This post appeared on the RenouceUScitizenship blog. You may want to add comments to the Globe article.
Fast-food lesson: Voting should be by residency, not citizenship http://t.co/RBEdqFNHdt – Taxation should be by residence, not citizenship
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 7, 2013
A very interesting article referenced in the above tweet. The comments are even more interesting. This article suggests a trend toward placing greater significance on residence than citizenship. Those opposed to U.S. citizenship-based taxation (everybody) may want to research U.S. jurisdictions where non-citizens are entitled to vote. Voting (deciding how a community is to be governed) and taxation (paying for the community) are part of the same issue.
Essentially, the article makes the point that when it comes to public policy, use of tax revenues, and taxation the important consideration is where one lives (residence) and NOT where one was born (citizenship). Although citizenship-based taxation is NOT mentioned, there is an analogy between voting and taxation – both are related to participation and identification with the place of residence.
The article includes some interesting thoughts:
First and foremost, democracy is about making decisions on how one’s tax revenues should be used; these residents have been paying taxes for years but have no representation.
Worse, when countries pretend that their established residents are “temporary,” those people lose the incentive to invest in their communities – to buy houses, to turn small businesses into larger ones, to help improve their neighbourhoods. More alarmingly, they tend to be distant from the health and education systems.
Voting should be granted by residency, not citizenship. (Elections Canada understands this, and rightly denies Canadian citizens the right to vote once they’ve been away five years). New Zealand, Denmark, Israel, Uruguay, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden allow non-resident aliens to vote. In Britain, you can vote as a non-citizen resident if you’re from one of dozens of qualifying EU or Commonwealth countries.
Several Canadian cities, including Toronto, are now asking their provinces permission to give non-citizen residents the vote. This should be uncontroversial and extended nationwide. If we allow these neighbours to change our world, we should give them a voice in changing their government.
If you accept the principle that the right to vote is dependent on residence, then should a citizen who does NOT reside in Canada be entitled to vote? As it stands, Canadian citizens who have lived outside Canada for five years lose the right to vote. Apparently this is being challenged:
Canadian #Expat voters launch legal challenge of '5-year rule' http://t.co/pzKWp0jsjd Right to vote tied to residence? What abt taxation?
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) November 7, 2013
The comments to this article (although closed) are of great interest too.
But back to the issue of citizenship-based taxation …
It is obvious that what the U.S. calls citizenship-based taxation is nothing but residence based life control.
The U.S. has no moral right to control the activities of people outside their jurisdiction because they live in other countries.
I am increasingly of the opinion that what the U.S. calls citizenship-based taxation is a gross violation of international (not U.S.) law.
I don’t find this surprising at all.
As an immigrant, and knowing many others who are, it’s clear to me that your home and loyaltyies are where you live regardless of what country may lay claim to your “citizenship”.
The idea of being a citizen by right of mere birth was rendered antiquated the moment people began migrating.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see where people would really go if freedom of movement and the right to live where you pleased and choose your own citizenship were simply a fact of llfe?
I wonder what country or region of the world would be the real country that everyone wants to be a part of if countries were forced to compete for citizens rather than simply be granted title to them because they were born on this or that country’s soil.
I tried to make a comment…at a loss how to…I do have a login and pw….But I did comment on your blog and I think it would be a great idea that you contact him to join us at our protest in Toronto on the 13th and 14th…and the 20th.
I myself have a divided view….those who reside here but are not citizens could vote in municpal elections but not the federal where laws are made dealing with the constitution.
@Yoga Girl
I like the idea of European Union where citizens can come and go from their origin country to another to work and live.
The USA is so big they have states that people come and go. Many people now there are very relunctant to welcome immigrants for fear of job loss or becoming a minority.
While I agree that taxation should be local, I disagree that someone should be allowed just to move to a place and to start voting there. One must be willing to demonstrate a commitment and loyalty to the community. In this regard, the Canadian citizenship requirement is only fair: (1) The time period of legal residency is merely five years and not at all onerous. (2) The pledge to the Queen of Canada is the least that one should be willing to do to demonstrate loyalty to the country.
I also don’t feel that that Canada normally does great injustice to those who are not yet citizens–at least none that would be remedied by the right to vote.
In our current form of democracy, it is questionable whether one has a representation at all: what one has is actually more like voting for a choice between two or three political parties which determine the political course of the next few years. Is that representative democracy? Not really, if the party member has no ability to vote against the party.
Israel allows non-resident aliens to vote?This I do not know though I live in Israel. What I do know:if an Israeli citizen is out of the country during elections:he/she cannot vote from abroad!!!(unless he/she is in the diplomatic service or working abroad for the government.)I was abroad during the last elections.I would have been willing to go to the Embassy to vote,but was told it is not possible.That is in contrast to USA citizens who can vote abroad even if they left as children,have no idea or involvement in whats going on,who represents what.That is absurd.I don’t think I have a moral right to vote for something I know nothing about.Just as it is immoral to tax a US citizen abroad whose life is unconnected to the USA.
@Petros….
I agree with you… I know an 83 year old permanent resident…she came up from the US 50 years ago. She has no interest in becoming a Canadian citizen, does file Cdn taxes, collects Cdn old age. used Mother’s allowance when her kids were young. Has never filed US taxes since here…I really don’t understand the disinterest. I know another permanent resident here for 20 years…says can’t afford the citizenship costs to become Cdn.
