Different citizenship benefits

[mathlete]

I'm very confused about what exactly your point is that I just made. You are not a citizen just because your wife and kids are. The government has provided a clear path for you to become a citizen, but until that happens, you will not qualify for the benefits you seek. Are you saying that the government should immediately and automatically hand out citizenship to anyone whose spouse or kids are Canadian? That would be disastrous!

And please stop bringing up taxes...I'm tired of people saying that because they pay taxes, the government owes them citizenship. Your taxes fund the social services you and your family use, and have nothing at all do to with your immigration status.

Here's why are you wrong:

Assertion 1: "The government has provided a clear path for you to become a citizen" - It does not my application was pending for 3.5 years with zero explanation that is not "clear" path
Assertion 2: "Your taxes fund the social services you and your family use, and have nothing at all do to with your immigration status" My family uses ZERO social services, I don't use the health care system, the school system, the libraries and my education was completely unsubsidized.
Assertion 3: "And please stop bringing up taxes...I'm tired of people saying that because they pay taxes, the government owes them citizenship." Yes it does. The American civil war and many others were fought on the basis of "Taxation without representation" The fundamental pillar behind the ideology of democracy is that tax payers are entitled to have a say in how their money is spent. What gives others the God given right to tax me, take 40% of my hard earned income and then tell me that I am not entitled to a say in what they do with my money? Do you think because your mother happened to open her legs over a piece of dirt north of the 49th parallel that you have a right to spend my money as you choose? You think that is what democracy is about?

 

[screech339]

You do realize that taxation without representation applies in that taxes paid when overseas to Britain and not inside the US system.

The taxes you pay in Canada actually stays in Canada. So this "taxation without representation" doesn't apply here.

 

[screech339]

I think its the case of "taxation without representation" and longer the people go without representation, more they start calling it foul.

"Taxation without representation" applies when taxes are collected and sent overseas to Britain without any services in US. Thus the revolt.

This doesn't apply here in Canada as taxes paid stays inside Canada in form of services rendered by way of government services, social benefits, medical care. Services that every PR and Canadian have access to through taxes paid. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I would agree 100% that it would apply if we paid taxes and got no services in return, no social benefits, no welfare, no medical care, nothing. Taxes collected all went to Britain. Only then the argument of "taxation with representation" would apply here in Canada.

 

[asaif]

You do realize that taxation without representation applies in that taxes paid when overseas to Britain and not inside the US system.

The taxes you pay in Canada actually stays in Canada. So this "taxation without representation" doesn't apply here.

Outside the colonial context, the "no taxation without representation" slogan pertains to the right to vote in an election to select delegates that oversee the state budget. If you pay taxes but don't have a voice on how it's spent you are deprived from some of your rights, as usually happens in dictatorships.

 

[mathlete]

"Taxation without representation" applies when taxes are collected and sent overseas to Britain without any services in US. Thus the revolt.

This doesn't apply here in Canada as taxes paid stays inside Canada in form of services rendered by way of government services, social benefits, medical care. Services that every PR and Canadian have access to through taxes paid. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I would agree 100% that it would apply if we paid taxes and got no services in return, no social benefits, no welfare, no medical care, nothing. Taxes collected all went to Britain. Only then the argument of "taxation with representation" would apply here in Canada.

That distinction is completely meaningless. Whether or not the people benefiting from my money belong to the same geopolitical entity that I inhabit makes no difference to me. They may as well ship it all off to Great Britain. The fact that I could theoretically access such services is not the point, I should by right have a say in how my money is being spent. If you don't agree with that then please abstain from all future voting, and let everyone else make your decisions for you.

 

[mathlete]

Outside the colonial context, the "no taxation without representation" slogan pertains to the right to vote in an election to select delegates that oversee the state budget. If you pay taxes but don't have a voice on how it's spent you are deprived from some of your rights, as usually happens in dictatorships.

Correct and "apartheid" like regimes.

 

[CanadianCountry]

@screech,
I dont think that my local MPs and MLAs are representing my and upholding my interests.

They are not there to represent Permanent residents, and if you think they are you are mistaken.

Ask yourself, when making policies or laws, do they consider interests of the PR community?

"Taxation without representation" applies when taxes are collected and sent overseas to Britain without any services in US. Thus the revolt.

This doesn't apply here in Canada as taxes paid stays inside Canada in form of services rendered by way of government services, social benefits, medical care. Services that every PR and Canadian have access to through taxes paid. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I would agree 100% that it would apply if we paid taxes and got no services in return, no social benefits, no welfare, no medical care, nothing. Taxes collected all went to Britain. Only then the argument of "taxation with representation" would apply here in Canada.

 

[mathlete]

@ screech,
I dont think that my local MPs and MLAs are representing my and upholding my interests.

They are not there to represent Permanent residents, and if you think they are you are mistaken.

Ask yourself, when making policies or laws, do they consider interests of the PR community?

Absolutely agree, and why should they? They are tasked with representing the people who voted for them or more optimistically all citizens none of whom are PRs.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Agree.

In short the representation in question is not simply the use of tax funds, but is there somebody looking after your overall interests.

Absolutely agree, and why should they? They are tasked with representing the people who voted for them or more optimistically all citizens none of whom are PRs.

 

[Leon]

My family uses ZERO social services, I don't use the health care system, the school system, the libraries and my education was completely unsubsidized.

You can send your children to private schools if you please but it is not an option to opt out of the health care system. Canada has public healthcare, hence we all pay for it whether we use it or not. Maybe you are not using it now but you may need it later. Same for your family.

 

[screech339]

@ mathlete and @ canadiancountry

So you guys don't have access at any of the social benefits? Not at all? No access to medical care, services that look after your interests.

If you were working in US on work visa, you would not have any access to social services at all unless you have green card or American. I know this because I worked there. Gee I wish I had access while I was in US. All my taxes went to US that I had NO ACCESS to. I can see "taxation without representation" apply there. Still can't see your argument applying here in Canada that all PR and Canadian have access to services paid with their taxes.

The only argument on "taxation without representation" applying here in Canada is the "no representation" side in the sense that PR cannot vote for their MP. However that is part of the equation. Taxation without representation slogan used in US was used because not only they do not get any representation, taxes collected went overseas. They couldn't collect taxes to provide services themselves without permission from Britain.

So you cannot apply "taxation without representation" argument if you are only using one part of the equation "no representation" without using the "tax for services" argument. After all the US started a war over "taxation without representation" not "No representation" slogan. That is cherry picking to suit your argument.

So when PR pay taxes and got nothing in return for it. No medical access, no welfare, no social benefits, no access to government services. NONE WHATSOEVER. Feel free to claim "taxation without representation" at that time.

 

[screech339]

Anyone that is truly apply "taxation without representation" are those working in US on work visas. They pay their taxes for no access to social services.

Doesn't truly apply to those here in Canada on work visa as they have access to medical care paid with their taxes. Student visas get access to medical care through international tuition fees

 

[screech339]

Here's why are you wrong:

Assertion 2: "Your taxes fund the social services you and your family use, and have nothing at all do to with your immigration status" My family uses ZERO social services, I don't use the health care system, the school system, the libraries and my education was completely unsubsidized.

Just because you don't use the social services doesn't mean you don't have access to it. You have access to welfare if needed. You have access to medical care (I'm sure you are holding a provincial health card) even though you don't use it. You don't use school system but your children does. Your taxes even help subsidize your children's university tuition. So your taxes does in fact support services for you and your family through your taxes.

Not using the social services is not the same as NO ACCESS to social services.

 

[screech339]

@ mathlete and @ canadiancountry

By your logic, every stay at home spouse cannot get citizenship because they don't pay taxes. Every workers whose income is below 11 grand is not entitled to citizenship because they pay no income tax.

Are you saying that because my wife a stay-at-home spouse is not entitled to Canadian citizenship because she pays no income tax?

I would like to see where in any law that specifically states that paying taxes gives you entitlements or guarantee rights to earn Canadian citizenship. Please provide the links or proof of that. I will withdraw all claims to say that paying taxes doesn't give you rights to citizenship.

You do realize that if you do found such a law, every temporary worker in Canada can apply for Canadian citizenship since they pay taxes too.

 

[screech339]

@ screech,
I dont think that my local MPs and MLAs are representing my and upholding my interests.

They are not there to represent Permanent residents, and if you think they are you are mistaken.

Ask yourself, when making policies or laws, do they consider interests of the PR community?

You are saying that because PR didn't vote for the MP in their region, MP doesn't look after PR's interests. What about the ones that did vote and didn't get their MP in. They are also in the same boat as PR's since your argument of "not looking after their interests" applies. So it seems that PR and Canadian who didn't win their vote are equal in problem of not looking after their "interest".

PR's can still sponsor their parents/grandparents, sponsor their spouse/children to come to Canada for PR. Your "not looking after PR's interests" would apply if PR were forbidden to sponsor anyone for PR, only Canadians. So your argument of "not looking after their PR interests" is while valid but weak. PR will get the same services that Canadians have voted to get the services for. In other words, when Canadian's interests are looked after, PR's interests are also looked after.