Instead of Tesla, Starlink, Neuralink and SpaceX, we have a corrupt firm like SNC Lavalin or whatever it calls itself now to hide from public scrutiny. Sounds like a crappy trade to me, the kind that will keep the Leafs out of playoff contention till the next century. To my knowledge, Elon hasn't done anything to attack Canada other than be an advisor to Trump. So what? Such petty thinking is about all that these Canadians can think of to show their courage. No doubt they want Gretzky delisted as well. An incredibly pathetic display of so-called Canadian pride.
Whew! Thank goodness we helped a builder of incredible successful businesses leave the country and go do his 'fascist' thing somewhere else. A bullet (train) dodged (or perhaps anti-DOGEd would be more accurate). We can do all this building with patriotic Canadians, thank you very much. Just ask choo choo Jen how well that's going. Builders everywhere... especially in the federal government. We're almost tripping over them. Just keep repeating: Musk is bad. Musk is Bad. It will help you be seen and heard as a 'patriotic' Canadian. And you can be even more virtuous if 'we' allow him and his X-tainted multi-trillion dollar businesses to remain a Canadian in spite of his Awful Terribleness. Gosh, we're such a noble People.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Somehow revoking citizenship has come to be viewed as an option for punishment of criminal activity (e.g. part of the sentence for a terrorism conviction) and, if that were not bad enough, as an instrument for expressing vociferous political disagreement (the Musk case). Quite apart from the wrong done to the Canadian deprived of citizenship, viewing Canadian citizenship as something that can be taken away devalues my Canadian citizenship and that of every other Canadian. Why on earth would you want to devalue one of your most precious belongings? - Peter Smith
I agree with the overall point, but I will add something... it's not wrong if Mr. Musk's general crappiness causes Canadians to consider whether dual citizenship is something we want to permit. We're under no obligation to NOT do something just because Mr. Musk happens to be the reason we're talking about it.
Full disclosure, I am a dual citizen. (not of the United States though).
There are private benefits to ME of having two citizenships, but it is of NO benefit to Canada that this is permitted. Quite the contrary, it's harmful to Canada (and the other country) to allow this. It lets me reap the maximum benefits from citizenship in the most generous country while paying only lowest of either cost.
So we should consider a bill to ban dual citizenship.
AND... we should consider implementing US tax laws around citizens living abroad. For those who don't know, Americans have to pay US federal taxes to the IRS whether they live in the USA or not. This makes sense because an American living in South America retains MASSIVE benefits by retaining their citizenship.
These are things that Mr. Musk has brought into public discussion and it's not targeting Mr. Musk that we now discuss them because it would apply to me just as much as him.
Why should we permit citizens of convenience? You're either Canadian or you're not. If you're something else.. that's GREAT for you... we all wish you the best ... but if you're Canadian, step up and BE Canadian... that involves building Canada.
None of this is targeting Mr. Musk.
It might be targeting if we make it retroactive to January 1st 2025 when we imposed the same cost as the USA does for renouncing your citizenship. Still though... Mr. Musk wants to live in a world where vindictive targeting of political opponents is a thing... he can't complain when he gets his wish.
And that would be VERY much in line with "asshole nation" Mr. Gurney.
The US is the only country of significance that taxes its citizens who are tax residents of another country.
The only other one is Eritrea.
Since taxation is theft, it stands to reason that we should strive to tax our citizens less, not more.
More tax revenue generally equates to more wasteful spending.
Instead we should try to make existing tax dollars go further instead of asking for more. E.g. $293,738.00 that our gov spent on "addressing the lived realities of of gendered islamophobia" - actual example of where your tax dollars are going.
As for dual citizenship (I am one too), what stops you from reneging on your birth citizenship?
It is relevant that only two countries tax their non-resident citizens. It means it's not the norm and I would argue should not become the norm.
Taxation is theft. You get your money forcibly taken from you with no possibility to escape the taxman. When non-government actors do it, it's a felony.
Why would it be called anything else when it's done under the aegis of the government?
Whether it's a good or bad deal is another question altogether.
We are more or less constrained to accept it, short of packing up for sunnier climes, but that's not realistic for most people.
Are you sure? I worked for an American resident in Canada and she had to pay to both, but the tax agreement meant that it was split between the two countries .... and If I earn money in the States, this tax treaty means I am only taxed in Canada.
Would anyone immigrate to Canada and take out Canadian citizenship if we told them they had to renounce their citizenship from the old country, thus maybe (depending on the source country’s laws) losing their right of return if things didn’t work out here for them or their children? Don’t overplay the benefits and appeal of Canadian citizenship in arguing for sole citizenship. The buyers might not agree with you. Part of the reason people come to Canada is that we don’t ask much assimilation from them.
Second, unrelated question. The U.S. is one of I think only two countries that makes its citizens file tax returns to Uncle Sam while living abroad. Is Canadian citizenship so attractive that we could get all those faux Canadians living abroad to file taxes to Canada, as well as their country of residence...especially when our tax rates are high enough that even with tax treaties they’d still owe money to CRA?
