[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

You are taking a very literal approach to these responsibilities! 

I suppose it would be too much to add 'as appropriate, in all cases'. For example, respect for laws is pretty fundamental to the Rule of Law and is in no way incompatible with challenging unjust laws! Defence of country can take more forms than wielding a rifle; even in WW2, no-one could argue pacifists and objectors cannot play their part (for example, as medics). Etc., etc.

So I ask again - do you, personally, feel that citizenship conveys any actual responsibilities? Or is it all rights and no responsibilities?

In order to answer your question I am going to need to know what you mean by continually referring to responsibilities.  You have already backed down on the first definition you gave by saying "as appropriate".  So what is left in terms of what is an actual responsibility everyone has as a citizen?

If you feel so strongly about it surely you have some idea what that is.

In other words, you won't answer a simple yes or no question - do you believe that citizenship has any responsibilities? - Until I define, to your satisfaction, the exact ambit of your satisfaction, what I happen to believe those responsibilities are under every possible circumstance ... and then argue over every jot.   

Uh, no. Not playing that unnecessary rhetorical game. It reminds me of arguing with a Trumpite that Trump can't be "disloyal" to America because the term "loyalty" has no exact meaning.

Fact is, that the exact definition of "responsibilities" under every possible circumstances doesn't, in fact, matter - because, no matter what description we may or may not agree on, someone who performs no responsibilities whatsoever can't meet them!

So, we return again - to the simple choice:

(1) Citizenship requires no responsibilities; or

(2) Citizenship requires some responsibilities (the exact ambit of which we may disagree about) - so, logically, a person who performs none, who has no connections whatsoever with the nation (other than holding the status of "citizen"), cannot be performing them.

Those are, logically, the only two choices.   

[garbon]

I don't think it requires responsibilities beyond say not betraying the country to foreign powers.

Otherwise you are really making a distinction between naturalised citizens and those born to it.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think there should be any real responsibilities incumbent upon citizenship.  But it is reasonable to ask if granting someone citizenship will be a net benefit to the country.

[ulmont]

(2) Citizenship requires some responsibilities (the exact ambit of which we may disagree about)

Voting, unless disqualified for other reasons.

[Oexmelin]

It seems to me somewhat easy to distinguish between moral responsibilities and legal responsibilities of citizenship.

[garbon]

I don't think there should be any real responsibilities incumbent upon citizenship.  But it is reasonable to ask if granting someone citizenship will be a net benefit to the country.

I'll agree with that.

[crazy canuck]

You are taking a very literal approach to these responsibilities! 

I suppose it would be too much to add 'as appropriate, in all cases'. For example, respect for laws is pretty fundamental to the Rule of Law and is in no way incompatible with challenging unjust laws! Defence of country can take more forms than wielding a rifle; even in WW2, no-one could argue pacifists and objectors cannot play their part (for example, as medics). Etc., etc.

So I ask again - do you, personally, feel that citizenship conveys any actual responsibilities? Or is it all rights and no responsibilities?

In order to answer your question I am going to need to know what you mean by continually referring to responsibilities.  You have already backed down on the first definition you gave by saying "as appropriate".  So what is left in terms of what is an actual responsibility everyone has as a citizen?

If you feel so strongly about it surely you have some idea what that is.

In other words, you won't answer a simple yes or no question

Fuck off, you can't even define what it is you want me to disagree with

[dps]

I don't think there should be any real responsibilities incumbent upon citizenship.  But it is reasonable to ask if granting someone citizenship will be a net benefit to the country.

I'll agree with that.

Yeah, I'm ok with that, too.

[viper37]

When one focuses on people who wish to make a life in the country, it turns out that refugees are the best candidates - they need to make a go of it here.

if you need a qualified workforce, immigrants are qualified now.  Refugees are qualified in 30 years.

that's why we need both, within limits of our capacity to process applications and integrate them in our society.

[viper37]

Support and defend the Constitution: Nice sounding rhetoric, but what does that mean?  People write articles critical of the way our Constitution is drafted.  Does that mean theyshould not be a citizen?

the intent for the US founding fathers was very clear: no attempt at overthrowing the government.

