to obey German laws that the non indigenous shouldn't so i dunno where that notion comes from.
People DO migrate to Germany and elsewhere. criminalising people are trying to shut ones eyes to the issues becasue these people are "illegal" is no way forward.

You never crossed the road on a red man?

I received a notice to vote in the local elections with all the other auslaender.

I voted the straight Turk ticket, seeing as it was the only thing I was allowed to do.

I think they then tick a box, and simply throw all the results in the wastecan the next day, after which it's back to Deutschland fuer die Deutscher business as usual.

That was the Ausländerbeirat (called that in Munich) that acts in an advisory / liason capacity to the city but doesn't have any powers.
Generally dominated along well organised national blocs as opposed to politics.
The CSU want to abolish it in Munich.

I think you know which comments fit the bill. Maybe you shouldn't toss around false accusations of racism.


New laws have to take effect sometime. I am sure you don't lament anti-discrimination law.


But what if they steal from an immigrant entrepreneur who is in a competitive market and can't afford shrinkage? Equal protection of the law, MT.


So from that you divine that laws in Germany should be ignored and violated? There is a legislative process that should be used to attempt to remedy such things. A legal legislative process.


I don't think deportation from a country where you are resident illegally is criminalization. It's no way forward to condone, encourage, and reward the violation of the rule of law that comes with implementing the policies you support with regards to illegals. Illegal- the debate should end there, and enforcement begin. Of course, you can see the problems inherent to allowing people in Germany illegally to decide public policy with regards to illegal immigration. Your position is, unsurprisingly, not supported by the vast majority of Germans.

While I'm at it.

The US immediately grants US citizenship to anyone born on US soil regardless of the parent's citizenship (n.b. as I understand it, as long as the parents are there legally, but I could be wrong). that's the kind of people we are. No blood tests, genetic tests, family tree examinations. No nuthin'.

I know a surprising number of German professionals who had kids whilst working legally in the US (almost exclusively for Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank or one of the car companies). When the kid turns 18, they're all scandalized that the kid is suddenly on the hook for mandatory military registration and worldwide double-taxation. I say, "well, if you're so upset, then just turn it in at the consulate." Universal reply: 'But it's such a nice option to have!"

It ain't a lifelong hassle-free call option to easily ship your kid to a real university/economy.

Don't even get me started on people who assume that their Green Card stays hot forever even once they're no longer US Permanent Residents!

I didn't accuse you of being a racist Conq. I think you got on that path by mistake.
I said you were using a tubthumping argument that was nasty, vicious and racist.

Your reverence for "law and order" can put you in some nasty company sometimes.
The argument that illegal immigrants are living under s "shower of benefits" is more suited to a rabble rousing electoral leaflet of the neo nazis than a serious discussion of concepts of
the state, the law and citizenship.

I am still waiting for any evidence that i have posted anti-semitic comments on this board.

The law in itself is not neutral. the legislative process through which laws are created isn't neutral either.
Public opinion isn't static, it is created, it can change.

It's a sad day in Germany when a person who is partly of Jewish descent has to suffer the indignity of someone implying that he is neonazi simply because he wants the law to be followed, i.e., equal protection of the law. Go back and look at the hypothetical/figurative context in which the words "shower of benefits" was used. Then it might make a bit more sense to you. The law also protects you, MT, from discrimination. BTW. Perhaps it should also occur to you that if a person who has a "migratory background" himself has a problem with those here in Germany illegally getting voting rights and other benefits to which they are not entitled by law, maybe there is a real problem with the logic of your ideas that should not merely be dismissed with false and illogical allegations/hints/smears of racism.

Just curious MT, but which benefits do you feel those living illegally in Germany should receive?

How would you reform the legislative process to make it "neutral" while also doing no harm/causing nasty side effects?

Feel free to use your right to free speech to augur for changes to German law, but don't call Germans racist when the vast majority disagrees with your extremist prescriptions for giving those who are illegally resident in Germany the right to to decide German public policy.

I didn't accuse you of being a neo-nazi. I said you put yourself in some unpleasant company by using an argument that was vicious nasty and racist.
The notion that illegal immigrants receive a "shower of benefits" is a nasty vicious racist argument that usually occurs on a neo nazi election leaflet rather than a serious discussion about the state, citizenship and the law.

