Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

  1. #61
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,760

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    you're deflecting. I'm trying to point out how stupid your argument is. You're arguing that people should have the vote if they pay taxes. Conversely that means you don't think they should have the vote if they don't pay taxes?? Right? If not, why are you even bringing up, since it's irrelevant? try to keep up with the logical conclusions that follow from your arguments. reality is that the vote has NOTHING to do with wheter you pay taxes or not. It has to do with loyalty, allegiance.
    (association fallacy aside...)

    I believe Setekh was meaning resident for tax purposes, rather than a tax payer. Someone who is taxable (but may not necessarily actually pay tax) means that they have a level of commitment to that society.

    Basically what this debate boils down to is how do we empirically categorise someone's commitment to a country. Do we categorise it by economic contribution? (which these tax payer arguments suggest) or do we categorise it by ethnicity (with all the flaws in that basis), citizenship (which may not actually reflect contribution to a society) etc...

    For example... I'm a tax resident in one country - I work for the government and pay taxes. I've lived here for 5 years, but can't vote. But I am also a citizen of 2 other countries, one of which I've only lived in for a month but can still vote in, the other I lived in for 20 years and still contribute to the economy of, but can't vote in.

    Being a taxable contributor does give a calculable measurement of someone's actual contribution to a country. Citizenship does not.
    Last edited by antaeus; May 29, 2018 at 05:16 PM. Reason: Couldn't resist adding a note on association fallacy
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  2. #62
    NosPortatArma's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Sweden
    Posts
    580

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I believe Setekh was meaning resident for tax purposes, rather than a tax payer. Someone who is taxable (but may not necessarily actually pay tax) means that they have a level of commitment to that society.

    Basically what this debate boils down to is how do we empirically categorise someone's commitment to a country. Do we categorise it by economic contribution? (which these tax payer arguments suggest) or do we categorise it by ethnicity (with all the flaws in that basis), citizenship (which may not actually reflect contribution to a society) etc...

    For example... I'm a tax resident in one country - I work for the government and pay taxes. I've lived here for 5 years, but can't vote. But I am also a citizen of 2 other countries, one of which I've only lived in for a month but can still vote in, the other I lived in for 20 years and still contribute to the economy of, but can't vote in.

    Being a taxable contributor does give a calculable measurement of someone's actual contribution to a country. Citizenship does not.
    what is the price of loyalty, expressed in dollars? what is the dollar value of being drafted into the army to defend the country? it is meaningless question in my view, completely different categories. it is about contribution yes, but not of money, but of loyalty, which unlike money, you only have one of, and the country to which you give your singular loyalty you should also be given the privilege of voting in return.

    this is what citizenship used to, and ought to, mean: singular commitment to a country. until it was watered down by liberals and handed out to everyone without any requiremets, for reasons i honestly cannot understand.

    a country is much more than just a bunch of people who pay taxes to the same government. it is people who are prepared to make personal sacrifices for the group. i think it is dangerous to undermine the foundation of national solidarity by dismissing allegiance as "empty principles"... when crises happen -and they will- are people going to rally around the notion that the pay taxes?.. hardly.. such a "nation" built on such weak foundations will shatter when the first big crisis strikes.
    Make Sweden Lagom Again!

  3. #63
    Aexodus's Avatar High five
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Ulster
    Posts
    3,525

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    In Britain at least, the working classes are some of the most patriotic people in this country you’ll meet. The middle classes are practically trained to not be patriotic. So to make devotion - and belonging - to a country solely about monetary commitment, is abhorrent.
    I accomplish my course

  4. #64

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    you're deflecting. I'm trying to point out how stupid your argument is. You're arguing that people should have the vote if they pay taxes. Conversely that means you don't think they should have the vote if they don't pay taxes?? Right? If not, why are you even bringing up, since it's irrelevant? try to keep up with the logical conclusions that follow from your arguments. reality is that the vote has NOTHING to do with wheter you pay taxes or not. It has to do with loyalty, allegiance.
    No, I'm not deflecting just because I point out your deflection. Saying that if you contribute then you should have a say in how your contribution is used does not mean that if you don't pay that taxes you can't vote. Not everything exists in black and white. What you're trying to argue is not a logical conclusion but an attempt to deflect from acknowledging the merits of what I say.