> Would anyone immigrate to Canada and take out Canadian citizenship if we told them they had to renounce their citizenship from the old country,
Yes. Many would. Source? Immigrants I know personally. They moved here because they want to be here and be Canadian. Those that can't handle leaving their old country behind? That's direct evidence that they're not at all committing to being Canadian and they're still only [insert foreign nationality here].... so why the hell should we give them citizenship?
People who want to come here temporarily and work? We have work permits for exactly that purpose.
> Part of the reason people come to Canada is that we don’t ask much assimilation from them.
And how's that working out for us? If Canadians value Canadian citizenship so poorly... why should anyone else value it?
> Is Canadian citizenship so attractive that we could get all those faux Canadians living abroad to file taxes to Canada, as well as their country of residence...especially when our tax rates are high enough that even with tax treaties they’d still owe money to CRA?
That wouldn't be the goal. They'd just renounce their citizenship or we'd never hear from them again as they'd want to avoid tax evasion convictions. I mean... for all the lols about getting Elon Musk to file Canadian taxes, you know he'd just renounce the citizenship and tell us to piss off.
The goal is simply that you're either Canadian or you're not. If you're Canadian... it's time to have some skin in the game, exactly like everyone living here does. If you're not... that's fine, most of the world isn't Canadian... but then you're really NOT.
Seriously... what reason is there NOT to do this?
Oh and full disclosure again.. I'd be giving up my own foreign citizenship of convenience immediately.
But you don’t know that immigrants to Canada *would* take out Canadian citizenship if they had to renounce their birth citizenship. You won’t know what they would do until you float the idea of making them choose. Personally I don’t think we should make immigrants renounce birth citizenship because I think it would make us less competitive in attracting high-quality immigrants.
I read recently that of immigrants who came over within the last 10 years, only 30% have ascended to citizenship. Historically it was 60%. This could be an artifact of recent mass immigration: a higher proportion have arrived so recently they haven’t got around to taking out citizenship yet. But if immigrants are already hedging their bets by not becoming citizens, or just can’t be bothered, it suggests that making citizenship even more onerous, like renouncing birth citizenship, is probably not going to attract converts.
This isn't some idea I came up with a few hours ago. I've been talking about this for a long time and the overwhelming answer is that they are here to be Canadian, not stick with their foreign citizenship.. .but keep in mind I'm ONLY talking to immigrants who live in Canada... not citizens of convenience who spend all their time back in their country of origin contributing nothing to Canada while keeping a Canadian passport in their pocket as a kind of insurance that the rest of us pay for.
> I read recently that of immigrants who came over within the last 10 years, only 30% have ascended to citizenship.
Well the obvious joke is "Yeah.. no kidding because thanks to Trudeau making the public service so crappy and unresponsive it takes an extra decade just to get the first round of paperwork processed".
The second joke is "yeah, no kidding because thanks to Trudeau about a third of immigrants aren't eligible for citizenship at all and are busy filling out economic "refugee" applications and overstaying their tourists/student visas".
But in all seriousness we should ask how much really crappy turnaround times are depressing all kinds of things including citizenship applications and how much is the result of the craptastic mess that Mr. Trudeau has made of immigration since he took office.
> But if immigrants are already hedging their bets by not becoming citizens
Uh, how is any of that "hedging their bets" since citizenship doesn't currently mean they have to give up anything at all?
Susan, yes, the US does tax based on citizenship. On the other hand, on the other hand ...
A Canadian resident / citizen who is also a US citizen must file that return and, notionally at least, must send bucks to Uncle. I say "notionally" as most US citizens resident in Canada would pay far more in Canadian taxes than would be owing in US taxes and the US foreign tax credit mechanism would therefore mean that no US taxes were owning. The US citizen would, however, even if no taxes owing would have to file that 1040 return annually. Oh, and the filing situation is more complicated than that, but I digress.
So, first point is that many / most US citizens resident in Canada would pay no US taxes.
The second point is that those US citizens resident in Canada (or resident in any other country around the world) have something that no Canadian government can realistically offer. The US sticks up for it's citizens, to the point of sometimes sending in the Marines or other armed forces to support / evacuate it's citizens. Canada, you may have noticed, does not do that in any meaningful way; in fact, it often piggy-backs on the US efforts. For those who argue that Canada does support it's citizens, I refer you to the two Michaels.
And, how, you ask, would the US know just how many of it's citizens are in a particular country? Well, many of those citizens would be in contact with the US embassy but all of them are required to file that tax return. i.e. quid pro quo. You know: you get what you pay for (well, sometimes), including evacuation, etc.
Quite right, Ken. That difference is at the root of my argument that Canada could *not* tax its citizens who live abroad. We have not the state capacity to deliver on the promises that the U.S. makes to its expat citizens, nor could we enforce the requirement that our citizens abroad pay tax (or at least file a return) the way the US can with its extra-territorial money-laundering laws that foreign banks are required by their own national governments to obey.
Few countries have this capacity and therefore few countries try to tax their non-resident citizens. Would you want to become a Canadian citizen, “forsaking all others” if you knew that no matter where you lived in the world for the rest of your life you would have to file with CRA? If you renounced your other citizenship you wouldn’t be able to renounce your Canadian citizenship because no one should be stateless.
Germans have to do it and I personally know some who made that choice.
There is value in commitment, we agree on that, but it's hypocritical to argue in favour of banning dual citizenship when you've admitted yourself to greatly benefit from it. If you have no skin in the game, it's easy to argue for anything.
Being not particularly patriotic, I am of the opinion that one should collect as many passports as legally possible as a way to hedge one's bets and have an escape hatch if things go south.
As for taxing Canadians living abroad, to what end? We can't properly manage the ridiculous amounts of tax revenue we already generate and is being pissed away.
So looking to tax those poor suckers living abroad (who need I remind you most likely already pay taxes in their country of residence), is akin to asking an alcoholic to remain sober in a house full of booze. It ain't gonna get better.
If it's the citizenship of convenience that bothers you, then taxing them ain't gonna fix it. Perhaps we shouldn't give away citizenship so easily.
You are correct that Germans resident in Canada (and other countries one would presume) do have to file German tax returns. I had to deal with that dual return for some of my former German resident, now Canadian citizens over the years. As with the US situation, the Canadian taxes paid were greater than the German taxes otherwise owing. I will say, however, that the German reporting situation was much simpler than the US reporting obligation.
As for taxing Canadians living outside the country, nope. After all, what are we providing them for services to justify stealing money from them? Pretty much nothing. You know, broken country, cannot adequately issue passports, etc.
The U.S. used to require you to renounce any other citizenship when becoming an American but no longer does.... for Canada to do as you suggest would I think require all countries to do the same. In other words this is simply not going to happen.
The reason we need an election is to flush MP's like Charlie Angus. Remember, he wanted to jail the entire oil and gas industry. The NDP are dangerous. Their myopic proposals for Canada need to be ended. Election now will accomplish this.
Charlie Angus had some VERY good points to make back in the day on digital rights policy and copyright. That was back when no one was talking about it. (Except Michael Geist.)
That's an exaggeration. Angus proposed banning *advertising* from the oil and gas industry, not jailing all its employees. (Not a policy I support in the least, but not as extreme as you make it out to be.)
A Prime Minister once said “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” and got behind his rhetoric showering millions of dollars on a person with Canadian citizenship who was involved in some repugnant military operations overseas. Military operations that were not aligned with our Foreign Policy nor the actions of our military personnel at that time. Progressive’s cheered! The Canadian government felt there was a wrong to right, apologized and made a cash payment to avoid a court case.
As Mr. Sirota says, pulling the citizenship of people is serious business, and the rules must be equally applied and enforced in a fair and democratic society.
Personally, I find it repugnant to see the cheapening of our citizenship in the first place. Birthing tourism to secure citizenship for newborns who return to their original homeland deserves scrutiny and tightening of rules, as is the ability to obtain citizenship sitting at a computer terminal, mouse in hand.
Great thesis and I fully agree that wanting to deprive citizens of their passport of political reasons is abhorrent.
I have to pick a bone with the tone of the last few contributions on this substack, including this one.
A lot of the line writers lately have been feeling the need to preface their contributions with the little dance ritual of distancing themselves from their subject - and often for no valid reason - as a form of virtue signalling that they are superior (interpretation mine).
This does nothing to support your otherwise solid argument, and I would argue even undermines it.
We don't care what your personal feelings about Musk (or Orange Hitler or any other "bad guy" that makes his way in the news) and if they're not relevant to the point being made, keep it to yourself please.
Not every piece of writing needs to be riddled with partisan potshots.
The unavoidable reality of political writing is that people are going to be curious about the potential biases of the writer, though. If someone argues that Musk's citizenship should not be revoked, readers are going to inevitably be curious as to whether the writer is a Musk sycophant, a more impartial observer, or someone credibly advocating against their own traditional biases.
Ideally as a society we stay wary of ad-hominem fallacies, but scarce time and attention are going to inevitably cause all of us to look for information shortcuts to some extent in navigating countless subjects, including appeals to authority.
It should be pointed out that the same people who think that Musk is not a Canadian because he wasn’t born here and the same ones who call Trump a fascist because he wants to get rid of birthright citizenship. Pick a lane people.
I am not a fan of the idea of stripping citizenship from Elon Musk, but an Executive Order to strip birthright citizenship is clearly against the U.S. Constitution. To the extent that anyone was calling that "fascist", it is because of an expectation that Trump's sycophants on the Supreme Court would sanction his anti-constitutional decree, and that therefore he was doing so with fundamental intent of breaking down the U.S. Constitution.
(That's flawed reasoning to be sure. A better example of fascism would be Trump pardoning those who committed political violence on his behalf, as sanctioning political violence is textbook fascism.)
