Citizenship-based voting rules
?
No actors in this side.
VS
Non-citizen Berlin residents
No actors in this side.
Non-citizen Berlin residents are people who live in Berlin but do not hold German citizenship.
Citizenship-based voting rules are the legal framework under which voting rights in German elections are tied to German citizenship, meaning that non-citizens are generally excluded from voting in city-state elections.
The conflict arises because a significant portion of Berlin's population cannot vote due to their lack of German citizenship, leading to dissatisfaction among many non-citizen residents who feel excluded from the democratic process.
Meanwhile, the existing rules remain in place, creating a tension between the principle of citizenship-based voting and the desire for broader political inclusion.
Germany's citizenship laws, including restrictions on dual citizenship and long naturalization waiting times, contribute to the exclusion of many longtime residents from voting.
Proposals have been made to grant voting rights to foreign residents after a certain period, but these have not been implemented, leaving the issue unresolved.
*AI-generated summary of publicly available data. This is not an official statement of any party.
*AI-generated summary of publicly available statements and reporting. This is not an official statement of this party.
Supporters of Citizenship-based voting rules argue that the ballot defines the political community, not just residency; they cite history's precedent that citizenship, earned through allegiance and duty, is the legitimate gateway to shaping a nation's future.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the ballot is a compact among citizens, not residents, so extending it to non-citizens would dilute a shared civic identity built over generations.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that civic culture in Berlin has long been sustained through shared institutions and local participation, not the ballot alone, so non-citizens can still shape neighborhood life without voting rights.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the legal boundary of the franchise is set by the democratic sovereign, so Berlin's exclusion of non-citizens is a lawful exercise of self-government, not an injustice.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the franchise is a legal status tied to national membership, and that Berlin's election law governing who may vote remains validly enacted by the competent German legislature.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that municipal voting is a legal status tied to national citizenship, and that enfranchising non-citizens would require statutory change, not an appeal to democratic legitimacy.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that suffrage is a sovereign's currency, not a right of residence; granting it to non-citizens would dilute the citizenry's leverage over Berlin's government without securing any reciprocal loyalty.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that granting the ballot to non-citizens would dilute citizens' leverage and erode the state's core incentive: loyalty exchanged for political power.
Supporters of Citizenship-based voting rules counter that citizenship is the price of the franchise, and those who control its definition simply determine who counts; inclusion is granted, never seized.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the franchise is a sovereign right tied to formal membership, so Berlin's exclusion of non-citizens reflects a legitimate boundary, not a moral failure.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the franchise is a sovereign privilege tied to formal membership, not residence alone, and that democratic legitimacy depends on a defined political community.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that the moral basis of democratic legitimacy is membership in the political community, not mere residency, so a city's electorate should remain defined by citizenship.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the political community rests on a shared civic and religious inheritance, so voting belongs to those who have taken up that bond; they see citizenship as a sacred trust, not mere residence.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the nation, like a community bound by shared inheritance, must preserve its continuity by entrusting the vote only to those who formally belong to it.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that Scripture itself ties belonging to a covenant people, not mere residence, so a city may rightly reserve its franchise for citizens.
*AI-generated summary of publicly available statements and reporting. This is not an official statement of this party.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that a quarter of the city's population living without a vote erodes the shared civic culture and local ties that bind Berlin's neighborhoods together.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that voting tied to citizenship protects a shared civic inheritance and cultural continuity that newcomers may not yet hold.
Supporters of Non-citizen Berlin residents counter that local ballots govern neighborhoods, schools, and streets where long-term residents live, work, and pay taxes, so cultural belonging in the city—not national allegiance—defines who should help shape its future.
Supporters of Non-citizen Berlin residents argue that a quarter of Berlin's residents being barred from city elections by citizenship rules raises legal concerns about democratic legitimacy and equal political participation.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that excluding a quarter of the city's population from voting conflicts with international human rights norms on political participation and local democratic representation.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents counter that a sovereign's franchise laws still bind it to constitutional and human-rights obligations, so legality alone cannot settle whether excluding long-term taxpaying residents is just.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that a quarter of the city lacking a vote hands real leverage to those who set the rules, so they press for inclusion as the only path to power.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that withholding the vote from a quarter of the city is less about principle than about keeping power with those already holding it.
Supporters of non-citizen voting counter that taxation and daily labor already bind these residents to Berlin's outcomes; denying them a voice preserves leverage for citizens while the city quietly depends on the governed who cannot punish it.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that excluding a quarter of the city's residents from voting is morally unjust, since these residents live under and are governed by laws they cannot influence.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue it is morally wrong that a quarter of the city's residents, who live, work, and pay taxes there, are denied any voice in the election.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents counter that taxation without representation is the moral failure: long-term residents who pay taxes and sustain neighborhoods deserve a voice regardless of passport status.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that barring a quarter of the city from voting conflicts with the religious conviction that every person bears a God-given dignity and that just authority must heed the voices of those it governs.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents invoke the scriptural call to welcome the stranger, arguing that excluding a quarter of residents from voting denies them a voice in the community they call home.
Supporters of Non-citizen Berlin residents counter that scripture commands care for the stranger and sojourner, so a neighborhood's shared life—not a passport—grounds their voice in local matters.
AI-generated summary of publicly available statements and reporting. This is not an official statement of this party.
Supporters of Citizenship-based voting rules argue that the ballot defines the political community, not just residency; they cite history's precedent that citizenship, earned through allegiance and duty, is the legitimate gateway to shaping a nation's future.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the ballot is a compact among citizens, not residents, so extending it to non-citizens would dilute a shared civic identity built over generations.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that civic culture in Berlin has long been sustained through shared institutions and local participation, not the ballot alone, so non-citizens can still shape neighborhood life without voting rights.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the legal boundary of the franchise is set by the democratic sovereign, so Berlin's exclusion of non-citizens is a lawful exercise of self-government, not an injustice.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the franchise is a legal status tied to national membership, and that Berlin's election law governing who may vote remains validly enacted by the competent German legislature.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that municipal voting is a legal status tied to national citizenship, and that enfranchising non-citizens would require statutory change, not an appeal to democratic legitimacy.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that suffrage is a sovereign's currency, not a right of residence; granting it to non-citizens would dilute the citizenry's leverage over Berlin's government without securing any reciprocal loyalty.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that granting the ballot to non-citizens would dilute citizens' leverage and erode the state's core incentive: loyalty exchanged for political power.
Supporters of Citizenship-based voting rules counter that citizenship is the price of the franchise, and those who control its definition simply determine who counts; inclusion is granted, never seized.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the franchise is a sovereign right tied to formal membership, so Berlin's exclusion of non-citizens reflects a legitimate boundary, not a moral failure.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the franchise is a sovereign privilege tied to formal membership, not residence alone, and that democratic legitimacy depends on a defined political community.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that the moral basis of democratic legitimacy is membership in the political community, not mere residency, so a city's electorate should remain defined by citizenship.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the political community rests on a shared civic and religious inheritance, so voting belongs to those who have taken up that bond; they see citizenship as a sacred trust, not mere residence.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules argue that the nation, like a community bound by shared inheritance, must preserve its continuity by entrusting the vote only to those who formally belong to it.
Supporters of citizenship-based voting rules counter that Scripture itself ties belonging to a covenant people, not mere residence, so a city may rightly reserve its franchise for citizens.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that a quarter of the city's population living without a vote erodes the shared civic culture and local ties that bind Berlin's neighborhoods together.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that voting tied to citizenship protects a shared civic inheritance and cultural continuity that newcomers may not yet hold.
Supporters of Non-citizen Berlin residents counter that local ballots govern neighborhoods, schools, and streets where long-term residents live, work, and pay taxes, so cultural belonging in the city—not national allegiance—defines who should help shape its future.
Supporters of Non-citizen Berlin residents argue that a quarter of Berlin's residents being barred from city elections by citizenship rules raises legal concerns about democratic legitimacy and equal political participation.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that excluding a quarter of the city's population from voting conflicts with international human rights norms on political participation and local democratic representation.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents counter that a sovereign's franchise laws still bind it to constitutional and human-rights obligations, so legality alone cannot settle whether excluding long-term taxpaying residents is just.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that a quarter of the city lacking a vote hands real leverage to those who set the rules, so they press for inclusion as the only path to power.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that withholding the vote from a quarter of the city is less about principle than about keeping power with those already holding it.
Supporters of non-citizen voting counter that taxation and daily labor already bind these residents to Berlin's outcomes; denying them a voice preserves leverage for citizens while the city quietly depends on the governed who cannot punish it.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that excluding a quarter of the city's residents from voting is morally unjust, since these residents live under and are governed by laws they cannot influence.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue it is morally wrong that a quarter of the city's residents, who live, work, and pay taxes there, are denied any voice in the election.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents counter that taxation without representation is the moral failure: long-term residents who pay taxes and sustain neighborhoods deserve a voice regardless of passport status.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents argue that barring a quarter of the city from voting conflicts with the religious conviction that every person bears a God-given dignity and that just authority must heed the voices of those it governs.
Supporters of non-citizen Berlin residents invoke the scriptural call to welcome the stranger, arguing that excluding a quarter of residents from voting denies them a voice in the community they call home.
Supporters of Non-citizen Berlin residents counter that scripture commands care for the stranger and sojourner, so a neighborhood's shared life—not a passport—grounds their voice in local matters.
A quarter of Berlin residents will have no say in the German capital's city-state election because they lack citizenship. That's the highest proportion of residents excluded from the election yet, and many are unhappy.
Deutsche Welle published an article explaining who can and cannot vote in Germany's 2025 federal election, highlighting that Germany's lack of birthright citizenship, longtime laws against dual citizenship, and long naturalization waiting times exclude many yearslong residents from voting.
The New Europeans Initiative published a policy brief discussing voting rights for third-country nationals and EU citizens, supported by the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme of the European Union.