This isn't to say the vote must only go to those who are born here, are first generation and so on and so on.
It is to say, the vote must only go to those in possession of a land title, no matter where they come from or for how long they have been here.
Which means simply that - ANYBODY, who is legally identified on the title, has the right also to vote. Anybody. If the state does not want non citizens to be allowed possession of such a title, or if they want anyone in the world to possess one, so be it.
However it is decided, this will be the law.
There are many ways to 'own' land. Ownership is the commonly understood term. What is really meant is exclusive and secure possession. That is, the land plot doesn't need to purchased forever. All you need to live safely and produce wealth in a plot is possession. Ultimately this means everyone is a tenant, no matter what you believe about owning it forever, which is a fantasy notion even if the law says it. You cannot own land forever.
So when we say 'own' we mean possession so that everyday people can understand it. How can you own land?
Freehold - meaning a piece of paper or digital signature called a land title, saying the state promises to protect your right to exclusive secure possession, free from rent, fir the foreseeable future...maybe. A bundle of rights. Freehold is not ownership it is possession under state authority. It is really annoying ultra long lease from the authority in power.
Lease - a similar agreement which feels the same but is really a very long term rental agreement, so long that it feels just like freehold. When a lease comes up fir renewal it means the new price will be the rental value capitalised over the number of years left. It feels like buying it outright if there are few years left, and freehold when the years left are maxed out
Rentals - pure straightforward rental, where you pay directly for the annual rental value of the plot divided by twelve each month, minus the hire of the current improvements resting on top of the plot. There is no concept of ownership any more even though that's a fallacy anyway.
Covenant - a radical new policy proposal by the UK SFR Group where the title holder voluntarily agrees to give up the imputed rental value if the plot in exchange for the mortgage interest liability, or, taxation in one form or another, or, various forms of debt and equity release.
All this proposal is saying, is: whichever class of people legally has possession of land anywhere in the nation, is permitted to vote in a democratic election, to decide on who will rule *all* people in that nation.
The reason this is a better alternative is because all the alternatives including the current one have proven to be worse and history testifies well to this.
Objections are quickly answered - make all people land tile holders. Then perhaps they might start taking proper care of it at last.
How could this be done in practice? Briefly, the title holder pays the full rental value of the plot they're entitled to, as a rent, not a tax, to the government administrating it. In exchange for present taxation on their earned incomes. Voluntarily would be the most effective way. Force again, always fails, in the end - if the people are not honest about wanting justice, then Amen.
What is a land title? It's a piece of paper with ink on it or a digital asset made from digital bits, making a legally binding declaration backed by the state, saying that you own a bundle of rights to a plot of land somewhere in this nation, and that the state which has already been elected by the eligible people, will protect those rights as a first duty. Phew!
A land title is not ownership of the land. Which is the most preposterous idea the most stupid person could ever imagine. No one can own the land. We are born, take our tenancy, grow up paying our rent, and then die redeeming it to a much higher subject.
I'm not saying I think this policy proposal is a good or a bad one. I am saying it is the only way to secure democracy under current conditions - that is to say, where all land has been privatised and sold in perpetuity, and government therefore has no other choice but to tax the earnings of hard work and skilled enterprise instead for revenue.
For once the land of that nation has been fully enclosed, there is now no other source of revenue than from the product of the hard work, skill and industry of the people of the nation, needing administration.
So this is not a judgement call. Or a brutal act of prejudice. I am simply observing that democracy only works when it is so. And always fails when it is not. Under current conditions. This proposal is asking the people to have the courage to face the dragon they have wilfully allowed to enter and breath its fire on.
So maybe there's a better alternative to democracy I do not know. Because we have yet to have that dialogue openly and freely, where informed consent has been delivered with justice. Current political tribes and cults have persistently forbidden that opportunity.
Until now.
If you have read this, in a quiet moment sat down quietly enough to observe what is really happening in front of your face, free from judgement. That will have been an enormous act of courage if so. Because you know full well if any of your friends or family see you doing it you will face exile from the tribe, a virtual death sentence.
It is up to you the people, each as autonomous individuals, to be authentic about this question and not flinch when it flows naturally down a path you object to with prejudice.
There is no reason this policy proposal could not be extended to the whole surface of the earth. Regardless of borders...under current conditions. There is a better alternative still, but not under the current conditions the democratic majority still insists on.