Countries should have the right to decide who qualifies for citizenship. Trump's ideas about birthright citizenship are not outrageous. If he wants to do it, it should be by an act of Congress, subject to the Constitution, not by Executive order. It is too important not to have a proper debate through the proper channels.
What President Trump is doing is exactly the proper channels. The difficulty in the peculiar US case is that birthright citizenship is itself enshrined in the US Constitution as the 14th Amendment, not able to be changed by a simple majority-vote Act of Congress. It was put there after the Civil War to thwart the efforts of the former Confederate states to deem freed slaves who had been born in the US to be not American citizens. Since the last slave born in captivity died some considerable time ago, this part of the 14A has served its purpose and should be repealed, to be replaced with a simple Act of Congress the way other countries do it. Slavery casts a long shadow.
But repealing the 14th requires amending the Constitution, unlikely in these polarized times. The left actually loves birthright citizenship -- God knows why, but they do -- and would not give it up without a fight. So President Trump's gambit is with his Executive Order, the only tool he has available. If the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional, well, he tried.
His argument Is that illegals and visitors aren't "under the jurisdiction" of the United States because they are citizens of other countries to whom they owe their only loyalty and can't be drafted while in the US or be liable for US taxes when they go home. The 14A doesn't mention babies born to diplomats as being the only ones "not under the jurisdiction", but that is how it has been customarily interpreted. So his EO is not "unconstitutional" until the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, and then it will not be enforceable. (It has been held up by an injunction until the Courts rule, so it is not being enforced now. This is how the US system works: The Executive is always testing the limits of its separation of powers from the Legislature. Somebody sues, and then the Supreme Court makes the call. Whether the Supreme Court is sycophantic to the President is a matter of partisan opinion but it doesn't affect the validity of its rulings.)
“One increasingly incontrovertible fact about Elon Musk is that he is a bad man? ». Maybe the author can put some meat on that bone? Right now, I am left thinking that Canadians are so in love with the size and the scope of the American federal government that if someone makes cuts there they must be « bad men ». I didn’t realize we in Canada cared so much about American federal workers. Or, maybe, the author really dislikes free speech? Interesting POV from a journalist. Or maybe he hates technological progress or those who bring it, like the luddites of old and thinks that those who bring it are, by definition « bad » Or is it the fact that Musk does not care about convention and pieties? That for him, doing something that he believes is much more important then whatever anyone else thinks. That last one sounds like envy to me. Because which one of us has not dreamed of the freedom to actually make a difference and has never succeeded.
So, is Musk a bad man? In my opinion, no. Robert Pickman is a « bad man ». Bernardo is a « bad man ». I did not hear anyone demanding that we take away citizenship. Need I say more?
I truly think that our chattering and political classes are regressing like Benjamin Button and we have now reached the stage of toddler. They don’t even know what actual bad men truly look like.
Since we’re talking morality, (that’s what bad is) we can say that Elon Musk is a bad man the way Steve Jobs is a bad man.
They both abandon their children. This is sadly not a rare thing with men, but however rare or common, it is enough all by itself to identify a man as bad.
Good men do not abandon their children. Ever.
Knowing this doesn’t help solve Canada’s problems though.
Those are bad fathers. In any case I see nothing that musk has done to Canada or Canadians to make us hate him to that extent. We seem to be overwhelmed with hate right now and it is honestly unpleasant.
“One increasingly incontrovertible fact about Elon Musk is that he is a bad man.”
It's an incontrovertible fact that Musk is demonized daily by legacy media. What these media narratives have to do with Musk himself is anybody's guess, but since the attacks are clearly politically motivated it's doubtful an identity relationship exists between the man and the caricature.
According to legacy media, Trump, Vance, and anybody who voted for them are all bad, stupid or confused. The entire 'other side' gets categorically dismissed as deplorable, but somehow it isn't legacy media that's 'divisive.'
Most ex-pats do more for the country than many people think - do you want to remove the citizenship of the following:
Wayne Gretzky. Anne Murray. Bill Murray. William Shatner. Evangeline Lilly. Celine Dion. Justin Bieber. Drake. Ryan Reynolds. Ryan Gosling, Dan Akroyd. Tommy Chong.
Maybe a quarter of Canada's Nobel prize winning scientists?
If you like, maybe think about which benefits should be tied to residence instead of citizenship, similar to how we do taxes, rather than trying to work the whole thing the other way around?
My own child was born out of the country. And while I don't think she has dual citizenship, she did until she was 18. That country doesn't allow dual citizenship past the age of 18, but we have never actively renounced it. It would be awful to have her Canadian citizenship removed and to have her forced to "return" to the country she lived in her first year of life but has no real attachment to. The whole idea of removing one's citizenship for something so silly disgusts me. Those who signed the petition like to refer to Trump as a bully but seem to ignore their own bullying tendencies.
I wonder about the overlap between people demanding revocation of Musk's citizenship and those opposed to the Harper era proposal to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens engaged in overseas terrorism? I suspect considerable
A question that was raised some years ago and might be considered again. [Political mischief making here]
Various and sundry people have advocated for independence of Quebec from Canada and have even - horrors! - gone so far as to hold a referendum to determine the popularity of the idea. Of course, the Clarity Act has indicated such action is "acceptable."
On the other hand, what if a) there was no Clarity Act or b) the Clarity Act was repealed? Would that mean that proponents of Quebec independence, or even the proponents of my province of Alberta being independent [disclosure: I find that concept "intriguing"] be the equivalent of Elon Musk, that is, someone who works against the interests of Canada?
Just asking. It seems to me that, again, sauce - goose, sauce - gander.
I, like the author, am a Canadian citizen. Unlike the author, I was born in Canada and that is the basis of my citizenship.
The basis of citizenship is set forth in the Citizenship Act and, until that Act is changed, Musk remains a citizen - assuming, of course, that he does not in the future renounce that citizenship.
Canada originally introduced the Citizenship Act and, has from time to time, amended it. I think it quite acceptable if the Citizenship Act is amended in the future, but only after due consideration and not at all for political reasons. Such amendment could add clarification, for example clarifying precisely what does and DOES NOT constitute "fraud and misrepresentation", the current bases for stripping one of citizenship. But, again, again, such action should be taken only after due consideration. Further, such consideration should include the concept that the then current proponents of change might subsequently be in opposition and therefore might themselves be considered for such an action. You know, goose - gander, goose - sauce.
All in all, I commend Professor Sihota for his fine contribution herein.
Charlie Angus is an utter ass, and his support of this idiotic petition is not the first instance of his pettiness.
Instead of Tesla, Starlink, Neuralink and SpaceX, we have a corrupt firm like SNC Lavalin or whatever it calls itself now to hide from public scrutiny. Sounds like a crappy trade to me, the kind that will keep the Leafs out of playoff contention till the next century. To my knowledge, Elon hasn't done anything to attack Canada other than be an advisor to Trump. So what? Such petty thinking is about all that these Canadians can think of to show their courage. No doubt they want Gretzky delisted as well. An incredibly pathetic display of so-called Canadian pride.
Whew! Thank goodness we helped a builder of incredible successful businesses leave the country and go do his 'fascist' thing somewhere else. A bullet (train) dodged (or perhaps anti-DOGEd would be more accurate). We can do all this building with patriotic Canadians, thank you very much. Just ask choo choo Jen how well that's going. Builders everywhere... especially in the federal government. We're almost tripping over them. Just keep repeating: Musk is bad. Musk is Bad. It will help you be seen and heard as a 'patriotic' Canadian. And you can be even more virtuous if 'we' allow him and his X-tainted multi-trillion dollar businesses to remain a Canadian in spite of his Awful Terribleness. Gosh, we're such a noble People.
"The trains run on time." JG
Right effing on!
Dear Prof. Sirota,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Somehow revoking citizenship has come to be viewed as an option for punishment of criminal activity (e.g. part of the sentence for a terrorism conviction) and, if that were not bad enough, as an instrument for expressing vociferous political disagreement (the Musk case). Quite apart from the wrong done to the Canadian deprived of citizenship, viewing Canadian citizenship as something that can be taken away devalues my Canadian citizenship and that of every other Canadian. Why on earth would you want to devalue one of your most precious belongings? - Peter Smith
I agree with the overall point, but I will add something... it's not wrong if Mr. Musk's general crappiness causes Canadians to consider whether dual citizenship is something we want to permit. We're under no obligation to NOT do something just because Mr. Musk happens to be the reason we're talking about it.
Full disclosure, I am a dual citizen. (not of the United States though).
There are private benefits to ME of having two citizenships, but it is of NO benefit to Canada that this is permitted. Quite the contrary, it's harmful to Canada (and the other country) to allow this. It lets me reap the maximum benefits from citizenship in the most generous country while paying only lowest of either cost.
So we should consider a bill to ban dual citizenship.
AND... we should consider implementing US tax laws around citizens living abroad. For those who don't know, Americans have to pay US federal taxes to the IRS whether they live in the USA or not. This makes sense because an American living in South America retains MASSIVE benefits by retaining their citizenship.
These are things that Mr. Musk has brought into public discussion and it's not targeting Mr. Musk that we now discuss them because it would apply to me just as much as him.
Why should we permit citizens of convenience? You're either Canadian or you're not. If you're something else.. that's GREAT for you... we all wish you the best ... but if you're Canadian, step up and BE Canadian... that involves building Canada.
None of this is targeting Mr. Musk.
It might be targeting if we make it retroactive to January 1st 2025 when we imposed the same cost as the USA does for renouncing your citizenship. Still though... Mr. Musk wants to live in a world where vindictive targeting of political opponents is a thing... he can't complain when he gets his wish.
And that would be VERY much in line with "asshole nation" Mr. Gurney.
The US is the only country of significance that taxes its citizens who are tax residents of another country.
The only other one is Eritrea.
Since taxation is theft, it stands to reason that we should strive to tax our citizens less, not more.
