Different citizenship benefits

[screech339]

As a naturalized Canadian if you give birth outside of Canada does your child automatically become Canadian?

Yes. Your child will be Canadian by Descent. You would have to apply for proof of Canadian citizenship. In other words, Canadian citizenship certificate.

 

[screech339]

@ screech339

You continue to draw false equivalences and employ flawed logic in order to try and defend an INDEFENSIBLE position:

1. Saying "All tax payers should have a vote" is not the same as saying "People who don't pay taxes shouldn't vote"

2. Having access to services does not justify not having a say in what services are offered.

3. What the US does or doesn't do, neither serves to justify nor repudiate the way that Canada operates.

If you are particularly opposed to point (2) then perhaps we should just appoint El Presidente` for life who can just stipulate how our money is spent and then no one needs to vote.

That's working out really well for Venezuela and Cuba.

I am only applying your reasoning of "deserve citizenship because you pay taxes" logic. That would means or imply that those who don't pay taxes don't deserve a right to canadian citizenship. See how flawed your reasoning is? If you really believe that you have a right to citizenship because you pay taxes and you also believe those who don't pay taxes also also have a right to citizenship, then that means paying taxes has nothing to do with a right to get citizenship.

 

[torontosm]

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?

Here's why are you wrong:

Assertion 1: I never said that your citizenship application will be processed within a certain period of time. However, if you have fulfilled the requirements, you will obtain citizenship. That is as clear as a path can get.
Assertion 2: I don't believe you don't use social services. Do you drive on the roads? Do you ever use public transit? Are you protected by the police and fire department? You don't get to pick and choose which services you wish to pay for.
Assertion 3: So is your point that now that the civil war in the US is over, there is no taxation without representation there? Try going across on a TN or H-1 visa, and see how much representation you get....zero. It's the same in every country...citizens get to vote and temporary (or permanent) residents don't. Deal with it. Canada is no different from the US in that regard, and if you believe it is, it's probably because you are a US citizen.

 

[CanadianCountry]

About Assertion 1:
" However, if you have fulfilled the requirements, you will obtain citizenship. That is as clear as a path can get."

This is not entirely true. You may fulfill all the requirements and still not qualify on the "balance of probabilities" assessment of CIC. So it is not that of a clear path.

I don't think you will bet the farm on it, that you are 100% certain to get the citizenship once all the listed requirements have been met.

Here's why are you wrong:

Assertion 1: I never said that your citizenship application will be processed within a certain period of time. However, if you have fulfilled the requirements, you will obtain citizenship. That is as clear as a path can get.
Assertion 2: I don't believe you don't use social services. Do you drive on the roads? Do you ever use public transit? Are you protected by the police and fire department? You don't get to pick and choose which services you wish to pay for.
Assertion 3: So is your point that now that the civil war in the US is over, there is no taxation without representation there? Try going across on a TN or H-1 visa, and see how much representation you get....zero. It's the same in every country...citizens get to vote and temporary (or permanent) residents don't. Deal with it. Canada is no different from the US in that regard, and if you believe it is, it's probably because you are a US citizen.

 

[screech339]

About Assertion 1:
" However, if you have fulfilled the requirements, you will obtain citizenship. That is as clear as a path can get."

This is not entirely true. You may fulfill all the requirements and still not qualify on the "balance of probabilities" assessment of CIC. So it is not that of a clear path.

I don't think you will bet the farm on it, that you are 100% certain to get the citizenship once all the listed requirements have been met.

If you met all the requirements you will get citizenship at some point. However what balance of probabilities are you talking about? The only balance of probabilities I can see is if you barely meet the requirements and hope that you won't get find out later than you didn't actually meet the minimum. If you wait until you have enough buffer, say a few weeks extra, get your days in, then the balance of probabilities of getting citizenship greatly balance in your favour to get citizenship.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Many people on the cusp, will be applying with only few buffer days. Even though the applicant know for sure and has no doubt he/she meets the requirements, still its up to the CIC.

If you met all the requirements you will get citizenship at some point. However what balance of probabilities are you talking about? The only balance of probabilities I can see is if you barely meet the requirements and hope that you won't get find out later than you didn't actually meet the minimum. If you wait until you have enough buffer, say a few weeks extra, get your days in, then the balance of probabilities of getting citizenship greatly balance in your favour to get citizenship.

 

[mathlete]

I am only applying your reasoning of "deserve citizenship because you pay taxes" logic. That would means or imply that those who don't pay taxes don't deserve a right to canadian citizenship. See how flawed your reasoning is? If you really believe that you have a right to citizenship because you pay taxes and you also believe those who don't pay taxes also also have a right to citizenship, then that means paying taxes has nothing to do with a right to get citizenship.

"I am only applying your reasoning of "deserve citizenship because you pay taxes" logic. That would means or imply that those who don't pay taxes don't deserve a right to canadian citizenship"

No it does NOT imply that. That is a story you made up in your head. If I said "All dogs deserve a bone" Would you interpret that to mean no animals other than dogs deserve bones?

 

[screech339]

"I am only applying your reasoning of "deserve citizenship because you pay taxes" logic. That would means or imply that those who don't pay taxes don't deserve a right to canadian citizenship"

No it does NOT imply that. That is a story you made up in your head. If I said "All dogs deserve a bone" Would you interpret that to mean no animals other than dogs deserve bones?

Let put it another way.

You believe you have a right to citizenship because you pay taxes. That would mean one of the conditions of getting citizenship is paying taxes. That is exactly what you mean and you can't argue your way out of that.

Now that said, people who don't pay taxes can also get citizenship. That pretty much defeats your argument that you have a right to citizenship because of paying taxes.

So unless there is a law or rule that specifically states that paying taxes gives you the right to citizenship, you don't hold any merit or claim to citizenship by taxation.

In conclusion, paying taxes has NOTHING to do with citizenship. It is not a qualifier or an bonus to deserve citizenship.

 

[YorkFactory]

You need to pay taxes because you earn income. You're not putting money in some sort of bank that rewards you with citizenship after you put in a certain amount.

 

[screech339]

You need to pay taxes because you earn income. You're not putting money in some sort of bank that rewards you with citizenship after you put in a certain amount.

Correct. Mathlete seems to think earning citizenship through taxation is the same as collecting air miles points. Instead of a free trip, he gets citizenship.

He could also be thinking that people who pay taxes should get citizenship faster than those who don't pay taxes. In other words, the rich get citizenship first and the poor people probably won't get it, since the rich are pushing the poor people further back in queue.

 

[cecapplied]

could not help but smile looking at your response. nicely put.

cecapplied

Correct. Mathlete seems to think earning citizenship through taxation is the same as collecting air miles points. Instead of a free trip, he gets citizenship.

He could also be thinking that people who pay taxes should get citizenship faster than those who don't pay taxes. In other words, the rich get citizenship first and the poor people probably won't get it, since the rich are pushing the poor people further back in queue.

 

[on-hold]

This 'taxation without representation' thing is a sideshow. If that's the principle you want to live by, you should go to the United States, who fought a revolution based on that. It is not part of Canadian history . . . ;D Here in Alberta tax money used to go to other provinces for transfer payments, and the provinces would spend it how they wanted -- do you think Albertans were delighted by that?

You use all kinds of social services that your taxes pay for: police, roads, traffic lights, CBC, snow plowing, etc.

You don't vote for your MP, but they will still represent you. MPs are well known for supporting PRs who have difficulty with stalled citizenship applications, or other non-standard issues. The fact that they don't always solve them has nothing to do with it, MPs lack superpowers and have a limited ability to push the bureaucracy. The situation of the parents who landed with a baby that did not have PR status has nothing to do with citizenship -- MPs wouldn't have been able to fix that. There are Canadian citizens whose adoptions in the Congo are stalled because of a ridiculous bureaucratic Catch-22, and they have not been broken free by MP intervention.

Basically, you're asking for the right to land as a citizen. But you knew before you came here that you wouldn't be -- so why would you choose to land in a situation that seems apartheid-like to you?

