Ten days from now, on November 3, Americans will flock to the polls to cast their vote in what has widely been described as the "most important presidential election in US history".
Many would argue every election is crucial, but in a recent YouGov survey of more than 6500 Americans, seven in 10 respondents agreed that the 2020 election is the most important of their lifetime.
In early October, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden tweeted, "There's just one month left before the most important election of our lifetime".
Two days later, Senator Bernie Sanders backed him up telling young voters in Michigan, "This is the most important election, not only in our lifetime, but in the modern history of our country," and at the start of the Democratic National Convention, Senator Kamala Harris declared, "I firmly, in my heart and in my soul, know this is the most important election of our lifetime".
Even President Trump has pushed a similar message. Speaking at a rally in Wisconsin last month he told the assembled crowd, "This is the most important election in the history of our country".
But, it was the Duchess of Sussex's comments on the matter which seemingly put the cat among the pigeons.
During a joint television appearance with her husband for TIME magazine's TIME100 special, in which she encouraged her fellow Americans to vote, Meghan said, "Every four years, we are told the same thing, 'that this the most important election of our lifetime.' But this one is. When we vote, our values are put into action, and our voices are heard".
Incensed by her remarks, Republican congressman Jason Smith of Missouri wrote to Britain's ambassador to the US demanding the Sussexes be stripped of their titles. In his view her words were tantamount to election interference, but his apparent publicity stunt backfired spectacularly.
A US citizen protected by her First Amendment rights, Meghan – currently a non-working royal – refrained from endorsing a particular candidate, as did Harry, meaning her assertions were in no way inappropriate. Contrary to Smith's protestations one would think urging Americans to "reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity," a philosophy worth promoting.
Whether or not this is the most important election of our lifetime is up for debate, but few would dispute it being one of the most hotly anticipated.
Voicing his opinions on the presidential race during a recent episode of his podcast, four-time NBA champ Shaquille O'Neal revealed the 2020 election had, at the age of 48, inspired him to exercise his right to vote for the very first time.
Likewise 54-year-old boxing legend Mike Tyson confessed on Twitter he'll be casting his first ever ballot this year.
Academy Award winning actress Dame Helen Mirren is another first-timer. Born and raised in England, Mirren – who won an Oscar for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in 2007 – gained US citizenship three years ago. She submitted her first presidential vote on October 15 in Minden, Nevada.
Given his increasing confidence in the political arena and his decision to speak out on issues relating to social justice, one has to wonder if Prince Harry will eventually follow suit. After all, much of the criticism he's lately copped has been from people outraged that a foreign-born national ineligible to vote would contemplate wading into a matter beyond his jurisdiction.
In the Sussexes' aforementioned TIME100 clip Prince Harry said, "Many of you may not know that I haven't been able to vote in the U.K. my entire life".
While his statement was true, his delivery wasn't wholly accurate.
According to British law the Queen isn't actually barred from voting, but as the U.K. government website states, "It is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election."
By extension she and the rest of the family chooses not to vote out of respect to her position as a politically neutral head of state. Harry never will have known any different and I doubt he's previously given it much thought, but – no longer bound by the rules governing working royals and, keen to forge a new path – he's slowly begun to expand his political involvement and therein lies a tricky balance for a non-working royal prince.
In order for the monarchy to maintain its integrity, it's vital members of the Royal Family remain above party politics regardless of the country in question.
Since his move to the US Harry's immigration status has not been confirmed. As the spouse of a US citizen he's eligible for an IR1 immigrant visa. If approved it could be converted to a green card followed by citizenship if he so decides.
Other options include an O-1 visa claiming "extraordinary ability" which would allow for him to stay for up to three years before being renewed. He could also be sponsored by the couple's yet-to-be named production company.
There are myriad possibilities – each subject to complicated tax laws as well as rules concerning work and travel – but the only way Harry could vote would be as a US citizen. In April, The Sunday Times reported he has no immediate plans to apply for a green card or citizenship, but during the TIME segment he said, "This election I'm not going to be able to vote here in the US," leading some to suggest he might seek citizenship sooner rather than later.
Though it would be a labourious process, Harry could be granted citizenship in time for the 2024 presidential election. In light of the Sussexes' twelve-month review set to take place in April at the Queen's behest, however, I suspect he'll opt to wait before making any more life-changing decisions.
Considering the solemnity of the words included in the oath he'd have to recite at his swearing in ceremony, citizenship would be a significant undertaking.
Renouncing "all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty," while also vowing to "bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law," may hit a little too close to home for Harry, a blood-born prince and former British Army officer whose grandmother also happens to be Queen.
Speaking to Emily Ramshaw of The 19th back in August, Meghan said of Harry, "He's never been able to vote, and I think it's such an interesting thing to say that the right to vote is not a privilege, it's a right in and of itself".
It's a valid point especially coming from a woman of colour whose ancestors would have fought hard for the right to have their voices heard, but it's because of privilege Harry's been forced to surrender the rights many assume to be automatic: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a right to privacy.
Caught between two worlds it's unlikely he'll ever be able to vote, nor will he be able to share his political thoughts and leanings, but by virtue of the institution he represents, he's not only been granted opportunity beyond compare, he's been afforded the global platform he enjoys today.
As of last Monday, 28.2 million early votes had been cast compared to 5.6 million at the same point in 2016. By Wednesday the number had jumped to more than 30 million. I don't doubt Harry's desire to be among those heading to the polls.
As a newly minted California resident he's personally invested in the election's outcome in a way he never will have been before. Despite being a foreign national, his first presidential race since moving to the US may well feel like the most important election of his lifetime.
Presently forbidden from exercising his right to vote, it remains to be seen if he's prepared to renounce allegiance to the Queen in order to one day have a say in the country he now resides.
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMilQFodHRwczovL2hvbmV5Lm5pbmUuY29tLmF1L3JveWFscy92aWN0b3JpYS1hcmJpdGVyLW1lZ2hhbi1tYXJrbGUtcHJpbmNlLWhhcnJ5LWNvbXBsaWNhdGVkLW9hdGgtdXMtZWxlY3Rpb24tdm90aW5nL2I3NzVjMTA4LWFjYjgtNGM3NC04ZjQyLTllODUyMmJhNzA1MdIBRGh0dHBzOi8vYW1wLm5pbmUuY29tLmF1L2FydGljbGUvYjc3NWMxMDgtYWNiOC00Yzc0LThmNDItOWU4NTIyYmE3MDUx?oc=5
2020-10-23 20:31:00Z
52781135359093
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar