Stripping expatriate right to vote may be unconstitutional
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
But your position would give the right to vote, to people who have no stake in the nation, other than a citizenship of convenience.
How is that reasonable?
I can agree in principle, but then foreigners residing in Canada pay taxes. No taxation without representation.
Stripping the right to vote from classes of your own citizenry is fundamentally undemocratic. It is bad law, badly conceived and badly applied.
One could make the argument that a visitor to Canada has the right to vote because they pay GST while on their visit.
In terms of the 'foreigners' working in Canada, have the option to apply for citizenship and get that right to vote
It's a 2-way street on that. One who makes a conscious decision to live outside the nation for an extended period is not supporting the system or society. They are also making a decision in this equation and that must be recognized.
The local American cottagers have been known to participate in local political forums. When said forums may have an affect on the use or enjoyment of their property or the surrounding area.
In fact, they were instrumental in the location of the recent water and sewage treatment facility. Being wealthy and affluent, they, along with other wealthy and affluent Canadian citizens, were able to have the location of said plant, moved to a lower class area. Where the property values plummeted, upon completion.
They do pay property taxes. But they are not permanent residents.
If you choose to immigrate here, obtain your permanent residency, but feel no need to become a citizen. Why would you care to vote? Isn't dismissing citizenship a form of saying you don't want to be part of the fabric?
By leaving, and taking up residence elsewhere. Leaving no ties, and without an intent to return, pretty much negates your position on undemocratic.
Simply because someone wants to remain a citizen of Canada, for whatever purposes, while they reside, work, pay taxes and have become part of the fabric of another nation, does not make the law bad or undemocratic.
So it's based on citizenship and not residency? It's settled then: citizens can vote.
Again, it doesn't matter what you base it on, but let's be consistent about it, otherwise if a person can vote neither in his country of citizenship nor his country of residence, then his fundamental democratic right is undermined.
Where's the inconsistency? Besides in Cabbagefarts posts that is.
If you fail to be part of the social fabric, you lose to ability to guide it.
How is that either inconsistent, or undemocratic?
A person working in Canada for a few years might not want to bother to apply for citizenship, but is still paying taxes from which he may never reap the rewards. He should still have a say in how his money is spent. Therefore there would be a legitimate argument for voting rights to be based on residency rather than citizenship. But whatever decision we make, let's be consistent at least.
I can agree with removing voting rights from prison inmates, as long as that right is reinstated once he's served his time.
If you say that a Canadian can't vote when out of the country, then clearly we're basing it on residency. but then to at the same time deny residents the vote, then we're not being consistent. Is it based on residency or citizenship?
Otherwise, if you deny citizens abroad the vote, and foreign residents in Canada the vote, then some people can spend year paying taxes but have no representation. So much for democracy.
If it's based on residence, then he might lose his right in one country but at least regains it in another, thus still having his basic democratic rights respected. Likewise if it's based on citizenship. But the moment we start to base it on both residency and citizenship, then some people have no right to vote anywhere in the world.
Other than the services they use while living here.
I actually partially agree. But I get a little nationalistic when it comes to people that don't want to be a citizen, but want to bitch.
OK, now I get your inconsistency comment.
Why? Some party's are harder on criminals than others. I can see how a career criminal should be allowed to vote. It directly affects their life.
So it is too much for you to grasp the case of a fraudulently obtained citizenship and to distinguish that from a citizen?
You are in even poorer mental shape than I suspected.
Yes it can...
Section 10, Citizenship Act
10. (1) Subject to section 18 but notwithstanding any other section of this Act, where the Governor in Council, on a report from the Minister, is satisfied that any person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship under this Act by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances,
(a) the person ceases to be a citizen, or
(b) the renunciation of citizenship by the person shall be deemed to have had no effect,
as of such date as may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council with respect thereto.
Cabbage gets PWND again, lol.
Here's your consolation prize...
Where it with shame.
Last edited:
But they also pay into medicare which is taxed on the assumption that they'll eventually grow old in Canada too. Not to mention the taxes he pays towards social security, EI, etc. etc. etc. which he'll probably never use.
As I said, you are too dumb to make the distinction. And dumb enough to think that by repeating the clause that you cannot understand you make your point.
I rather disagree with some of the comments from the jerk club. It is not that fools do not know Plato. It is that some think they do but misunderstand and misinterpret. Perhaps P;ato was corect in his early explorations of Eugenics and that the jerk club might have been more useful to the world in a birth controlled absence.
But, since you are here, turn around from the darkness of your cave and see the world.
I rather disagree with some of the comments from the jerk club. It is not that fools do not know Plato. It is that some think they do but misunderstand and misinterpret. Perhaps P;ato was corect in his early explorations of Eugenics and that the jerk club might have been more useful to the world in a birth controlled absence.
But, since you are here, turn around from the darkness of your cave and see the world.
So he should apply for citizenship because he's planning to live here for a couple of years? Heck, even if you did give him the right to vote, he might miss the election anyway.
But in principle, if you believe in free trade, you must accept that to trade internationally some people someltimes do have to live abroad. And so international families will naturally spring out.
And as for bitching, if you can't vote, what else can you do.
It's not one or the other, it's both among other things.
Tough sh*t then... They made their democratic decision to leave the nation, they weren't asked to leave or extradited on criminal warrants. They chose an option and that choice has consequences... They have (temporarily) lost that right to vote just like they lost their right to apply for and receive EI, welfare and subsidized healthcare.
Even if he's working here for a few years?
One thing I would say though: if we allow Canadian citizens to vote in Canadian elections while residing abroad, then I'd say foreign residents in Canada should not be allowed to vote in Canadian elections. And if Canadian citizens are not allowed to vote in Canadian elections while residing abroad, then foreign residents ought to be allowed to vote in Canadian elections.
Basically, the idea is that you don't want to allow people to double-dip (i.e. be allowed to vote in more than one nation at the same time), but you also don't want to deprive them of the vote altogether in any country. A person shoudl always have the vote in some country or other if one believes in democracy.
And as for comment about nationalism, I do make a clear distinction between nationalism and patriotism, and see the biggest problem with nationalism as being too ideological.
It isn't about distinction. It's about your patently false claim, being proven wrong, by me, again.
You got PWND again.
Your contradictions and hypocrisy is funny....
It's a shame you can't practice what you preach.
Here...
You forgot your hat.
Maybe, but you're narrowing the parameters. There's a member here whose spouse has been here fore more than just two elections, and will not take the citizenship oath.
Absolutely. There are any number of reasons that this law misses the mark.
I think that's why the caveat "intend to return". Is quite important.
Become a citizen?
No disagreement there.
In our peaceable Dominion (1867 onward) the following Canadian "citizens", at various times, were denied the vote:
Those not born as British subjects
Non-property holders
East Indians
Chinese
Japanese
Women
First Nations
"Indian" women on reserves
Hutterites
Austro-Hungarians
Germans
Community Doukhobors
Those that cannot read English, French, German, Icelandic, or a Scandinavian language
Civil servants
Judges
Mennonites
Police
Welfare recipients
Those in gaol
And those not resident for five years or longer.
By the way, this list is not exhaustive - just those who quickly come to mind.
Democratic legislation?
Those not born as British subjects
Non-property holders
East Indians
Chinese
Japanese
Women
First Nations
"Indian" women on reserves
Hutterites
Austro-Hungarians
Germans
Community Doukhobors
Those that cannot read English, French, German, Icelandic, or a Scandinavian language
Civil servants
Judges
Mennonites
Police
Welfare recipients
Those in gaol
And those not resident for five years or longer.
By the way, this list is not exhaustive - just those who quickly come to mind.
Democratic legislation?