MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s exactly as Slava says you can’t do. Just have anyone who lives here on the day of the election vote.

Lol, well any citizen which is kind of a significant point in this discussion. and I made that comment more in regard to federal elections. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on my thoughts here as I've basically dropped this and just let PepsiFree and Eds Lunch battle this out for a couple days now.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, well any citizen which is kind of a significant point in this discussion. and I made that comment more in regard to federal elections. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on my thoughts here as I've basically dropped this and just let PepsiFree and Eds Lunch battle this out for a couple days now.

I found it amusing that you stated you can’t just let anyone who happens to be in the country vote when that’s exactly how we do it for residency requirements for cities and provinces.

I think that residency is a more important requirement and we just use that on Willy nilly. I also find the residency vs citizenship discussion more interesting than parsing interpretations of the charter. Unfortunately the discussion didn’t go there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GGG

I found it amusing that you stated you can’t just let anyone who happens to be in the country vote when that’s exactly how we do it for residency requirements for cities and provinces.

I think that residency is a more important requirement and we just use that on Willy nilly. I also find the residency vs citizenship discussion more interesting than parsing interpretations of the charter. Unfortunately the discussion didn’t go there.

It isn't what we do though. They can vote if they're present, but also a citizen. You can't just have people showing up from anywhere and casting a ballot that day...it's just not how it works.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lol, well any citizen which is kind of a significant point in this discussion. and I made that comment more in regard to federal elections. I'm not sure why you're so fixated on my thoughts here as I've basically dropped this and just let PepsiFree and Eds Lunch battle this out for a couple days now.

I’m tapping out. Care to pick up the torch?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I’m tapping out. Care to pick up the torch?

haha, nah. I was literally just thinking the same thing here. Why am I bothering to go through this? Like I don't care that much (shout out to Wormius!) and there's no end.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

haha, nah. I was literally just thinking the same thing here. Why am I bothering to go through this? Like I don't care that much (shout out to Wormius!) and there's no end.

The milquetoast Slava's of the world really are losing their fire for arguments, eh?

[The Yen Man]

I'm on the camp that being a citizen is a requirement for voting. That's one of the privileges that comes with becoming a full citizen of this country, the right to vote.

Is this unfair to the perm residents that contribute to Canada but can't vote? Perhaps, but that's another motivation to become a citizen.

I just think opening it up to beyond citizens of the country is going to open up a lot of potential risks of even more foreign influence. Why put the country in that situation for the sake of virtue signalling? Was this even an issue that was brought up by people? Or did council just create a non issue for potential brownie points?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'm on the camp that being a citizen is a requirement for voting. That's one of the privileges that comes with becoming a full citizen of this country, the right to vote.

Is this unfair to the perm residents that contribute to Canada but can't vote? Perhaps, but that's another motivation to become a citizen.

I just think opening it up to beyond citizens of the country is going to open up a lot of potential risks of even more foreign influence. Why put the country in that situation for the sake of virtue signalling? Was this even an issue that was brought up by people? Or did council just create a non issue for potential brownie points?

Thanks for asking, here’s other major Canadian cities where the same resolution has been passed or put forward:
- Toronto
- Vancouver
- Montreal
- Halifax
- Saint John

This is among other, smaller cities that have done the same.

New Brunswick is set to allow permanent resident voting by 2026. Bills like this have been proposed, but failed, provincially in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and others.

This is an issue that is championed not only by city councils around our country, but by civil rights centres and groups serving immigrants nation-wide, as well as democracy watchdogs in our country.

Non-citizens are allowed to vote in municipalities in countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Countries like the New Zealand allow non-citizens to vote widely, while the UK and the EU allow residents who are citizens of certain other countries to vote in their elections.

So, is it just a localized issue brought up for “brownie points”? No.

Is it virtue signalling? No (unless you believe every other city or country listed there is just virtue signalling).

Now you know

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by firebug

What if the renters are canadian citizens but the landlord/owner is a Permanent Resident?

Who should get to vote in that situation?

The citizens? Seems like a simple way to slice it. Are all these permanent residents batting down the doors to vote or do some politicians want this more than them? I demand to have a 1/846,000 say in something that nowhere else on earth allows.

[The Yen Man]

Ok, stuff I didn't know, so thanks for educating me on that. I take back virtue signalling comment and it being a non issue.

Just from quick googling on an article on the argument for PR vs citizenship:

Citizenship in Canada not only grants one the right to vote, it also gives one a Canadian passport, the right to work a job with a high-security clearance and further protection from the risk of deportation.

But when someone immigrates to Canada, they don't cut all ties with their home country, whether family, land ownership, businesses or identity.

Acquiring Canadian citizenship may complicate land ownership titles in their home country or put them at risk when travelling internationally. Dual citizenship can be a solution — but not for everyone. Only 49 countries, including Canada, allow dual citizenship.

I guess my stance is still, if that's the trade off between PR and citizen, then too bad? You take the good with the bad. Weigh the options of both. If ties to your former country is more important to you, then give up your right to vote.

I just think opening it up gives you the gamut of people, some who've lived here long, but some who have not. At least with a citizen, you know that person is fully committed to being in Canada.

[lambeburger]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

At least with a citizen, you know that person is fully committed to being in Canada.

Unless they're a dual citizen.

Personally, I'd like to see relinquishment of foreign citizenship a prerequisite for Canadian citizenship.

[The Yen Man]

To be honest, I've always hated the dual citizen thing for Canada, and I'm not sure why they continue to allow it. You're either all in for Canada, or you're not.

[Fuzz]

Sounds like some people are jealous of those of us with dual citizenship. Though Brexit really screwed up the value of mine. Thanks Brexit.

[Ozy_Flame]

I don't mind dual citizenship, but I'm of the belief that if you choose to move away from Canada and live elsewhere for an extended period of time (or permanently), you have to revoke your passport. I've never liked this "citizen of convenience" status.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by lambeburger

Unless they're a dual citizen.

Personally, I'd like to see relinquishment of foreign citizenship a prerequisite for Canadian citizenship.

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

To be honest, I've always hated the dual citizen thing for Canada, and I'm not sure why they continue to allow it. You're either all in for Canada, or you're not.

Perhaps, once you turn 18 as the caveat. I don't think I agree with asking children to make a decision on their citizenship.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Thanks for asking, here’s other major Canadian cities where the same resolution has been passed or put forward:
- Toronto
- Vancouver
- Montreal
- Halifax
- Saint John

This is among other, smaller cities that have done the same.

New Brunswick is set to allow permanent resident voting by 2026. Bills like this have been proposed, but failed, provincially in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and others.

This is an issue that is championed not only by city councils around our country, but by civil rights centres and groups serving immigrants nation-wide, as well as democracy watchdogs in our country.

Non-citizens are allowed to vote in municipalities in countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Countries like the New Zealand allow non-citizens to vote widely, while the UK and the EU allow residents who are citizens of certain other countries to vote in their elections.

So, is it just a localized issue brought up for “brownie points”? No.

Is it virtue signalling? No (unless you believe every other city or country listed there is just virtue signalling).

Now you know

Do you have a source on the New Brunswick bill? I can only find old stories and it looks like it died off.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Do you have a source on the New Brunswick bill? I can only find old stories and it looks like it died off.

It didn’t die off, most of the stories are 1-2 years old but state that recommendations on how to implement it will come this year, with an aim to implement by 2026.

[getbak]

I can understand the argument for only allowing citizens to vote at the federal level because the federal government deals a lot with international issues, diplomacy, aid, and the military, so you only want citizens to be electing people who will be dealing with those issues.

At the municipal level, I don't see it being that important. At the end of the day, whether you were born in Canada, the US, the UK, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, or Palestine, if you're living in Calgary, you just want the potholes on your street fixed and the road plowed in the winter. You want the fire department to show up if you call 911 and your water to flow when you turn on a tap. You want your daughter to be able to take public transit to an 8am class at the University without needing to leave home at 5am.

I'd rather have a PR who has lived in Calgary for 20 years and plans to live here for 40 more voting in municipal elections than someone who moved here in their early 20s to make as much money as they can before moving back to wherever they grew up before they're 40. I'm not suggesting we take away the latter's right to vote, but I don't have any problem looking at granting it to the former.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Non-citizens are allowed to vote in municipalities in countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Countries like the New Zealand allow non-citizens to vote widely, while the UK and the EU allow residents who are citizens of certain other countries to vote in their elections.

I assume the "certain country" exemptions here are for EU countries?

I could not imagine the legal and political backlash if the City of Calgary said, ok PRs can vote, but not from X country lol

[STAMPEDRED]

Originally Posted by getbak

I can understand the argument for only allowing citizens to vote at the federal level because the federal government deals a lot with international issues, diplomacy, aid, and the military, so you only want citizens to be electing people who will be dealing with those issues.

At the municipal level, I don't see it being that important. At the end of the day, whether you were born in Canada, the US, the UK, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, or Palestine, if you're living in Calgary, you just want the potholes on your street fixed and the road plowed in the winter. You want the fire department to show up if you call 911 and your water to flow when you turn on a tap. You want your daughter to be able to take public transit to an 8am class at the University without needing to leave home at 5am.

I'd rather have a PR who has lived in Calgary for 20 years and plans to live here for 40 more voting in municipal elections than someone who moved here in their early 20s to make as much money as they can before moving back to wherever they grew up before they're 40. I'm not suggesting we take away the latter's right to vote, but I don't have any problem looking at granting it to the former.

The whole idea of PR being the train of thought to vote is the same thought that went from married couples getting tax benefits to now coupled up without actually being married : common law, without the hassle of really being committed.

Society truly doesn’t benefit from it. But many argue it does, and will point to their own reasons of course. But you are still not married - meaning you refused to be fully committed, but don’t see why you can’t have the full benefits of being married at your disposal.

Same with this view point of being PR is basically being a Canadian - so don’t make me become committed to that nation whatsoever (cause it may not work and I’d end up getting divorced from this nation), but I demand full ability to dictate what happens where I live.

You want to be able to have your voice heard? Then become a citizen. If not, then beat it. Be thankful there’s a way that you can have your voice heard and be part of societal governance. Too much to ask? Then the lack of desire to do what’s required doesn’t mean society has to stoop to those lazy levels.