I am still waiting for any evidence that i have posted anti semitic comments here.

I think that societies need to recognised that there are migrants who are criminalised in themselves becasue they are so called illegal immigrants.
And recognise that those migrant memebers of the society do have a contribution to make and they should be offered the chance to normalise their status.

There is still a long way to go in changing peoples' opinions about the state, about borders, about citizenship etc etc.
The ruling ideas in a society are the ideas of the ruling class. So it is no surprise at all that the vast majority of Germans would oject at the fist instant the right to vote for all.
But if you push the point they would probably quickly agreee that their neighbour or freind or colleague who has lived for X years or was born here and pays just as much tax as them can't have a say in how the society should function.

Regarding anti discrimination laws that have been passing through leislatures since the 1970s.
I'm not opposed to them but I don't massivly cheer for them either.
I think that the opression expereienced by women and minorities is not something that can simply be legislated away.

Your logic is based on the false assumption that all those who do not want those in Germany illegally do receive benefits are necessarily neonazis. Unfortunately for you, the vast majority of Germans do not want those here illegally to receive benefits. Are you claiming that the vast majority of Germans are "nasty, racist, vicious", etc? It is verymuch a commonsense and mainstream opinion. Those here illegally are here because they are benefiting somehow (e.g., access to work in Germany) not just for the heck of it, therefore they are receiving benefits they should not. And you want to give them more, despite the fact they should not be here in the first place!


Your smear job on me is one small example. There are many more.


Let them come legally first- that is a good faith effort to show that they will make a contribution to society. Breaking laws and evading taxes is no "contributon to society". They aren't criminalized because they do not serve jail sentences for being here illegally.


Pretty arrogant of you to assume that others' opinions are automatically invalid and "must be changed".



More Marxist drivel. Most Germans don't like the idea of someone destroying the sovereignty of their country. Voting is a right of citizenship, and German citizenship is attainable for legal residents of the country.

Eh?Me pulling you up for using a nasty vicious racist argument is somehow anti-semitic?
Wanna smoke less of that skunk, you are getting paranoid.

It's not arrogant to want to see a change in the general opinons of society.
You'd like the same. For Germany to become more neo-liberal than it is in your case.

The question of voting rights for illegal immigrants is a straw man argument anyway.
As if someone is "illegal" they can hardly vote.

More central is imvho the right to vote (or lack of) for the large population of Germany that aren't citizens and "can't" become citizens.

Why can't they become citizens? It seems to me that if you decide to forego applying for citizenship you are less committed then someone who does apply, and make no mistake, German citizenship is valuable. I don't think public policy should be determined by those who are not citizens- let them become citizens if they want the right to vote. Until then, they can use their right to free speech to bring their arguments forward to citizens and elected representatives.

You have been here long enough to be eligible for German citizenship, MT- something like two decades, right? If I may ask, do you have German citizenship, and if not, why not?

You are the one who advocates voting rights in Germany for those who are here illegally- which would mean even the likes of Osama bin Laden could have a voice in determining German public policy if he somehow made it here under the system you propose.

As for free market economics, the case for it has been proven empirically, and it would not emasculate the rule of law here.

There are a number of reasons why those theoreticly eligible for German citizenship may not apply for it.
Some of them you even mentioned above.

I think it is a false argument to ask if someone is "committed" to a state.
No one expects that of the indigenous.

Quite a simple argument really: No taxtation without representation.

You make a good point here. Even the ever-commercial British are going through a bit of a spat over non doms right now.

Sign up for the program, and we'll sign you up for the program, too. Otherwise, we're going to assume your ultimate loyalties lie elsewhere.

G*ddam, Dad ... good rule.

If non-German citizens don't want to pay taxes, they should not come to Germany. They come here because they benefit, and Germany (at least in theory) lets them because it benefits as well. To demand representation as soon as you pay taxes (which would include the VAT) is utterly ridiculous. How can you possibly be if you cannot speak German and know little or nothing about the country and are here to make money, not to live permanently? What you suggest is ridiculous and a threat to German democracy and rule of law.

