An immigrant and a Puerto Rican watch the first presidential debate together and — actually, nevermind, that statement is enough of a joke on its own.

Let me explain. Neither can vote in the election, although both belong to the United States.

It’s funny, like the setup to a cheesy punchline — unless the situation is your reality, like it is for myself, over 13.1 million other permanent residents, about 3.9 million residents of U.S. territories, 601,723 residents of Washington, D.C., millions of Americans who lack photo I.D.s, 5.8 million convicted felons and so on.

I was born in Eritrea, a small North African country. My family emigrated to the United States when I was about seven. We entered under asylee status — essentially the same as refugee status, but varied in the method of entry. My sophomore year of college, I was granted permanent residentship, which is not the same as citizenship.

For the most part, non-citizens cannot vote in elections outside of several jurisdictions, including Chicago and Takoma Park, Maryland, where the citizenship requirement has been waived for local and state elections. More and more states and cities are debating allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, though the movement has yet to gain significant traction.

I’ve made my peace with immigration laws. In about a year and a half, I can apply to be a citizen of this fine nation, and become a “real” American.

But that doesn’t change the fact that we are currently in the midst of a historic choice that will define our futures. A choice that many are now deciding to opt out of because they aren’t pleased with the array of choices. This — when you reflect on the vast number of people who can’t make that choice in the first place — is outright immature, privileged and arrogant.

According to a recent Gallup poll, only 69 percent of Americans said they “definitely will vote” — which leaves 31 percent of Americans relatively uncertain.

I know why people are hesitant about the candidates we have to choose from. I’ve been following the election with the morbid curiosity of someone who’s begrudgingly having her fortune read. But using that as an excuse to stay away from the polls completely is, quite frankly, a lame excuse for laziness and narcissism.

I don’t think there’s ever been a time when U.S. citizens have looked at a presidential candidate and thought he was the perfect choice — except, perhaps, when George Washington was unanimously elected in the beginning of our country’s history.

The desire to take a perceived moral high ground on this issue is so un-American, and yet, so comically American at the same time. It’s as American as baking an apple pie, only to smash it into someone’s face. It’s as American as Donald Trump.

Speaking of which, I’m going to put up my liberal neon sign here and say that a Trump presidency would be the worst thing that could happen for anyone who isn’t Trump or a member of his family. It would be disastrous for women, minorities, low-income Americans, immigrants, refugees and anyone who isn’t too keen on watching the world burn.

Let’s take a look at the effects Trump’s “policies” would have if he became president and had the means to carry them out:

A recent study found that Trump’s plan to repeal “Obamacare” and replace it with a new tax deduction, insurance market changes and an overhaul of Medicaid would result in 45.1 million uninsured people in 2018. His embrace of stop-and-frisk would revive a practice that disproportionately affected minorities — in Chicago, the policy resulted in African Americans making up 72 percent of the 250,000 stops that did not result in arrest. His tax proposals would cost us 9.5 trillion in revenue over the next decade.

Disenfranchised groups, especially those without a vote and a voice this election, have a lot to worry about if Trump’s policies were put in place.

Trump’s immigration policies would have massive economic costs — outside of their humanitarian ramifications — that would reduce GDP growth by 1.6 trillion due to the ousting of 11 million workers during a state of “full employment.” Let’s not even get into that beautiful, massive, waste-of-space wall he wants to build.

As for voter I.D. laws, Trump has declared opposition while drawing the strange connection that removing voter I.D. laws would result in “somebody coming up and voting 15 times for Hillary.”

Convicted felons will have to ride out Trump’s presidency if they want to see their votes restored — what Trump considers “crooked politics.” Because he views parts of the country as “the Wild West” and calls himself the “law and order” candidate, it’s hard to believe that the crime of mass incarceration will cease under Trump’s rule.

And these are only a smattering of Trump’s proposed initiatives.

The nomination of Supreme Court justices is another important consideration.

New York Times columnist, Charles M. Blow, points out in “The Folly of the Protest Vote”:

“There is another truth: That person will appoint someone to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court (assuming that the Senate doesn’t find religion and move on Merrick Garland before the new president takes office) and that person will also appoint federal judges to fill the 88 district court and court of appeals vacancies that now exist (there are 51 nominees pending for these seats).”

If you care about any of the issues that Trump degrades — vote. If you care about any of the issues that immigrants, residents of territories, minorities without I.D.s and convicted felons face — vote.

You don’t owe us anything, but you have to realize that we don’t have a voice otherwise.

Bethel Habte is a Senior Columnist at The Pitt News who primarily writes about social issues and current events. Write to Bethel at [email protected].