[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

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?

How about - the big fear is that, when choosing to "rescue people from terrible violence ... Or argue on their behalf for due process, or against death penalty ... ", certain people - those capable, usually because of their relative wealth - will gain a huge advantage over others less capable (and so usually the more truly wretched). They will be able to artificially claim to be "Canadian Citizens".

this.

It all sounds great until one considers what is meant by the phrase "artificially claim to be Canadian".  How is one an artificial Canadian.  It seems to me that there is an underlying concept that people don't actually want to come out and say.

Seems to me there is some underlying innuendo you wish to make, but don't wish to come right out and say. 

The concept is clear enough - those who have the papers, have gone through the steps necessary to gain citizenship, purely for the advantages this accords, but who have no intention of undertaking any of the responsibilities of citizenship. If you don't like "artificial", then choose another term.

That the system allows them to do this is no reflection on them - they are simply acting rationally. If a nation is willing to allow people to obtain rights without having to undertake any responsibilities in return - why not accept that generous bounty?

The issue is that the system that allows this isn't, perhaps, the optimal one; though as I've already stated - any "fix" may create more problems than the "problem".

[Barrister]

I was reading up on this issue.  Interestingly Canada changed its citizenship rules in 2009 to a so-called "first generation rule".  If you're a Canadian citizen living abroad, and you have a child, your child only gets citizenship if you yourself were born in Canada or you yourself were naturalized in Canada.

To keep picking on Mono, if he had a child that child would also be a Canadian citizen.  Mono's grandchild, however, would not.

I did not know this.

[Josephus]

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.

Yeah, but those have nothing to do with citizenship. You don't need to be Canadian to get medical coverage and you don't need to be Canadian to apply for EI

[Barrister]

Macleans ranking of the top 10 most dangerous places in Canada.

https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most-dangerous-places-2019/?fbclid=IwAR1C08cdvglL1AJ2pG-eqmGMJtYtogwDTJ3DU8Mvvfly9-2RHFRHzE9f4fc

Alberta has 7 of the top 10.

And 10 of the top 15.

BUt since I don't see a single town from the territories, I think they must have left them out for some reason.

[Malthus]

Macleans ranking of the top 10 most dangerous places in Canada.

https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most-dangerous-places-2019/?fbclid=IwAR1C08cdvglL1AJ2pG-eqmGMJtYtogwDTJ3DU8Mvvfly9-2RHFRHzE9f4fc

Alberta has 7 of the top 10.

And 10 of the top 15.

BUt since I don't see a single town from the territories, I think they must have left them out for some reason.

Interesting. Toronto is at 131 and falling. Though you wouldn't know that from the barrage of crime scares in the press ...

[garbon]

That is what we do. It does succeed in getting people to give up their citizenship.

Well those making a decent amount and depends on tax treaty. For many places, you need to be in 6 figures to actually pay any tax to Uncle Sam on overseas income.

[garbon]

That the system allows them to do this is no reflection on them - they are simply acting rationally. If a nation is willing to allow people to obtain rights without having to undertake any responsibilities in return - why not accept that generous bounty?

What are you considering the 'responsibilities' of a citizen towards the nation to be?

[Malthus]

That the system allows them to do this is no reflection on them - they are simply acting rationally. If a nation is willing to allow people to obtain rights without having to undertake any responsibilities in return - why not accept that generous bounty?

What are you considering the 'responsibilities' of a citizen towards the nation to be?

Well, I could ask you - as a citizen of the US, do you think you have any responsibilities as a result of that?

Your government thinks citizenship responsibilities exist: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities

Do you agree with these, or not?

[garbon]

That list with my commentary:

Support and defend the Constitution.
Not sure how I would do this.

Stay informed of the issues affecting your community.
I do, though I suppose I'm being a bit liberal on what I'm including as part of my 'American' community.

Participate in the democratic process.
I do.

Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
No, but then I'm not in the US. I think everyone has to do that when even just visiting the US.

Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.
I think many to most Americans fail on this. Doesn't really seem like a responsibility of citizenship

Participate in your local community.
Nope.

Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities.
Nope, none to pay though I do file.

Serve on a jury when called upon.
Nope, would use an out of country exemption.

Defend the country if the need should arise.
In my militia?

Basically, I don't think that list is particularly illuminating and would seem to suggest I'm shirking my 'responsibilities' while outside of the country.

[garbon]

Of course, answering a question with a question...tsk!

[crazy canuck]

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?

How about - the big fear is that, when choosing to "rescue people from terrible violence ... Or argue on their behalf for due process, or against death penalty ... ", certain people - those capable, usually because of their relative wealth - will gain a huge advantage over others less capable (and so usually the more truly wretched). They will be able to artificially claim to be "Canadian Citizens".

this.