@JN
I don’t know if I understand this right ..All Jewish people are citizens of Israel. The ones I know here in Canada, don’t vote Israel.
US citizens,,like those born up here…can vote in presidental elections only. They usually do it mail in. I guess the children vote where their parents are from.
@ northernstar,
I think that Jewish people aren’t automatically citizens of Israel, but that Jews born in other countries do have the right to citizenship, under Israel’s Law of Return, upon settling there. Some Iraelis who made aliyah comment here from time to time and hopefully JN or one of them or can clarify that.
Pacifica777
thanks for the clarification
Taxation should be by residency, but voting should be reserved for those who volunteer to get a photo I.D. and can demonstrate some knowledge of the issues and have not accepted a government check except for the programs everyone has contributed to, i.e. Social Security, in the period between the last election and this election. Those who ”work” for government must not be allowed to vote the politician into office who will give them stuff. Workers in Government Jobs may not belong to a union and vote (both).
I agree with Petros on this one. Voting is a right of a citizen, and sometimes (as it often seems!) a terrible responsibility. There are even more onerous duties of citizenship: jury duty (in common law jurisdictions, mostly); and at least the potential for military draft (though insanely the U.S. demands even resident alien males register with Selective Service!). Although this latter possibility is remote, you had better believe that before I swore to the Crown I carefully considered whether I would fight for my Queen if she asked me to. Citizenship is not just about ‘goodies’–you can get most of the Canadian goodies with a PR card alone. It is about loyalty, duties (i.e.the logical reciprocal of rights), and wanting to be a full member of a nation and share its joys and sufferings as one’s own.
I would not mind at some point in living a place like Thailand. I would NOT want its citizenship foisted on me, nor would I even want the right to vote. If I really hated the taxes or their policies, I would retain the right to leave. I would also retain the right to leave if they were about to be invaded by say China. NOT owing loyalty to their King and Country would mean I could just say “Well, nice known’ ya! Good luck!” as I head for the exit…
Sweden has an interesting policy on voting. Non-citizen permanent residents can vote in local elections, but not in national elections. It makes sense to me as they are part of the local community. When I was a permanent resident, I appreciated it because it made me feel more integrated in the society and helped me to care more about and involve myself more in what was going on where I lived.
I ended my previous post too quickly. The statement that Sweden allows non-resident aliens to vote is not correct. You need to be resident. As Sweden has a population register, the Swedish govt has tight control of who is residing in the country and not. If you are registered, you are obligated to pay taxes in Sweden. You receive almost none of the services you pay taxes for if you de-register, or you are charged more for the ones you can receive if you are not registered. When I was a permanent resident and was de-registered as I was outside of the country for several years on a work assignment, I was not entitled to vote in the local elections.
I should also explain another thing about the Swedish system:
You need to be resident for 3 years before you can vote in local elections.
“It is obvious that what the U.S. calls citizenship-based taxation is nothing but residence based life control.
The U.S. has no moral right to control the activities of people outside their jurisdiction because they live in other countries.
I am increasingly of the opinion that what the U.S. calls citizenship-based taxation is a gross violation of international (not U.S.) law.”
Not just international law, it’s a human rights violation – it’s crazy that any government could think it has authority over someone that doesn’t reside within its territory.
Perhaps all these distinctions between citizen/resident, immigrant/emigrant, etc. should just be collapsed into resident/visitor. Seems like that would simplify things and be more in keeping with the increased mobilization of people, and the decreasing relevance of geographical boundaries from digital networks, etc.
@serfingUSS
I agree with your thoughts that CBT is a human rights violation.
I wonder if anyone has ever filed this to the UN justice court?
Any law that acts as a disincentive to the mobility of its citizens is to some degree a Berlin Wall. Canada’s five year rule is no exception and says to Canadian citizens that they shall have “no representation without taxation”, however it’s claimed that non-resident Canadians pay “$6 billion in income taxes to the Canadian treasury”. Maybe someone can explain to me how someone would still pay income taxes to Canada after making a formal departure.
I can also see how a non-resident citizen (such as I am to the US) would have priorities that conflict with the general electorate, and perhaps the general good of the country. Case in point: I would hold my nose and vote for Rand Paul because he seeks to abolish the 16th Amendment, and ONLY because he seeks to do so.
Some of you might remember this article in the Economist from January, 2012, where the insistence on citizenship as a criteria for voting rights is referred to as a “fetish”:
http://www.economist.com/node/21542413
The comments are interesting too.
I was completely disconnected from Canadian politics when I lived in “that place” so I would not have dreamed of voting in a Canadian election. Truth be told, without phone or TV service, I didn’t even know who was PM until probably 2 or 3 years of his election. And, since I was not a citizen of “that place” (officially labelled a resident alien) I would not have dreamed of voting there either. (I couldn’t even grasp what all that left/right stuff was all about.) Not voting anywhere didn’t bother me one iota. We were too involved in building our house, running our small business, helping our neighbors and coping without healthcare insurance to worry about voting rights. However, for those whose lives leave room for such worries then I can see their point of view.