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.
All this proposal is saying, is: whichever class of people legally owns title to 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.