NationStates Jolt Archive

I came across this article (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060919%2fevacuation_tab_060919&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True) and it raised the above question.

Personally, I would hate to think that I have abandoned all of the rights (and responsibilities) of Canadian citizenship simply because I am currently living abroad or because I have not paid taxes in Canada in the past few months. I am a proud Canadian, and am personally disgusted by the responses expressed in this article ... when did we become so petty, small-minded and cheap? I welcome perspectives from other nations on what constitutes citzenship.

Paying taxes a citizen does not make. But a citizen does (more like should) pay taxes.

Paying taxes a citizen does not make. But a citizen does (more like should) pay taxes.
Should they? Always? Even when they are abroad for perfecly valid reasons?

I'm sorry. But I am a dual citizen. At some point in my life I have paid taxes and otherwise contributed to the civic life of both nations of which I am a citizen. The fact that I have not done so recently should not be used against me.

And since when are taxes the entire measure of civic contribution? I know plenty of people who pay taxes yet do little for their country. I know people that do a great deal for their country and yet don't pay alot of taxes. (And I know a few wealthy people who do very little of either).

No, citizenship ought not only apply to persons paying taxes.

With regards to the article contents, Ontario Conservative MP Garth Turner is either none-too-bright or trying to pull a swifty.

Garth Turner's reasoning:
Problem, evacuating Canadian citizens from Lebanon cost a lot of money
Solution, we need to reconsider citizenship laws

As a rule, Canada asks citizens to reimburse the government for their evacuation from foreign lands.

But the federal government decided in this case that taxpayers would foot the bill for costs related to the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon.
My reasoning:
If there is some objection to the federal government deciding to foot bills it doesnt have to foot, rather than campaigning to downgrade the citizenship rights of all Canadian citizens, campaign the federal government to not decide to foot bills it doesnt have to.

Clearly Turner is preying on misfortune in order to mislead in pursuit of an agenda that I gather even Turner figures he cannot pass off without resorting to deceit.

With regards to the article contents, Ontario Conservative MP Garth Turner is either none-too-bright or trying to pull a swifty.

Probably both. I just wonder what makes people so cheap and mean-spirited that they would begrudge people the cost of removing them from a war zone.

Citizenship should not, i agree, revolve around your taxation. The grounds for citizenship should be whatever the country sets them to be, be that residency, some form of test However, as a citizen, it is part of your duty to aid in the upkeep of your government. If you expect rights and privilages from said government, like being relocated from a war-torn area, I do think that some form of taxation would be appropriate. Such rights and privilages come with a cost. For citizens outside of the country, I would think a lessened tax would be most appropriate, as you are not currently using many of the social/domestic services taxation provides. But, you are still using the government's authority and possibility of aid, so, perhaps, a "citizen abroad" tax bracket would work?

I hate it when mono-citizens throw crap at dual- or multi-citizens.

Probably both. I just wonder what makes people so cheap and mean-spirited that they would begrudge people the cost of removing them from a war zone.
Either way (whether or not one would begrudge the cost) there is absolutely no excuse for Turner to dishonestly frame this as a citizenship issue.

Why do voters put up with this kind of hyena, even if such a poor excuse for a human happens to tout their favourite political ideology?:(

This one's for you Garth Turner!:upyours:

As it happens I dont know if the cheap part applies, I think it's more about being mean-spirited. Certainly that appears the right description for Turner.

Well, if paying taxes made people citizens, we'd have a huge number of people in the US who are currently not citizens suddenly become citizens. After all, even illegal immigrants pay sales tax when they purchase stuff.

Citizenship should not, i agree, revolve around your taxation. The grounds for citizenship should be whatever the country sets them to be, be that residency, some form of test However, as a citizen, it is part of your duty to aid in the upkeep of your government. If you expect rights and privilages from said government, like being relocated from a war-torn area, I do think that some form of taxation would be appropriate. Such rights and privilages come with a cost. For citizens outside of the country, I would think a lessened tax would be most appropriate, as you are not currently using many of the social/domestic services taxation provides. But, you are still using the government's authority and possibility of aid, so, perhaps, a "citizen abroad" tax bracket would work?

But does this not just create "classes" of citizens based on how much tax they pay?

Why do voters put up with this kind of hyena, even if such a poor excuse for a human happens to tout their favourite political ideology?:(


I don't think Garth Turner is particularly well-respected within his own party. But he does get enough votes to get elected. Maybe he runs in a donkey riding (i.e. slap the right party sticker on a donkey and it could get elected in that riding). There are far too many donkey ridings in this country where any idiot can get elected if they run for the right party.