It all sounds great until one considers what is meant by the phrase "artificially claim to be Canadian".  How is one an artificial Canadian.  It seems to me that there is an underlying concept that people don't actually want to come out and say.

"Artificial Canadian" is not at all the phrase I would use.  There is nothing artificial about it - they have gained Canadian citizenship.

What about "Canadian citizens with no meaningful tie to the country besides their citizenship papers".

That makes more sense to me.  And it something I think we need to fix but not retroactively.  I would much prefer accepting immigrants who wish to make a life in Canada.  However, for too long both Liberal and Conservative governments were content to sell citizenship with the investor immigrant rules.   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.

[crazy canuck]

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?

How about - the big fear is that, when choosing to "rescue people from terrible violence ... Or argue on their behalf for due process, or against death penalty ... ", certain people - those capable, usually because of their relative wealth - will gain a huge advantage over others less capable (and so usually the more truly wretched). They will be able to artificially claim to be "Canadian Citizens".

this.

It all sounds great until one considers what is meant by the phrase "artificially claim to be Canadian".  How is one an artificial Canadian.  It seems to me that there is an underlying concept that people don't actually want to come out and say.

Seems to me there is some underlying innuendo you wish to make, but don't wish to come right out and say. 

The concept is clear enough - those who have the papers, have gone through the steps necessary to gain citizenship, purely for the advantages this accords, but who have no intention of undertaking any of the responsibilities of citizenship. If you don't like "artificial", then choose another term.

That the system allows them to do this is no reflection on them - they are simply acting rationally. If a nation is willing to allow people to obtain rights without having to undertake any responsibilities in return - why not accept that generous bounty?

The issue is that the system that allows this isn't, perhaps, the optimal one; though as I've already stated - any "fix" may create more problems than the "problem".

Hey, you are the one who came up with the phrase "artificial".  That is in no way a "clear" concept.  It is something you made up and could mean a number of things.  It certainly implies that you consider some more Canadian than others.  And again you come back to the notion of "responsibilities of citizenship.  What are those?

edit: I see you have referenced a list and it turns out that there does not seem to be clear agreement on this point either.

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?


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?


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


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.


Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others:  No, while I defend freedom of expression, freedom of expression is not freedom from criticism.  I will not respect beliefs and opinions which are daft, racist, misogynistic etc.  I will criticize them.


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


Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities:  ok, but Canada does not tax world wide income so how does that affect your argument?


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


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

[Malthus]

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?

How about - the big fear is that, when choosing to "rescue people from terrible violence ... Or argue on their behalf for due process, or against death penalty ... ", certain people - those capable, usually because of their relative wealth - will gain a huge advantage over others less capable (and so usually the more truly wretched). They will be able to artificially claim to be "Canadian Citizens".

this.

It all sounds great until one considers what is meant by the phrase "artificially claim to be Canadian".  How is one an artificial Canadian.  It seems to me that there is an underlying concept that people don't actually want to come out and say.

Seems to me there is some underlying innuendo you wish to make, but don't wish to come right out and say. 

The concept is clear enough - those who have the papers, have gone through the steps necessary to gain citizenship, purely for the advantages this accords, but who have no intention of undertaking any of the responsibilities of citizenship. If you don't like "artificial", then choose another term.

That the system allows them to do this is no reflection on them - they are simply acting rationally. If a nation is willing to allow people to obtain rights without having to undertake any responsibilities in return - why not accept that generous bounty?

The issue is that the system that allows this isn't, perhaps, the optimal one; though as I've already stated - any "fix" may create more problems than the "problem".

Hey, you are the one who came up with the phrase "artificial".  That is in no way a "clear" concept.  It is something you made up and could mean a number of things.  It certainly implies that you consider some more Canadian than others.  And again you come back to the notion of "responsibilities of citizenship.  What are those?

edit: I see you have referenced a list and it turns out that there does not seem to be clear agreement on this point either.

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?


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?


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


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.


Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others:  No, while I defend freedom of expression, freedom of expression is not freedom from criticism.  I will not respect beliefs and opinions which are daft, racist, misogynistic etc.  I will criticize them.


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


Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities:  ok, but Canada does not tax world wide income so how does that affect your argument?


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


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

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?

[Malthus]

Of course, answering a question with a question...tsk!

I asked upthread whether those debating this think citizenship requires any responsibilities, or only conveys rights. Seems a fair question to me.

To sum: we can quibble about the exact content of the "responsibilities" part until the end of time ... but unless there is an answer on this point, there is no real debate.

If you feel there are no responsibilities, then obviously a person who jumps through the legalistic hoops to become a citizen cannot "shirk" the responsibilities they don't actually have.

If you feel there are responsibilities (even if you disagree with their exact content), someone who has no contact whatsoever with the nation they are allegedly "citizen" of, who owe their entire loyalty and live their entire lives somewhere else, cannot fulfil them. 

[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.