Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Haha, you're so entertaining. I do happen to think that citizenship is a good place to draw the line. You're the guy who wants to change it, so provide your reasoning. Explain the issue, and why this is a good solution.
|
I know you think that, you’ve said it like seven times without being able to or just refusing to explain why you think it’s a good place to draw the line. Remember, the conversation started because an emigrant to the US decided Calgary city council (that’s in Canada) even
exploring the idea that people who actually live here could vote here should have been laughed out of the room, despite the idea working in other healthy democracies across the world.
The issue is that permanent residents are effectively second class citizens. Politicians on every level can make decisions that directly affect them and they have no say in those decisions. We’re not talking about people who just “happened to be in Calgary on the day,” we’re talking about permanent residents who actually live here, your neighbours, who pay taxes like you do, contribute to the economy like you do, and are impacted by the same policies you’re impacted by.
Suggesting that you should get a say and they shouldn’t just because you were born here or because you already waited however long and jumped through all the hoops and paid your hundreds of dollars and they haven’t yet, is the way it is (thanks for pointing that out so many times) but that says nothing about whether that’s the way it should be.
The benefits, broadly speaking, are that it’s more liberal and democratic to allow all those who are directly impacted by the policies of the government in the place that they live to have a say in the formation of that government. You’re a liberal, right? So this shouldn’t need a ton of explaining. On a more detailed and specific level, by allowing permanent residents to vote, we encourage them to engage with and participate in our values and way of living. It’s inclusive, something we’re apparently all committed to because we’re citizens (well, some of us, right?). It allows people like I described above (again, not the people who you made up), to have a say in their government. Residency is a more important measure of who should/shouldn’t have voting power than citizenship. Citizenship is an idea, it’s a piece of paper. Residency, on the other hand, is more tangible.
The arguments against it are just fluff.
“Citizenship is the bar”/“Citizenship is the bellwether for democracy”
- Here, but not everywhere, which should signal some thought around whether it’s a good bar at all, you know, “explore” the issue. Plenty of democracies where it isn’t the bellwether, so maybe we’re wrong. Citizens also can’t voted in other cities, or provinces, etc, so… maybe that’s not the real bar?
“You have tax obligations which is why you get a vote.”
- Permanent residents have tax obligations and don’t get a vote. One point for permanent residents.
“People who are here temporarily aren’t as committed”
- Yet someone can move from Ontario to Calgary and vote here within a short period of time. Plus the numerous examples of expats voting from abroad.
“Citizenship requires a commitment to Canadian values and inclusion”
- And yet no naturally born Canadian has to make that commitment and can champion exclusionary policies (like this one!) without losing citizenship or their right to vote
Even forgetting the Canada-wide slant here. There are places where there are exceptions for more local elections like municipalities. Given the benefits above, can you provide a reason beyond “I think it good” why a permanent resident should have to be a Canadian citizen before they can vote for their city councillor? Keeping in mind municipalities have extremely localized and limited scope to their power (it doesn’t extended provincially or federally), and yet can at times directly impact the people who actually live in the city the most out of every level of government?