    Voting is not about loyalty or allegiance. It's about having a say in what happens in matters that concern you. You can win that right through various different means. Just because you have a citizenship doesn't mean it comes with loyalty and allegiance as well. Also, there are many people who have dual or even triple citizenship.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    I should not be able to vote, as I am not Cypriot, I don’t speak Greek, and have not bothered to obtain citizenship. My vote, as a non-integrated Irishman would likely be against the wishes of most Cypriots, as every country has a different political climate.

    Do you expect people from other countries to acclimatise to the politics, and more so, the customs and traditions of the country they’re in as soon as they cross the border, or even more laughably, pay taxes. Do you really think people from other countries are going to suddenly give up their lifelong beliefs when they cross the border? Thats ridiculous.

    I am not a Cypriot, and shouldn’t be able to interfere with they’re way of life in their country, and the same goes the other way.
    If my country accepted them as residents then they accepted them to act accordingly under the laws of my country. That is true for all countries. Just because they might have a different opinion than other locals doesn't take away from the fact that they should have a say in how their contribution is used. If you have a house in a foreign country where they granted you residency, then that means they allowed you to live with them. I still don't see a single argument on why you can't vote on local matters.


    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    what is the price of loyalty, expressed in dollars? what is the dollar value of being drafted into the army to defend the country? it is meaningless question in my view, completely different categories. it is about contribution yes, but not of money, but of loyalty, which unlike money, you only have one of, and the country to which you give your singular loyalty you should also be given the privilege of voting in return.

    this is what citizenship used to, and ought to, mean: singular commitment to a country. until it was watered down by liberals and handed out to everyone without any requiremets, for reasons i honestly cannot understand.

    a country is much more than just a bunch of people who pay taxes to the same government. it is people who are prepared to make personal sacrifices for the group. i think it is dangerous to undermine the foundation of national solidarity by dismissing allegiance as "empty principles"... when crises happen -and they will- are people going to rally around the notion that the pay taxes?.. hardly.. such a "nation" built on such weak foundations will shatter when the first big crisis strikes.
    If you wanna measure the right to vote based on contribution of loyalty then the vast majority of the public will not get to vote. One fallacy here is that taxation contribution is argued against as if it's been proposed as a substitute. It was not. That was your straw man argument fallacy. It is merely a contributing factor. In many ways, a better one than measuring people based on their acts of loyalty.



    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    In Britain at least, the working classes are some of the most patriotic people in this country you’ll meet. The middle classes are practically trained to not be patriotic. So to make devotion - and belonging - to a country solely about monetary commitment, is abhorrent.
    What makes them more patriotic? Because they carry flags?
    Last edited by Setekh; May 30, 2018 at 02:09 AM.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  5. #65
    NosPortatArma's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kingdom of Sweden
    Posts
    580

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Saying that if you contribute then you should have a say in how your contribution is used does not mean that if you don't pay that taxes you can't vote.
    So first you say you should have vote if you contribute. Then you say it doesn't matter if you contribute. This makes no sense to me. Either you want to tie voting to contribution, or you want everyone to vote regardless of contribution. which one is it? If you don't think voting should be tied to contribution, why are you even bringing it up??

    Voting is not about loyalty or allegiance.
    voting should be reserved for citizens, and citizenship should imply loyalty to a particular country.

    It's about having a say in what happens in matters that concern you. You can win that right through various different means.
    Do your duties, THEN claim your rights. That is how things should work. Not just giving people rights without demanding anything in return from them. I'm all for people having a say in things that matter to them, if they first do their duty. in this case pledge their loyalty to the country, then they may vote.