More tax revenue generally equates to more wasteful spending.
Instead we should try to make existing tax dollars go further instead of asking for more. E.g. $293,738.00 that our gov spent on "addressing the lived realities of of gendered islamophobia" - actual example of where your tax dollars are going.
As for dual citizenship (I am one too), what stops you from reneging on your birth citizenship?
> The US is the only country of significance that taxes its citizens who are tax residents of another country.
This is not an argument for or against it, it's just an irrelevant observation.
> Since taxation is theft
This is an absurdly foolish falsehood.
NEXT!!!
It is relevant that only two countries tax their non-resident citizens. It means it's not the norm and I would argue should not become the norm.
Taxation is theft. You get your money forcibly taken from you with no possibility to escape the taxman. When non-government actors do it, it's a felony.
Why would it be called anything else when it's done under the aegis of the government?
Whether it's a good or bad deal is another question altogether.
We are more or less constrained to accept it, short of packing up for sunnier climes, but that's not realistic for most people.
Are you sure? I worked for an American resident in Canada and she had to pay to both, but the tax agreement meant that it was split between the two countries .... and If I earn money in the States, this tax treaty means I am only taxed in Canada.
Would anyone immigrate to Canada and take out Canadian citizenship if we told them they had to renounce their citizenship from the old country, thus maybe (depending on the source country’s laws) losing their right of return if things didn’t work out here for them or their children? Don’t overplay the benefits and appeal of Canadian citizenship in arguing for sole citizenship. The buyers might not agree with you. Part of the reason people come to Canada is that we don’t ask much assimilation from them.
Second, unrelated question. The U.S. is one of I think only two countries that makes its citizens file tax returns to Uncle Sam while living abroad. Is Canadian citizenship so attractive that we could get all those faux Canadians living abroad to file taxes to Canada, as well as their country of residence...especially when our tax rates are high enough that even with tax treaties they’d still owe money to CRA?
> Would anyone immigrate to Canada and take out Canadian citizenship if we told them they had to renounce their citizenship from the old country,
Yes. Many would. Source? Immigrants I know personally. They moved here because they want to be here and be Canadian. Those that can't handle leaving their old country behind? That's direct evidence that they're not at all committing to being Canadian and they're still only [insert foreign nationality here].... so why the hell should we give them citizenship?
People who want to come here temporarily and work? We have work permits for exactly that purpose.
> Part of the reason people come to Canada is that we don’t ask much assimilation from them.
And how's that working out for us? If Canadians value Canadian citizenship so poorly... why should anyone else value it?
> Is Canadian citizenship so attractive that we could get all those faux Canadians living abroad to file taxes to Canada, as well as their country of residence...especially when our tax rates are high enough that even with tax treaties they’d still owe money to CRA?
That wouldn't be the goal. They'd just renounce their citizenship or we'd never hear from them again as they'd want to avoid tax evasion convictions. I mean... for all the lols about getting Elon Musk to file Canadian taxes, you know he'd just renounce the citizenship and tell us to piss off.
The goal is simply that you're either Canadian or you're not. If you're Canadian... it's time to have some skin in the game, exactly like everyone living here does. If you're not... that's fine, most of the world isn't Canadian... but then you're really NOT.
Seriously... what reason is there NOT to do this?
Oh and full disclosure again.. I'd be giving up my own foreign citizenship of convenience immediately.
But you don’t know that immigrants to Canada *would* take out Canadian citizenship if they had to renounce their birth citizenship. You won’t know what they would do until you float the idea of making them choose. Personally I don’t think we should make immigrants renounce birth citizenship because I think it would make us less competitive in attracting high-quality immigrants.
I read recently that of immigrants who came over within the last 10 years, only 30% have ascended to citizenship. Historically it was 60%. This could be an artifact of recent mass immigration: a higher proportion have arrived so recently they haven’t got around to taking out citizenship yet. But if immigrants are already hedging their bets by not becoming citizens, or just can’t be bothered, it suggests that making citizenship even more onerous, like renouncing birth citizenship, is probably not going to attract converts.
Yes, I do because they've told me so.
This isn't some idea I came up with a few hours ago. I've been talking about this for a long time and the overwhelming answer is that they are here to be Canadian, not stick with their foreign citizenship.. .but keep in mind I'm ONLY talking to immigrants who live in Canada... not citizens of convenience who spend all their time back in their country of origin contributing nothing to Canada while keeping a Canadian passport in their pocket as a kind of insurance that the rest of us pay for.
> I read recently that of immigrants who came over within the last 10 years, only 30% have ascended to citizenship.
Well the obvious joke is "Yeah.. no kidding because thanks to Trudeau making the public service so crappy and unresponsive it takes an extra decade just to get the first round of paperwork processed".
The second joke is "yeah, no kidding because thanks to Trudeau about a third of immigrants aren't eligible for citizenship at all and are busy filling out economic "refugee" applications and overstaying their tourists/student visas".
But in all seriousness we should ask how much really crappy turnaround times are depressing all kinds of things including citizenship applications and how much is the result of the craptastic mess that Mr. Trudeau has made of immigration since he took office.
> But if immigrants are already hedging their bets by not becoming citizens
Uh, how is any of that "hedging their bets" since citizenship doesn't currently mean they have to give up anything at all?
Susan, yes, the US does tax based on citizenship. On the other hand, on the other hand ...
A Canadian resident / citizen who is also a US citizen must file that return and, notionally at least, must send bucks to Uncle. I say "notionally" as most US citizens resident in Canada would pay far more in Canadian taxes than would be owing in US taxes and the US foreign tax credit mechanism would therefore mean that no US taxes were owning. The US citizen would, however, even if no taxes owing would have to file that 1040 return annually. Oh, and the filing situation is more complicated than that, but I digress.
So, first point is that many / most US citizens resident in Canada would pay no US taxes.
The second point is that those US citizens resident in Canada (or resident in any other country around the world) have something that no Canadian government can realistically offer. The US sticks up for it's citizens, to the point of sometimes sending in the Marines or other armed forces to support / evacuate it's citizens. Canada, you may have noticed, does not do that in any meaningful way; in fact, it often piggy-backs on the US efforts. For those who argue that Canada does support it's citizens, I refer you to the two Michaels.
And, how, you ask, would the US know just how many of it's citizens are in a particular country? Well, many of those citizens would be in contact with the US embassy but all of them are required to file that tax return. i.e. quid pro quo. You know: you get what you pay for (well, sometimes), including evacuation, etc.
Quite right, Ken. That difference is at the root of my argument that Canada could *not* tax its citizens who live abroad. We have not the state capacity to deliver on the promises that the U.S. makes to its expat citizens, nor could we enforce the requirement that our citizens abroad pay tax (or at least file a return) the way the US can with its extra-territorial money-laundering laws that foreign banks are required by their own national governments to obey.
Few countries have this capacity and therefore few countries try to tax their non-resident citizens. Would you want to become a Canadian citizen, “forsaking all others” if you knew that no matter where you lived in the world for the rest of your life you would have to file with CRA? If you renounced your other citizenship you wouldn’t be able to renounce your Canadian citizenship because no one should be stateless.
Para 1 - I absolutely agree.
Para 2 - To your question I unquestionably answer in the negative, as I expect all sentient beings would.
Germans have to do it and I personally know some who made that choice.
There is value in commitment, we agree on that, but it's hypocritical to argue in favour of banning dual citizenship when you've admitted yourself to greatly benefit from it. If you have no skin in the game, it's easy to argue for anything.
Being not particularly patriotic, I am of the opinion that one should collect as many passports as legally possible as a way to hedge one's bets and have an escape hatch if things go south.
As for taxing Canadians living abroad, to what end? We can't properly manage the ridiculous amounts of tax revenue we already generate and is being pissed away.
So looking to tax those poor suckers living abroad (who need I remind you most likely already pay taxes in their country of residence), is akin to asking an alcoholic to remain sober in a house full of booze. It ain't gonna get better.
If it's the citizenship of convenience that bothers you, then taxing them ain't gonna fix it. Perhaps we shouldn't give away citizenship so easily.
You are correct that Germans resident in Canada (and other countries one would presume) do have to file German tax returns. I had to deal with that dual return for some of my former German resident, now Canadian citizens over the years. As with the US situation, the Canadian taxes paid were greater than the German taxes otherwise owing. I will say, however, that the German reporting situation was much simpler than the US reporting obligation.
As for taxing Canadians living outside the country, nope. After all, what are we providing them for services to justify stealing money from them? Pretty much nothing. You know, broken country, cannot adequately issue passports, etc.
The U.S. used to require you to renounce any other citizenship when becoming an American but no longer does.... for Canada to do as you suggest would I think require all countries to do the same. In other words this is simply not going to happen.
The reason we need an election is to flush MP's like Charlie Angus. Remember, he wanted to jail the entire oil and gas industry. The NDP are dangerous. Their myopic proposals for Canada need to be ended. Election now will accomplish this.
Charlie Angus had some VERY good points to make back in the day on digital rights policy and copyright. That was back when no one was talking about it. (Except Michael Geist.)
That's an exaggeration. Angus proposed banning *advertising* from the oil and gas industry, not jailing all its employees. (Not a policy I support in the least, but not as extreme as you make it out to be.)
Not dangerous, but can be silly at times.
Well, we could argue that Charlie should be stripped of his citizenship.
Oh, and Charlie won't be harmed by the election as the jerk has (thankfully) already announced that he is not running.
A Prime Minister once said “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” and got behind his rhetoric showering millions of dollars on a person with Canadian citizenship who was involved in some repugnant military operations overseas. Military operations that were not aligned with our Foreign Policy nor the actions of our military personnel at that time. Progressive’s cheered! The Canadian government felt there was a wrong to right, apologized and made a cash payment to avoid a court case.