 

[asaif]

Okay, let's take it to the extreme and imagine that a more right-wing, anti-immigrant government comes up with a new immigration system in which people can come to Canada and stay for the rest of their life as PR without having a route to citizenship. Meaning that as long as they pay their taxes and obey the law, they can enjoy all citizenship privileges except voting and running for political seats. What would you think about such a system?

Well, a regime like that is nothing new. In Western democracies during the 18th and 19th centuries voting rights were granted to specific segments of the society (e.g. white, male, wealthy, non-slave ... etc.). For example, a survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. Real universal suffrage is something relatively.

For many immigrants, voting rights is a trivial issue. But for me, I didn't come here to become a second-class citizen for the rest of my life. I migrated to Canada in the premise that after a reasonable period of time I'll become a full citizen equal to everyone else. I want to have a voice on how my tax money is spent and some control over the laws affecting my life. This is something I considered when I was making-up my mind about immigration to a democracy like Canada.

 

[screech339]

Okay, let's take it to the extreme and imagine that a more right-wing, anti-immigrant government comes up with a new immigration system in which people can come to Canada and stay for the rest of their life as PR without having a route to citizenship. Meaning that as long as they pay their taxes and obey the law, they can enjoy all citizenship privileges except voting and running for political seats. What would you think about such a system?

Well, a regime like that is nothing new. In Western democracies during the 18th and 19th centuries voting rights were granted to specific segments of the society (e.g. white, male, wealthy, non-slave ... etc.). For example, a survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. Real universal suffrage is something relatively.

For many immigrants, voting rights is a trivial issue. But for me, I didn't come here to become a second-class citizen for the rest of my life. I migrated to Canada in the premise that after a reasonable period of time I'll become a full citizen equal to everyone else. I want to have a voice on how my tax money is spent and some control over the laws affecting my life. This is something I considered when I was making-up my mind about immigration to a democracy like Canada.

I understand your premise on the issue of why PR wants to become canadian, to be able to vote and have a say on how the taxes are spent. Fair and valid. However to use the example you posted would never happen as we now have a constitution called charters of right and freedom. This means Canada won't go back to the 18th - 19th century democracy.

But in mathlete's case, his argument that paying taxes is a reason to have a right to citizenship. That is a flawed reasoning as it would mean 18th-19th century system whereby the taxpayers get citizenship and vote and those who don't pay taxes don't get citizenship and can't vote.

 

[on-hold]

I don't understand where the 'rest of your life' comes from? Do you fall into a special category of PR who never gets to become a citizen?

As for your hypothetical, no, I don't want to live in such a system; though a lot of people do, European countries are far more reluctant to let their guest workers become citizens. At the greater extreme, the Gulf countries never let anyone become a citizen -- their citizenship is basically based on your grandparents' affiliation, or something like that. I hate those places.

However, I don't want to live in a place, either, where citizenship entails no commitment at all. I came to Canada as a Federal Skilled Worker applicant. I landed in Canada and received my PR card. If I had received a passport instead, would I have stayed? Who knows? Probably, because I come from the States, and there is not that much difference between having an American passport and a Canadian passport. But if I was from another country where citizenship can be a real limitation, I might have left that same day to go work in the States on a TN visa, or gone back to my own country to be an immigration consultant. There is no way that I could be considered a Canadian in a meaningful sense of the word, but I would be in the legal sense.

Canada is quite generous with its citizenship grant, permitting dual citizenship and not requiring naturalized citizens to live in Canada after their naturalization. A lot of Western countries don't do this. It is particularly generous, given that rates of immigration are higher here than practically everywhere else -- Canada is like the open admissions school of countries. I don't think limiting the vote to citizens is unreasonable at all, given that the Canada is clearly willing to include people who meet its relaxed criteria in this category.

In Canada, the route to citizenship -- 3 years plus processing time of up to 4 years -- is still in the ballpark for most Western countries. The only difference is that a small subset of people get a total time of 7 years, while most people are substantially below that. I think that's stupid, and I would allocate more resources towards this issue, but it's not a fundamental inequity.