    Just because you have a citizenship doesn't mean it comes with loyalty and allegiance as well. Also, there are many people who have dual or even triple citizenship.
    indeed, the notion of citizenship has been butchered by liberals.. dual citizenship is an abomination. One cannot have loyalty to two. As roosevelt said: "any man who says he is american, but something else also, isn't american at all. we have room for but one flag, the american flag. we have room for one sole loyalty, and that is loyalty to the american people. "

    If you wanna measure the right to vote based on contribution of loyalty then the vast majority of the public will not get to vote.
    Loyalty is hard to measure, and i'm not saying it can or should be measured. I'm saying voting should be based on citizenship, and that we should see citizenship as a pledge of loyalty to a country. It is not perfect of course, but it is better than nothing. It's surely better than just allowing everyone and their mom vote just because they happen to live here and maybe pay taxes. What basis for a country is that?..
    Make Sweden Lagom Again!

  6. #66
    Aexodus's Avatar High five
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Ulster
    Posts
    3,525

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    In the UK, you must fulfill these requiremtns if you wish to become a citizen.

    There are different ways to become a British citizen. The most common is called ‘naturalisation’.You can apply for British citizenship by naturalisation if:


    And you must usually have:

    • lived in the UK for at least the 5 years before the date of your application
    • spent no more than 450 days outside the UK during those 5 years
    • spent no more than 90 days outside the UK in the last 12 months
    • had settlement (‘indefinite leave to remain’) in the UK for the last 12 months if you’re from outside the European Economic Area (EEA)
    • had permanent residence status for the last 12 months if you’re a citizen of an EEA country - you need to provide a permanent residence document
    • not broken any immigration laws while in the UK
    Then you make the oath of allegiance, often followed by singing the anthem. The ‘naturalisation’ is important setekh, because otherwise you are just a guest in that country, at the hospitality of the UK. Whether or not you pay taxes. Until that point, they are a foreign national, and shouln’t have a say in our laws. If they haven’t at least pledged to respect our rights and freedoms, how do you expect that they do?

    I, NAME, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

    I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    It shows (requires, actually) that you intend to live there permanently, so only then should you be able to make decisions that affect the UK permamently.
    Last edited by Aexodus; May 30, 2018 at 03:49 AM.
    I accomplish my course

  7. #67
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,760

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    I wonder whether this topic should be split off and moved to the academy as a discussion on the nature of citizenship, because this Scottish discussion has set of a good conversation on the nature of citizenship in the abstract...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    It shows (requires, actually) that you intend to live there permanently, so only then should you be able to make decisions that affect the UK permamently.
    I think we're probably arguing at each other when in reality the two positions here aren't as diametrically opposed as they need to be.

    I agree with you and NosPortatArma, that citizenship should be something more than just being a tax resident*. It should be a deal. Where you and the country agree to a bargain. The country backs you up by protecting you through police, military, health care and welfare (if that's your thing), in return you'll support the country. you'll join the army or become a police officer. You'll pay your taxes and abide by laws.

    But I think in this discussion, we can separate voting out from citizenship in general. Because you'll agree with me, that there are plenty of people who fulfil the requirements of citizenship who are really just leaching off their country. Those people can be every bit as patriotic as the next man but still cost the country when there are plenty of people out there who aren't citizens but could benefit a country.

    For me citizenship should be as you say, a commitment to a country that goes further than just a financial transaction. I think it's ridiculous that I can be a citizen of the UK without having spent any time there. I haven't been there for 10 years and don't ever intend living there, but I can vote in the next election and affect the lives of people who live there. On the other hand, there are people who live and work in the UK, who are affected by policy decisions, and have committed to a future there, who can't currently vote. This is the paradox of citizenship and voting and why they should be separate considerations.

    I think as an example, New Zealand has the balance right. To be able to vote in any election, you have to have been in the country during the previous electoral cycle. This means you can't be a long time overseas and expect to vote - you haven't displayed commitment to the country in any way. On the other hand, some non citizens can vote - if they fulfil certain criteria which indicate a long term commitment.

    With this in mind, this is where I think taxation comes in. Taxation is an empirical measure which indicates a commitment to a place. It's not some vague notion of patriotism. There are plenty of citizens who do anything to avoid tax - patriotic flag wavers who still do anything to avoid paying the state they claim to support which actively undermines it... taxes which go to support the military or health or education. There are also plenty of non citizens who pay massively in taxes. Those taxes pay for a countries military, roads, hospitals etc. The things which make a country sustainable. This is why those tax paying non citizens should be able to expect to have a small say in how those taxes are spent.

