Non-Citizens Right To Vote

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
David Miller mayor of Toronto wants landed immigrants have the right to vote and his reasoning is that they dedicated their lives to this city and are using all the city services and they should have a say about those services.

Poor Mayor Miller doesn’t get it that voting equates to power because power can create the ultimate change and that is why voting is a privilege only to those that made a legal commitment by keeping this country in their hearts in the federal, provincial and municipal level.

Can you imagine if the landed immigrant had the right to vote?

The incentive to apply for citizenship will disappear.

Canada’s identity would disappear because no need to learn the history of this great country.

Landed immigrants would eventually have the right to run for government positions and they would eventually change the laws to suite their needs.

Landed immigrants have it way better than when my parents were landed immigrants.

My parents never got golden handshake when they came to the shores of Canada.

No free healthcare
No free housing
No welfare

When they reached the shores of Canada they were told, “work or starve or go back home.”

My parents worked hard for five years (in those days it was five years) until they got their Canadian Citizenship.

Then we started a new family tradition every time an election we discussed the people that was running around the dinner table and on Election Day we voted because of our right as Canadian Citizenship.

Toronto’s Mayor Miller just doesn’t understand and since he is an NDPer I only have to presume that the New Democrats want to take away more rights from Canadians.

This is why I feel Mayor Miller of Toronto is wrong.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
It's too bad you don't post links because your credibility vanished in your propaganda headlines. IE: Great Lakes....

He's right about the Great Lakes Wolf...the US is draining the Canadian sides of the Great Lakes. :lol:
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Miller can champion this cause all he wants but unless he can convince the provincial government to modify the municipal act, he's going nowhere.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
And to the OP; define Canada. I love the people, but tend to view national boundaries as nothing more than an artificial line on the map delineating administrative divisions. Looking at it that way, there could be an argument for voting-rights being granted according to place of residence as opposed to citizenship. For instance, if you're born in Victoria BC and move to Montreal, Quebec, you gain the right to vote in Montreal and Quebec election, and forfeit your right to vote in Victoria and BC elections. I could see something similar whereby a Canadian residing in the US would forfeit his right to vote in Canadian elections but gain the right to do so in US elections; same with an American residing in Canada. It would essentially be a logical extension to what happens when you move from one province to another.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Miller can champion this cause all he wants but unless he can convince the provincial government to modify the municipal act, he's going nowhere.

I don’t know about that. Does Toronto have the right to decide who can vote in local elections? Or does only the provincial or federal government have that power? I am not sure what the law is in this respect.

The reason I wonder is that private groups can decide for themselves who is eligible to vote in their group. The group can decide that only those above 30 years old may vote, only the men may vote etc.

Now admittedly Toronto is not a private club. What that means is that they may not prevent anybody eligible from voting, if he is eligible to vote. But can they give non citizens the right to vote (only the in local election of course)? I don’t know.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
As implied in a thread I started previous to this, it would be currently hypocritical not to let them vote.


No, they are not being hypocritical. They are stating in both cases that if you choose to live apart from or out of touch of, the citizenry of the country, then you will not be allowed to vote on the matters that effect those who ARE residing citizens. Nothing hypocritical about it.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
No, they are not being hypocritical. They are stating in both cases that if you choose to live apart from or out of touch of, the citizenry of the country, then you will not be allowed to vote on the matters that effect those who ARE residing citizens. Nothing hypocritical about it.

Except that they are living with and in touch with the citizenry, therefore you have no argument.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Employing that logic, if the non-resident in question is 'in touch' with the citizenry in other nations, does that give them a valid argument in voting in those nations' elections?

If you posit that being in touch is all that is necessary, yes, it does.

I desire that being informed be made a requirement, but alas nobody seems to agree that it is important to be informed.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
If you posit that being in touch is all that is necessary, yes, it does.

I desire that being informed be made a requirement, but alas nobody seems to agree that it is important to be informed.

"Being informed" would effectively eliminate the majority of voters. Campaign promises are window dressing designed to lure the letter "X".

I'm informed.....;-)
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
I can't imagine how Miller came up with such a hair brained scheme. This is as stupid as permitting Sharia law in Canada. One must be a citizen to vote. Either there is something bad in the water in Toronto or he is really desperate to keep the paycheques rolling in. I also think that any citizen that is out of the country for more than a year should loose their right to vote, nor should any prisoner serving over two years be allowed to vote.
 

pegger

Electoral Member
Dec 4, 2008
397
8
18
Cambridge, Ontario
Seriously though - landed immigrants should not have the right to vote in Canadian elections (of any sort). That is part of the privilege of being a citizen.

Become a citizen - then you can vote. And I have family members that are considered "landed immigrants" and have lived here for 40+ years, with no intention of becoming citizens.

They should pay their Canadian taxes - but should not get to vote.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If we base voting rights on citizenship though, and insist that non-citizens residing in Canada can't vote, then citizens living outside of Canada shuld be allowed to vote. Essentially democracy dictates that we all need a right to vote somewhere. If let's say that all countries said that non-citizens residing in their countries couldn't vote, and at the same time citizens living abroad can't vote either, then suddenly all ex-pats can vote nowhere.

Certainly we should all have a right to vote somewhere. If we base the right to vote on residency, then it's reasonable to say all residents can vote, and all non-residents can't, regardless of citizenship.

If we base it on citizenship, then it's reasonable to say all citizens can vote and all non-citizens can't, regardless of residence. But we must have a consistent standard. We can't base it on citizenship for one group and on residency for another.

Personally, I'd lean in favour of basing the right to vote on residency, not citizenship. but either way, we must be consistent if we believe in justice.