BTW, the residents of the US who were being taxed by the UK without representation in Parliament were UK citizens, so your analogy is a false one.

IFF you're a citizen. As British subjects in a British colony, the Founding Fathers meant exactly this.

Otherwise, we should all perform the biggest musical chairs shift of domicile in human history.

BMW builds cars in the US, and pays major-league corporate and payroll taxes. How much influence does the BMW Vorstand have in US politics? Moot question ... it is paying the price of doing business in the US. Ditto for those of us non-citizens living in Germany ... and of non-voting German citizens in the US who pay US taxes and can't vote.

If you own stock in a company, you can vote your proxy. If you're not a shareholder, much as you may wish to, you can't. Non-citizens are non-shareholders.

IF that argument held water, how come EU Citizens are alllowed to vote for city councillors, mayors or MEPs in Germany?

There are reasons why immimgrants (or native born but non citizens) don't or can't become German citizens.
I think anyway that the German state / politicicans doesn't particuarly WANT the 10% of the population who don't have it to gain citizenship.

And of course capitalism can operate within the current legal system.
The legal system we have is largely there to protect the interests of the capitalist system.
Go and read up on the Highland Enclosures in Scotland for example.

Heaven forbid that private property cannot just be seized for whomever you feel like giving it to MT. How will the world survive? Of course property rights also benefit the less-powerful elements of society as well. Don't you want them to build wealth through prudent saving and investment so that they can have a better life? Oh no, then you might actually have to admit that capitalism works!

The local elections reasoning is, I believe, a matter of EU non-discrimination law (notice that here in Germany non-EUers do not have the right to vote in local elections).

If you don't want to become a citizen, it is rather ridiculous to expect all of the rights and benefits of citizenship to be conferred upon you.

I've no objection to people owning the house they live in or saving to make purchases that are their property.
You'll note how I above for example stated I think theft as in burlgary from neighbous etc is wrong.

The boss class that own the means of production distribution and exchange stole it anyway and continue stealing through the approriation of surplus labour value.
They use "the law" to cement their position.

Who was it said that "the law forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under the bridges of Paris" ?

Conquistador, did you realise that people from the Commonwealth and Ireland have the right to vote in UK national elections if resident in the UK? Until a few decades ago they also had freedom of movement to the UK as well. That is a little under a third of the world's population that is entitled to vote in UK elections, including two EU member states (Ireland and Malta). The UK has palpably not collapsed and become a failed state for taking a more liberal view of citizenship and voting rights. Surely the ever closer union of the EU could at least do the same for its contituent statelets?

What a load of hooey. I guess that's how two originally impecunious members of the "boss class" did it.

P.S. After reading this, I can only assume I'm the least successful Montessori school graduate in the world ... I guess I should have attended a German Pestalozzischule instead.

I am aware of this; however, what year did the liberal immigration policy end? The fact that it was ended suggests that it was deemed to no longer be of value to the UK. Incidentally, I have noticed quite a few English TTers complain about the changes in English society, some of which can apparently be traced, at least indirectly, to high levels of immigration.

It is pretty fallacious to assume that was has happened in the UK is necessarily optimal for other EU countries with disparate political and social traditions. In my opinion, such a policy would not work in Germany, thus I do not support it. The average European is not as enamored of the idea of "ever closer union" as the politicians are, i.e., who want to have a cushy EU sinecure after they are put out of a job at the national level.

As far as the EU is concerned, the current system is a fudge. On the one hand it encourages freedom of movement, to find a job in another member country, allowing you to vote in both local and even European elections, all without the requirement to become a citizen. Despite the fact that EU law now takes precedence over national law in a great number of cases, it is still deemed not appropriate for even long-term residents of another member country to vote in national elections (or in Germany's case, in state elections too). This strikes me as a paradox.

