[eschaton]

As a person, why should you not have a say in how things are governed where you live?

The idea that you should be required to swear some loyalty to a government before you get a say in how the place you live is governed is the position that’s actually absurd.

(Yes, I do think there should be a global republic and that there should be full freedom of movement. It’s way past time for that.)

[decafninja]

Because as a non-citizen, you are technically still a guest?

If you love the place you're living in and want to actively participate in its governance, including implementing any changes, you should obtain citizenship.

And even if you do, your stake would still be less than those who've been living there all their lives, across many generations. Maybe the natives actually don't want the changes that the immigrants want to see implemented.

(not going to argue the finer details of ethics like racism or xenophobia, etc. which I acknowledge can often come up in cases like this).

[auyez]

It make sense, you don't want to give voting rights to someone who might decide not to continue living in your country anymore. If they are serious about it, then they must go through the process of obtaining citizenship. I have same issue with dual citizenships, it is absurd that someone holding foreign passport can have major decision making roles in your government.