The traditional litany of Americans who don't count in the US presidential election--people with felony records, those of us living in so-called "safe states," et cetera--just got longer.

Add legal residents currently applying for U.S. citizenship to that list.

Though the number of applicants tends to spike in an election year, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services hiking application fees by 66 percent last June, the number of people applying for citizenship surged by an unprecedented 1.4 million.

It usually takes about six months to process a citizenship application. This election season, though, USCIS reports that a rise in applications, coupled with tightened background checks, will slow that timetable to eighteen months.

Which means the majority of those 1.4 million would-be voters--overwhelmingly Latino, likely to tilt Democrat--are unlikely to make it to the polls. (In 1996, the Clinton White House sped up the naturalization process for its own electoral advantage, so consider it a bit of Republican payback in reverse.)

USCIS director Emilio Gonzalez, though, says not to worry: "If for some reason they don't get the opportunity to vote in this election, there will be plenty of other elections to vote in."

Comments (16)

1. "(In 1996, the Clinton White House sped up the naturalization process for its own electoral advantage, so consider it a bit of Republican payback in reverse.)"

   So everybody uses the USCIS for political purposes....surprise!

   Posted by Mask at 01/30/2008 @ 4:27pm

2. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/30/2008 @ 4:44pm

   Are you now going to find a way to complain about LEGAL immigrants too Rio.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/30/2008 @ 4:52pm

3. Rio-If illegals were going to vote for anyone since 2000 it would be for Bush.Look at his immigration policy.Now they would go for McCain.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 01/30/2008 @ 5:13pm

4. It's kind of hard to cry foul when the democrats used it to their electoral advantage as well. This Clintonian/Rovian mindset of "winning at whatever cost" permeates American culture, and renders our society lacking an ethical conscience. Our leaders set the behavioral standards, and subordinate leaders adopt the practices of their superiors on down through the heirarchy.

   Now is not the time for another Clinton that smells like Karl Rove!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 01/30/2008 @ 5:32pm

5. I never thought of it in those terms, very interesting. Justs goes to show you how devious the Clintons are and why we need change. check out Political Humor [hillarydivides.com]

   Posted by indep2008 at 01/30/2008 @ 5:44pm

6. I don't understand why this is actually problematic; aren't voting and citizenship kind of bound together?

   Posted by Thrawn at 01/30/2008 @ 5:49pm

7. Posted by THRAWN 01/30/2008 @ 5:49pm

   Sorry, time-warped to the top

   Posted by Thrawn at 01/30/2008 @ 5:49pm

8. Everyone has to check out the article "White Voters with a Side of Hispanics" on the blogzine Savage Politics. This is an awesome discussion and analysis on the current Democrat and GOP candidates and their eligibility.

   www.savagepolitics.com Here is an excerpt: "Tuesday night's Florida Primary was a very important episode in the drama in which both the Republican and Democrat Parties are unfolding towards the Presidency of the United States. It also dramatically demonstrated the incredible bias that the Media continues to display towards the Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, in spite of all the evidence pointing to his lack of viability. From MSNBC's Chris Mathews, who openly stated the day before that any Network that decided to report on the Democratic voting results in Florida was proving a "gross" favoritism for Hillary (ironically enough his Network ended up having to cover it nevertheless), to CNN's pundits, who continuously utilized the exact same rhetoric that the Obama Campaign was spewing to excuse their defeat ("Beauty Pageant" was their favorite phrase, with all the sexist connotations it implies). All the same, the Florida results in the Democratic side were overwhelmingly favorable to Hillary Clinton, who won a 50% margin, to Obama's 33%, Edwards' 14%, and Gravel's 1%. On the Republican side, it was John McCain who came out victorious with a 36% margin, to Romney's 31%, Giuliani's 15%, Huckabee's 14%, and Paul's 3%. Let's discuss each Party's results and their realistic consequence. First, we have the very significant victory of John McCain. His candidacy was, from the very start, labeled as a failure due to his unpopularity amongst most "base" Republicans, much of it owed to McCain's overwhelmingly dubious record on Conservative issues. His notorious tendency to side with multiple (highly despised) Democrats on issues like Immigration, Bush's Tax Cuts and other measures, have always been enough to marginalize him from even the "moderate wing" within his Party. Still, when the Florida Exit Polls are analyzed, they reflect many unexpected re-alignments in his favor. Evangelical/Born Again Christians voted for John McCain in a 30% margin, in comparison to both Romney's and Huckabee's 29%. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but when you also consider that the majority of non-Evangelicals (Catholics, Atheist, etc.) also…" Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=64

   Posted by elsylee at 01/30/2008 @ 6:18pm

9. What is Frank goping to do if McCain sweeps the floor with his dream girl?

   Posted by JOMAMMA 01/30/2008 @ 6:36pm

   Apparently he'll be fine with it, as McCain is his second choice!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 01/30/2008 @ 6:43pm

10. I don't understand why this is actually problematic; aren't voting and citizenship kind of bound together?

    Posted by THRAWN 01/30/2008 @ 5:49pm

    Ever heard of "taxation without representation?" You know, that phrase that got thrown around back when the 13 colonies broke away from England because the British were benefiting from American labor, goods, and markets without representing the colonies in Parliament?

    I don't know how old you are, but chances are some of the people who applied for citizenship last year have been living in this country since before you were born. Millions of legal residents in this country pay taxes, do all kinds of valuable work, go to war in Iraq... and are voiceless in the electoral process.

    I have been a legal permanent resident for 9 years and I have seen USCIS become more and more inefficient since Bush became president, especially since 9/11, when immigration control was lumped together with disaster relief and anti-terrorism into the mess that is the Department of Homeland Security. I don't think it's accidental that immigrants of all walks of life are getting shafted by USCIS, and I certainly don't think it's accidental that hundreds of thousands of applications are all of a sudden projected to be delayed until after the November election. The Bush administration could easily make DHS more efficient to expedite these applications--but then again, what right-minded person would want to grant citizenship to those who are the most outraged at the way undocumented people have been vilified in recent years?

    Posted by joyfulspark at 01/30/2008 @ 6:47pm

11. Posted by JOYFULSPARK 01/30/2008 @ 6:47pm

    Bypassing for the moment what seems to be the roots of a dubious conspiracy theory, I want to deal with the taxation issue.

    Which taxes do those aiming to be citizens pay? Though they do pay sales taxes, that's not nearly good enough, because that rationale would also obligate us to give tourists the vote (since they pay taxes here as well). As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), they don't pay income taxes, and if they do, they shouldn't. So what taxes obligate giving them the vote?

    Here's the thing: citizenship has to actually mean something. What it means is that you are a full participant within a particular national community, which is why you are granted the right to vote. Failing that, you don't have that right.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/30/2008 @ 8:10pm

12. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Thrawn

    this is not the point. the point is that by slowing down the process of gaining citizenship, they are being disenfranchised.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 8:17pm

13. "Here's the thing: citizenship has to actually mean something. What it means is that you are a full participant within a particular national community, which is why you are granted the right to vote. Failing that, you don't have that right."

    Wrong, "Thrawn." Citizenship in these United States means one of two things. Either you're born a citizen, like me and I suspect like you too, in which case you earn the right to vote merely by breathing, sleeping, and eating for eighteen years. Or you're born somewhere outside our States and territories, in which case you also have to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops and take a number of tests that I suspect a great many native-born citizens would fail miserably.

    This is what we call a double standard.

    I'm not saying that we should make naturalization a meaningless, one-stop rubber stamp. But I am saying that bureaucratic slowness is no more excusable when it affects non-citizens than when it affects citizens.

    What's the difference between a true libertarian and a know-nothing nativist? The former NEVER makes excuses for bureaucratic foot-dragging, but the latter is happy to see Big Government make people miserable, as long as they're foreigners. Even if these are foreigners who would really prefer to become US-Americans, with all the rights and responsibilities this entails -- including income tax.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 01/30/2008 @ 10:48pm

14. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 01/30/2008 @ 10:48pm

    Here's the problem, though: your argument actually seems to be for making native-born citizens take a test as well, which may or may not be a good thing. One could simply defend that and take all the offense out of your position.

    You still haven't answered the core issue here: under any viable framework, citizenship has to mean something. It can't just be a meaningless label. I think it makes a whole lot of sense to attach it to voting because of the connection it implies to the political community.

    Is bureaucratic efficiency problematic? Yes. I totally agree with you on this. Does that mean that everyone attempting to become a citizen should be immediately given the right to vote? No. It means that the bureaucratic institutions should be reformed.

    The bottom line is this: fix the actual problems instead of making citizenship meaningless.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/31/2008 @ 12:23am

15. Which taxes do those aiming to be citizens pay? Though they do pay sales taxes, that's not nearly good enough, because that rationale would also obligate us to give tourists the vote (since they pay taxes here as well). As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), they don't pay income taxes, and if they do, they shouldn't. So what taxes obligate giving them the vote?

    It is a sad, sad thing that although everyone in this country has an opinion about immigrants, far fewer people relatively speaking have any substantial amount of knowledge about immigration policy. If you go by all the right-wing hysteria about "amnesty" you might think that it's a quick hop from "illegal alien" to citizen, but it's not. In order to apply for citizenship you must have been a legal permanent resident for 5 years. Thus, citizenship is not meaningless; anyone who applies for citizenship has already been complying with most of its requirements--and the application process is strenuous enough (to put it mildly) to ensure that this is the case.

    You mentioned sales taxes, but all immigrants who have a job that requires a social security number pay social security taxes and income taxes. Only legal permanent residents have social security numbers, though, which means that undocumented immigrants often use fake ones and as a result pour money into a system that will never give back to them. Many immigrants also own property, and thus pay property taxes... need I go on?

    There are millions of permanent residents in the U.S. and we pay all the same taxes you do (why shouldn't we?) because we have almost all the same rights and responsibilities as U.S. citizens. We can attend public institutions, use public services, and get drafted--we just can't vote or do jury duty, never mind the fact that many of us are more civically engaged that some U.S. citizens.

    In 2006, on the day of the California special election, I walked around my neighborhood knocking on doors to remind people to vote. None of the people I talked to--all of whom were registered voters--went to the polls. If there are people who have lived here long enough to be affected by the government's actions, and we realize the importance of political participation, why should we be denied the privilege to have a voice in the policies that impact our daily lives when so many take it for granted?

    Posted by joyfulspark at 01/31/2008 @ 8:36pm

16. On second thought, maybe you do have a point: we shouldn't be paying income taxes to a government that doesn't represent us. Hmmm...

    Posted by joyfulspark at 01/31/2008 @ 8:43pm