Stay informed of the issues affecting your community:  Assuming for a moment that this is valid, how does living abroad not allow someone to do this?

it means, more or less, that you still care about what happens here.

Participate in the democratic process:  agreed. But again what does living abroad have to do with this?

For a moment, figure yourself as the son of Afghani refugee who decides to fight for Al-Queida.  You don't care about Canada or its allies, you are willing to kill them.  You don't care about voting here, you are against democracy.  You do not agree with the Constitution, since you don't believe a country should be governed by anything else than Allah's law.  Are you a canadian citizen?

Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws:  Respect?  Hell no.  If the laws are flawed they should be challenged and changed, not respected.  That seems to be an odd play on the Rule of Law.

We're not in court, you can drop the act.  You know exactly what it means.

I happen to disagree with a number of rules.  I still won't drive 200kph in a school zone to argue my point.

I will not respect beliefs and opinions which are daft, racist, misogynistic etc.  I will criticize them.

Yet, you voted for Trudeau...

Participate in your local community:  You just made all expats non citizens.

some leeway may be given

Serve on a jury when called upon:  Actually lots of people do not serve on juries for a number of reasons - sub citizens?

I think you know very well what that means, again.

Defend the country if the need should arise - How about conscientious objectors or pacifists?

You guys shot a them before, why not again?

And in the age of modern warfare, this is a pretty archaic concept.  We are well beyond obeying the local lord's call to arms.

Of course, Canada never voted conscription...  and we shall never do either!  Trust a Liberal government to say so!  Croix de bois, croix de fer, si je mens, je vais en enfer!
(cross my heart and hope to die... I think...)

[viper37]

I don't think it requires responsibilities beyond say not betraying the country to foreign powers.

if a Canadian citizen posts propaganda for an ennemy country in time of commercial war, can we hang the bastard?

[Malthus]

I don't think it requires responsibilities beyond say not betraying the country to foreign powers.

Otherwise you are really making a distinction between naturalised citizens and those born to it.

Well, then, I would respectfully disagree.

Why would stating that citizenship has responsibilities create a distinction between naturalized citizens and those born to it? Presumably, people in both categories could, if they so choose, sever all ties to their nation of citizenship and so not fulfil any responsibilities.

[Malthus]

Fuck off, you can't even define what it is you want me to disagree with

Now, now. No reason to be sore, just because you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. 

[garbon]

I don't think it requires responsibilities beyond say not betraying the country to foreign powers.

Otherwise you are really making a distinction between naturalised citizens and those born to it.

Well, then, I would respectfully disagree.

Why would stating that citizenship has responsibilities create a distinction between naturalized citizens and those born to it? Presumably, people in both categories could, if they so choose, sever all ties to their nation of citizenship and so not fulfil any responsibilities.

Because, at least in the one you provided me from my own government, a citizen born in the US (to American parents) could easily live their entire lives without fulfilling any of those 'responsibilities' with no ill consequence.  On the flipside, the naturalised ones will(are) often be lambasted for failing to live up to such things.

[Malthus]

I don't think it requires responsibilities beyond say not betraying the country to foreign powers.

Otherwise you are really making a distinction between naturalised citizens and those born to it.

Well, then, I would respectfully disagree.

Why would stating that citizenship has responsibilities create a distinction between naturalized citizens and those born to it? Presumably, people in both categories could, if they so choose, sever all ties to their nation of citizenship and so not fulfil any responsibilities.

Because, at least in the one you provided me from my own government, a citizen born in the US (to American parents) could easily live their entire lives without fulfilling any of those 'responsibilities' with no ill consequence.  On the flipside, the naturalised ones will(are) often be lambasted for failing to live up to such things.

I dunno. Native born Americans are often "lambasted" for failing to (for example) pay taxes, serve on juries, participate in voting, respect laws, etc. etc. 

It's not an unknown topic for discussion, often lamenting that citizens generally are slipping in their sense of civic duties:

https://nypost.com/2014/12/29/5-things-about-americans-slipping-sense-of-civic-duty/

I must admit, it's unusual to find many insisting that citizens have no civic duties.