[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Well the question is whether Canada should provide those services to Canadian citizens, if said Canadian citizen has not lived in Canada for several years, lives in a second country where they also have citizenship (and probably has been a citizen of that country since birth), and does not pay taxes in Canada.

The question you are really asking is whether those people should be citizens.

[viper37]

Depends of what you mean by "responsibility".  Canada provides consular services to all its citizens. From the Canadian government website, those services include:

Consular services, pressuring govt to release the prisoner, having him serve time in a Canadian prison if it's a real crime, etc, etc.

But my question is simpler, I think.
Zoupa is a French citizen who lives in Montreal and afaik, he is also a Canadian citizen.

I assume he pays his taxes in Canada and does not pay anything to France.  But he has both passports.

He is totally legitimate, but there are a myriad of people who come to Canada to get a passport and then leave.  As of now, we are responsible for them.  Just like France is responsible for Zoupa because he's also a French citizen.

I never really liked dual citizenship, but it's ok, it's not really a problem in most cases.
However, we must realize that there's a lot of fraudulent application and we should clamp down on these.

If a Lebanese person comes to Canada, study, remains here a few years, applies for citizenship, moves back to Lebanon, how is it fair that in a case of emergency, say a war, Canada should provide boats, helicopters, hospital ships to evacuate this person, his family, his friends and a ton of other people who are citizens only because they have a passport?

Imho, being a citizen of a country is more than simply holding a passport.  You vote (if in a democracy), you work, you pay taxes, etc, etc.

Getting a citizenship just so you can be rescued when shit hits the fan in your country, or simply because it's a lot easier to travel with a Canadian passport than with a Lebanese one is a case of fraud, imho.

So whose responsibility is it really, to evacuate the people caught in a war, revolution, earthquake, tsunami?

The question to Zoupa was simply hypothetical, who should rescue him, provide aid, if he's in trouble in a foreign country, Canada or France?  In my mind, he's Canada's responsibility.  We're the one who should provide consular services, or evacuate him.  But France has a bigger navy, they have a presence all over the world and it would often be a lot easier to be evacuated by french helicopters&ships.

In the case of 3rd world country, really, would Lebanon apply diplomatic pressure to Saudi Arabia so one of their citizens is released?  Would they send a ship to evacuate Lebanese trapped by a hurrican in the caribeans?  No, they would not.  Hence the need to get a Canadian passport...

We are way too relax on how we grant citizenship.

[crazy canuck]

We have a fairly significant number of people who have never left this country who do not pay any taxes and are unlikely to do so.  Should we ensure they receive no government services?

[Barrister]

We have a fairly significant number of people who have never left this country who do not pay any taxes and are unlikely to do so.  Should we ensure they receive no government services?

The distinction is not between people who do and do not pay taxes.

The distinction is between people who pay taxes in Canada, and people who pay taxes in a foreign country.

[viper37]

We have a fairly significant number of people who have never left this country who do not pay any taxes and are unlikely to do so.  Should we ensure they receive no government services?

they live here, they contribute in a way.

If the problem is no taxes paid, than it's a fiscal problem.  If the problem is these people don't work while they could, then it's a provincial wellfare problem.

Yes, being born in a country gives you special rights.  It's the same everywhere: citizenship is automatic.

[crazy canuck]

We have a fairly significant number of people who have never left this country who do not pay any taxes and are unlikely to do so.  Should we ensure they receive no government services?

The distinction is not between people who do and do not pay taxes.

The distinction is between people who pay taxes in Canada, and people who pay taxes in a foreign country.

Well, I know a number of expats who work in the US and pay taxes there.  Are you saying we should revoke their citizenship or simply create a special categorie of almost citizen for them?

[crazy canuck]

We have a fairly significant number of people who have never left this country who do not pay any taxes and are unlikely to do so.  Should we ensure they receive no government services?

they live here, they contribute in a way.

If the problem is no taxes paid, than it's a fiscal problem.  If the problem is these people don't work while they could, then it's a provincial wellfare problem.

Yes, being born in a country gives you special rights.  It's the same everywhere: citizenship is automatic.

Ok, so really you want to draw a distinction between people who are born here and people who are not?

[Josephus]

Well the question is whether Canada should provide those services to Canadian citizens, if said Canadian citizen has not lived in Canada for several years, lives in a second country where they also have citizenship (and probably has been a citizen of that country since birth), and does not pay taxes in Canada.

And the answer to that question is probably yes. And this is not the old "liberal/socialist Josephus" saying this. Cause at heart, i don't agree, but we don't have different levels of citizenship constitutionally. So rights for one citizen are equal for any other.