    Yes, citizenship should be more than taxes. It should be a two way bargain - you do for the country and the country does for you. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing with voting. There is room for different levels of engagement with a country.



    *with the disclaimer that I'm not convinced of the usefulness of countries or states in general, but that's another conversation.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  8. #68

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    So first you say you should have vote if you contribute. Then you say it doesn't matter if you contribute. This makes no sense to me. Either you want to tie voting to contribution, or you want everyone to vote regardless of contribution. which one is it? If you don't think voting should be tied to contribution, why are you even bringing it up??
    voting should be reserved for citizens, and citizenship should imply loyalty to a particular country.
    Do your duties, THEN claim your rights. That is how things should work. Not just giving people rights without demanding anything in return from them. I'm all for people having a say in things that matter to them, if they first do their duty. in this case pledge their loyalty to the country, then they may vote.
    indeed, the notion of citizenship has been butchered by liberals.. dual citizenship is an abomination. One cannot have loyalty to two. As roosevelt said: "any man who says he is american, but something else also, isn't american at all. we have room for but one flag, the american flag. we have room for one sole loyalty, and that is loyalty to the american people. "
    Loyalty is hard to measure, and i'm not saying it can or should be measured. I'm saying voting should be based on citizenship, and that we should see citizenship as a pledge of loyalty to a country. It is not perfect of course, but it is better than nothing. It's surely better than just allowing everyone and their mom vote just because they happen to live here and maybe pay taxes. What basis for a country is that?..
    Of course you'd say what I say doesn't make sense to you. You're trying to dilute the discussion to argue against what I say for the sake of arguing, since your own position has no merit. As a result, you're forced to cherry pick sentences, ignoring the the rest of the paragraph. You should not do that. It's boring. As I said, not everything exists in black or white. At no point did I propose tax contribution as the only criteria as well. It's simply a factor.

    They do their duties. They pay their taxes. Follow the laws of the land. Your position simply hides behind an artificial and arbitrary concept of loyalty. Citizenship or some sort of pledge of allegiance (though in many cases it is done as a confirmation that the person will follow the laws of the land) doesn't mean anything. They don't make you more loyal. The only factor in play is that you're brainwashed with years of living in that country to defend any position regardless of its merits.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    In the UK, you must fulfill these requiremtns if you wish to become a citizen.
    Then you make the oath of allegiance, often followed by singing the anthem. The ‘naturalisation’ is important setekh, because otherwise you are just a guest in that country, at the hospitality of the UK. Whether or not you pay taxes. Until that point, they are a foreign national, and shouln’t have a say in our laws. If they haven’t at least pledged to respect our rights and freedoms, how do you expect that they do?
    It shows (requires, actually) that you intend to live there permanently, so only then should you be able to make decisions that affect the UK permamently.
    When you're given residency you're more than a guest. Some of the documents you sing in doing that probably makes you pledge that you will respect and follow the rights and freedoms of the UK as well, minus the allegiance to the Queen part, which is good. So, why can't you vote? Because you don't wanna pledge allegiance to the Queen? Many British people don't want to pledge allegiance to any queen or king. Should they be stripped of their voting rights?

    The decisions made there are not all permanent either. You vote for a municipality representative, for example, which will effect the service you get in that city in garbage collecting, pavements, parks, etc. None of that is permanent. If you leave, the next elections can change what you voted for completely.

    What makes the working class more patriotic Aexodus?
    Last edited by Setekh; May 30, 2018 at 05:38 AM.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  9. #69
    Aexodus's Avatar High five
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Ulster
    Posts
    3,525

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    When you're given residency you're more than a guest. Some of the documents you sing in doing that probably makes you pledge that you will respect and follow the rights and freedoms of the UK as well, minus the allegiance to the Queen part, which is good. So, why can't you vote? Because you don't wanna pledge allegiance to the Queen? Many British people don't want to pledge allegiance to any queen or king. Should they be stripped of their voting rights?
    We live in a constitutional monarchy. If someone coming to this country doesn’t like that, then they don’t have to stay.

    The decisions made there are not all permanent either. You vote for a municipality representative, for example, which will effect the service you get in that city in garbage collecting, pavements, parks, etc. None of that is permanent. If you leave, the next elections can change what you voted for completely.
    If migrants vote in the indyref2, is that not a permanent change? And by voting in a particular first minister for a full term, will that not have far-reaching consequences?

    What makes the working class more patriotic Aexodus?
    They’re the ones who tend to turn out more on national events, join the army, etc. They also vote for more nationalistic parties like the Tories and UKIP, rather than Labour or milquetoast Lib Dems. Actually, the lib dems have a very noticeable over-representation in the upper classes.

    And yes, they do fly the flag more too.

    Edit: in Scotland it seems the working classes (routine and lower supervisors - assembly line workers, waiters and cleaners etc) are more nationalist and supportive of independence.
    Last edited by Aexodus; May 30, 2018 at 09:54 AM.
    I accomplish my course

  10. #70

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    We live in a constitutional monarchy. If someone coming to this country doesn’t like that, then they don’t have to stay.
    If migrants vote in the indyref2, is that not a permanent change? And by voting in a particular first minister for a full term, will that not have far-reaching consequences?
    They’re the ones who tend to turn out more on national events, join the army, etc. They also vote for more nationalistic parties like the Tories and UKIP, rather than Labour or milquetoast Lib Dems. Actually, the lib dems have a very noticeable over-representation in the upper classes.
    And yes, they do fly the flag more too.
    Edit: in Scotland it seems the working classes (routine and lower supervisors - assembly line workers, waiters and cleaners etc) are more nationalist and supportive of independence.
    Sure, if they don't like constitutional monarchy they don't have to stay, but they can also stay. It's not up to you.

    Voting in indyref2 is a completely different issue. Do not conflate the two. The First Minister of Scotland is not elected by the people, but by the parliament members that are elected by the people. While the first one can be long lasting, the second one is in no way permanent.

    None of those actions automatically make you more loyal or patriotic. You just assume it does. What a bigoted way to measure that.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Middle Kingdom: Total War (Poll)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...gdom-Total-War

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  11. #71

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    This exposes the flaw of democracy, as it boils down to mob rule.

    You don't like that your populace votes for something you are against? It's easy, just IMPORT people from all over the world so they can vote for the things you want and get rewarded citizenship.

    An absolute circus.

  12. #72
    Aexodus's Avatar High five
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Ulster
    Posts
    3,525

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by REhorror View Post
    This exposes the flaw of democracy, as it boils down to mob rule.

    You don't like that your populace votes for something you are against? It's easy, just IMPORT people from all over the world so they can vote for the things you want and get rewarded citizenship.

    An absolute circus.
    without* being awarded citizenship, to speed up said process
    I accomplish my course

  13. #73

    Default Re: Scotland to give refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    What's your problem with this precisely? They are living here, so they have a stake in how the country is governed as much as anyone else. Scotland is not (yet) a sovereign country and so we don't have any citizens, so feel free to propose another way of deciding who is eligible to vote in Scottish elections other than residence within Scotland. I'll wait.
    British citizens residing in Scotland? I don't get how a "civic nationalist" can show such disregard for the very idea of citizenship. I don't know about the UK, but where I'm from the link between citizenship and voting rights is seen as inseparable.

    Your point on the proportion and make up of the migrant population is well taken, but such things can change in the future. Especially if you give the people arriving to your country direct means of influencing the local policies. The great thing about citizenship is the application process the state can evaluate whether the candidate has understood the values and duties of their new country, and whether he/she's committed to them. Here you'd be giving the vote to people of whom you know nothing. You seem to have a very lacksidaisycal attitude about a move that not only has all manner of serious, immediate implications but also an untold number of unforeseen consequenses.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Scotland to give foreign refugees and asylum seekers the vote

    It's the left stacking the deck. Last election the SNP took a heavy hit, the resurgent Tories under Ruth Davidson (I want her as our next PM) took some big scalps.

    Refugees and asylum seekers will most likely vote left as will children (which is why Labour are pushing for the voting age to be lowered to 16).

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •