Many conservatives have been kicking up a fuss over birthright citizenship, which automatically makes any child born on American soil an American citizen regardless of whether the child’s parents are American citizens. These conservatives complain that so-called “anchor babies” allow immigrants stay in the country illegally and take jobs from “real” Americans. I agree that these children did nothing to deserve American citizenship, but I find the conservatives’ selectivity repugnant. After all, the children of American citizens did nothing to deserve their citizenship either.
So here’s what I propose: no one should get American citizenship at birth. Everyone in America, citizen or not, should still have all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but if someone wants to vote or run for public office, it is completely reasonable to demand that they have a working knowledge of American government. When an immigrant seeks naturalized citizenship, he has to take a test that covers American history and civics–vital information for being an informed participant in the democratic process–and I fail to see, at least in principle, why we shouldn’t all potential voters to pass the same test.
Pundits constantly bemoan the fact that the electorate is uninformed or, even worse, misinformed. This would remedy that problem to some degree and could very well lead to better policy outcomes. In The Myth of the Rational Voter, which I discussed in my last post, Bryan Caplan shows that the informed public is far more likely to agree with economists on issues like free trade and immigration (i.e. more supportive of both) than the general public. I’m under no illusion that restricting the franchise to the informed would usher in my libertarian utopia, but it might lead to fewer obviously stupid policies like protective tariffs.
My one reservation about this plan is that there would be an incentive for a powerful interest group to game the test and systematically exclude certain sets of people, and I think that’s worrisome enough that I’m not adamantly in favor of implementing such a system. Nonetheless, in principle I think the idea is sound. Democracy should not be an end in itself. It is only good if it produces good policies, and there are numerous (and mostly obvious) reasons to think that an informed public would vote for better policies than the ones we currently live under. It would be nice if all Americans were well informed about our government and public policy, but that’s never going to happen–the incentives just aren’t there–so why not limit the electorate to those who actually care enough to know what they are doing when they vote?
[...] at Rough Ol’ Boy. Filed under: Public Choice Comments: [...]
As I’ve said before, responsibility must be upon each individual to educate themselves on these issues to make sound decisions in the voting booth. No matter what the law says about who can vote and who cannot, people will always find a way around laws.(Just look at drug policy in America) So the issue is that of a moral nature. If you know that something is wrong, you shouldn’t need a law to be made just to ensure that you know it is wrong. Likewise, if you know what is right, it shouldn’t take a law to make you do it. If a person wants to make a positive impact on this nation, then he must educate himself to ensure that his actions are just and good, good intentions are only half of the battle. To follow through you must know with certainty what is best for you and your community.
The eternal question is not what is right or wrong, but who will decide what is right or wrong.
As for myself, I’ll decide what is best for me.
You have to pass a test before you can get a hunter’s card or driver’s license, a doctor has to prove his understanding of medicine to practice, a lawyer must show that he knows the law to become a lawyer, why is it such a stretch to want potential voters to display a general knowledge of politics and current events to be able to vote?