[Barrister]

We have a fairly significant number of people who have never left this country who do not pay any taxes and are unlikely to do so.  Should we ensure they receive no government services?

The distinction is not between people who do and do not pay taxes.

The distinction is between people who pay taxes in Canada, and people who pay taxes in a foreign country.

Well, I know a number of expats who work in the US and pay taxes there.  Are you saying we should revoke their citizenship or simply create a special categorie of almost citizen for them?

Well it's a lot easier to identify the problem than it is to name a solution.

Of course, one can not strip someone of their citizenship if that would leave someone without citizenship.  So if you're only Canadian, even if you haven't lived in this country for years and years, then you're still Canadian.

But if you're a Canadian who has gained US citizenship, and has lived in the US for years and years... I don't think it would be a hardship for Canadian consulates to  provide reduced consular services, instead telling people to rely on the government of the country they live and and whose citizenship they maintain.

[Oexmelin]

The distinction is not between people who do and do not pay taxes.

The distinction is between people who pay taxes in Canada, and people who pay taxes in a foreign country.

Why are taxes important in the matter?

[crazy canuck]

Well it's a lot easier to identify the problem than it is to name a solution.

I am still not sure what the problem is and so I was trying to get at that by what you think the solution might be.

Viper says taxes are not the issue, you seem to think it is.  Viper seems more vexed with people who are not born here claiming citizenship.  You seem more vexed with anyone living abroad.

I have to confess some confusion as to what is really the issue.

[Malthus]

Well it's a lot easier to identify the problem than it is to name a solution.

I am still not sure what the problem is and so I was trying to get at that by what you think the solution might be.

Viper says taxes are not the issue, you seem to think it is.  Viper seems more vexed with people who are not born here claiming citizenship.  You seem more vexed with anyone living abroad.

I have to confess some confusion as to what is really the issue.

The issue seems to be those using Canadian citizenship merely for the benefits it confers, without any intention of actually living in the country or, potentially, performing any of the duties of citizenship. A classic "free rider" problem.

Naturally, the problem is complicated by the fact that there is no easy solution to it - given most people agree that: (1) there ought to be no distinct 'classes' of citizenship - all should be treated equally; (2) we ought not to strip anyone of citizenship once granted, except for fraud; and (3) the rules allowed the alleged 'free riders' to gain citizenship perfectly legitimately, without fraud.

One solution is to tighten citizenship applications, to weed out 'free riders' in advance. But clearly this will not be easy, or even possible, without also 'weeding out' desirable candidates at the same time; and those entitled to citizenship by right, as of birth, will in any case still be able to 'free ride'.

Another solution would be to make continued citizenship contingent on performing certain duties. This would have the undesireable effect of stripping people of citizenship who may have perfectly legitimate reasons not to perform those duties, plus leaving some stateless.

It may well be that any possible "cure" is, in fact, worse than the problem.

[Oexmelin]

So, the big fear is that we may end up having to rescue people from terrible violence? Or argue on their behalf for due process, or against death penalty?

[Barrister]

The issue seems to be those using Canadian citizenship merely for the benefits it confers, without any intention of actually living in the country or, potentially, performing any of the duties of citizenship. A classic "free rider" problem.

Naturally, the problem is complicated by the fact that there is no easy solution to it - given most people agree that: (1) there ought to be no distinct 'classes' of citizenship - all should be treated equally; (2) we ought not to strip anyone of citizenship once granted, except for fraud; and (3) the rules allowed the alleged 'free riders' to gain citizenship perfectly legitimately, without fraud.

Except #1 is not true - Canadian citizens are frequently treated differently by the government.  Residency is one such criteria.  Just try coming to Canada for medical coverage if you haven't been living in Canada, for example.  Or try to apply for EI.

[crazy canuck]

Well it's a lot easier to identify the problem than it is to name a solution.

I am still not sure what the problem is and so I was trying to get at that by what you think the solution might be.

Viper says taxes are not the issue, you seem to think it is.  Viper seems more vexed with people who are not born here claiming citizenship.  You seem more vexed with anyone living abroad.

I have to confess some confusion as to what is really the issue.

The issue seems to be those using Canadian citizenship merely for the benefits it confers, without any intention of actually living in the country or, potentially, performing any of the duties of citizenship. A classic "free rider" problem.

I am not sure what the 'duties" might be and so I am not sure what the free rider problem is.   Additionally even if the necessary duties of citizenship are defined, I am still not sure how free riding occurs.  Provinces are free to dictate when medical coverage lapses because of absence (as an example) so what is the real concern?

edit:  BB has identified the same issue - and so I ask again - what is the problem to be addressed here?