There was a limited restriction in 1962 that applied to those who did not have a passport issued by the UK (quite a lot of individuals across the commonwealth held British passports) . However the free for all effectively ended in 1972 with us joining the EU and having to adjust our immigration policy to the new order.Primary immigration from Commonwealth countries ended in that year and only those individuals with parents or grandparents in the UK or possessing a work permit were allowed entry (with the exception of Ireland that continued to have no immigration restrictions)

absolutely

it would be like people from Minnesota being barred from voting for state or federal elections if resident n Arkansas. the European Union is a reality and this idiotic set of voting restrictions is an increasingly resented anachronism.

yeah and there are heaps of Americans who would say similar things about the end of segregation. Doesn't mean that racism doesn't underpin their every utterance.


why? The rest of Europe introduced the democratic institutions the UK pioneered and have generally followed each one of the UK liberal reforms as they are introduced (though gay law reform happened the other way round for various reasons). In fact Germany's current constitution and organisation was set in place by Attlee's government n the 1940s. But all that UK influence pales next to our goal on joining the EU to become an 'ever closer union'. I would say the voting restrictions are inconsistent with that.


who cares? You have even less of a say than we do


how on earth would you know? I'm certainly enamoured with it, as are quite a few of my pals.

You fail to understand that the EU is not a federal union- it's not a United States of Europe. You vote in the same presidential election whether you vote in Arkansas or Minnesota. You don't vote in the same national parliamentary elections in the UK and Germany, so it's an inaccurate analogy. Resented by whom? Few EU citizens reside in another EU member state to begin with.

How do you know that? It's just an assumption on your part, and a logical fallacy to conflate two completely unrelated things simply because your argument has no substance. No surprise there. The old far left trick- if you want to demonize something simply call it racist. No logic there.


Germany's current constitution is (obviously) US-influenced (note the concept of federalism v.s. the centralization of the state in the UK).
Perhaps you are familiar with the large amount of Euroskepticism in your own country?


Wrong, but you know everything, right?


How would you know based on your unrepresentative sample- a few far left souls. That really impresses me. How about showing some polls that indicate yours is the majority opinion?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the liberal immigration policy did not begin until after WWII, so it was not in effect for that long.

I am not far left but I have found over time that when racism rears its ugly head it should be called racism. The UK needs net immigration for the sake of the economy and the future welfare state. Individuals who claim we are being overwhelemd have other agendas.


does the US have PR? A non-executive presidency? The constitution of Germany was an idealistc document heavily influenced by socialist thinkers within Attlee's government who wanted to see the same perfect system brought in in the UK. The organisation into Länder which is the only rather tenuous similarity to the US was actually formulated prewar in the Bismarck and then Weimar rationalistions of the old Holy Roman and Hanseatic divisions of Germany.



where do you get this nonsense that I am 'far left'? I would have said I was middle of the road actually. It is you, in the European context, that is the freaky extremist.

The French and Dutch (among others) allowed their populace to vote on the EU constitution via a plebicite ... with predictable results. The German government arrogantly said "our Bild Zeitung-reading populace is too daft to think for themselves."

That tells you all you need to know about German politics ... and perhaps the German people for "electing" these clowns.

there is no requirement for referenda in any EU state apart from Ireland. Most sensible people would agree that we elect governments to make these decisions on behalf of the population.


and that tells me all I need to know about your xenophobic attitude to German politics.

Not being resident in the UK, I am not able to say whether immigration levels into the UK are optimal or not; however, you have provided no information other than your opinion to support this claim of "other agendas" and your apparent belief that the current levels are optimal. It seems to me the discussion is over whether the levels are too high or not, not whether or not there should be immigration at all- a crucial distinction.
does the US have PR? A non-executive presidency? The constitution of Germany was an idealistc document heavily influenced by socialist thinkers within Attlee's government who wanted to see the same perfect system brought in in the UK. The organisation into Länder which is the only rather tenuous similarity to the US was actually formulated prewar in the Bismarck and then Weimar rationalistions of the old Holy Roman and Hanseatic divisions of Germany.
Perhaps you need to read this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Allied-Control-Ger...8018&sr=1-1


I see you could not back up your claims, so you result to name-calling. I would say you are in fact the extremist.

Edmund Spevack devoted his life to a revisionist cause claiming that the USA had in fact founded Europe. That is palpably not the case as I would have thought three minutes of living in Germany would have taught you.


you called me 'far left' twice matey. I reserve the right to retaliate.