As Mr. Sirota says, pulling the citizenship of people is serious business, and the rules must be equally applied and enforced in a fair and democratic society.
Personally, I find it repugnant to see the cheapening of our citizenship in the first place. Birthing tourism to secure citizenship for newborns who return to their original homeland deserves scrutiny and tightening of rules, as is the ability to obtain citizenship sitting at a computer terminal, mouse in hand.
Again, amend the Citizenship Act but ONLY after careful consideration.
Great thesis and I fully agree that wanting to deprive citizens of their passport of political reasons is abhorrent.
I have to pick a bone with the tone of the last few contributions on this substack, including this one.
A lot of the line writers lately have been feeling the need to preface their contributions with the little dance ritual of distancing themselves from their subject - and often for no valid reason - as a form of virtue signalling that they are superior (interpretation mine).
This does nothing to support your otherwise solid argument, and I would argue even undermines it.
We don't care what your personal feelings about Musk (or Orange Hitler or any other "bad guy" that makes his way in the news) and if they're not relevant to the point being made, keep it to yourself please.
Not every piece of writing needs to be riddled with partisan potshots.
We largely let authors say what they want in the way they want to say it.
Absolutely!
I get it. Nevertheless my point stands.
The unavoidable reality of political writing is that people are going to be curious about the potential biases of the writer, though. If someone argues that Musk's citizenship should not be revoked, readers are going to inevitably be curious as to whether the writer is a Musk sycophant, a more impartial observer, or someone credibly advocating against their own traditional biases.
Ideally as a society we stay wary of ad-hominem fallacies, but scarce time and attention are going to inevitably cause all of us to look for information shortcuts to some extent in navigating countless subjects, including appeals to authority.
It should be pointed out that the same people who think that Musk is not a Canadian because he wasn’t born here and the same ones who call Trump a fascist because he wants to get rid of birthright citizenship. Pick a lane people.
I am not a fan of the idea of stripping citizenship from Elon Musk, but an Executive Order to strip birthright citizenship is clearly against the U.S. Constitution. To the extent that anyone was calling that "fascist", it is because of an expectation that Trump's sycophants on the Supreme Court would sanction his anti-constitutional decree, and that therefore he was doing so with fundamental intent of breaking down the U.S. Constitution.
(That's flawed reasoning to be sure. A better example of fascism would be Trump pardoning those who committed political violence on his behalf, as sanctioning political violence is textbook fascism.)
Totally agree. I’m just saying you can’t complain about one while supporting the other.
Countries should have the right to decide who qualifies for citizenship. Trump's ideas about birthright citizenship are not outrageous. If he wants to do it, it should be by an act of Congress, subject to the Constitution, not by Executive order. It is too important not to have a proper debate through the proper channels.
What President Trump is doing is exactly the proper channels. The difficulty in the peculiar US case is that birthright citizenship is itself enshrined in the US Constitution as the 14th Amendment, not able to be changed by a simple majority-vote Act of Congress. It was put there after the Civil War to thwart the efforts of the former Confederate states to deem freed slaves who had been born in the US to be not American citizens. Since the last slave born in captivity died some considerable time ago, this part of the 14A has served its purpose and should be repealed, to be replaced with a simple Act of Congress the way other countries do it. Slavery casts a long shadow.
But repealing the 14th requires amending the Constitution, unlikely in these polarized times. The left actually loves birthright citizenship -- God knows why, but they do -- and would not give it up without a fight. So President Trump's gambit is with his Executive Order, the only tool he has available. If the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional, well, he tried.
His argument Is that illegals and visitors aren't "under the jurisdiction" of the United States because they are citizens of other countries to whom they owe their only loyalty and can't be drafted while in the US or be liable for US taxes when they go home. The 14A doesn't mention babies born to diplomats as being the only ones "not under the jurisdiction", but that is how it has been customarily interpreted. So his EO is not "unconstitutional" until the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, and then it will not be enforceable. (It has been held up by an injunction until the Courts rule, so it is not being enforced now. This is how the US system works: The Executive is always testing the limits of its separation of powers from the Legislature. Somebody sues, and then the Supreme Court makes the call. Whether the Supreme Court is sycophantic to the President is a matter of partisan opinion but it doesn't affect the validity of its rulings.)
People with birthright citizenship were born in the US. I think the lanes are obvious.
You can’t strip citizenships because you don’t like the guy. That’s my point.
No, you can't although I wish we'd stripped Jihadi Jack before the UK did. Elon hasn't done enough to justify it.
Yes, the author of this article is correct. But darn.
“One increasingly incontrovertible fact about Elon Musk is that he is a bad man? ». Maybe the author can put some meat on that bone? Right now, I am left thinking that Canadians are so in love with the size and the scope of the American federal government that if someone makes cuts there they must be « bad men ». I didn’t realize we in Canada cared so much about American federal workers. Or, maybe, the author really dislikes free speech? Interesting POV from a journalist. Or maybe he hates technological progress or those who bring it, like the luddites of old and thinks that those who bring it are, by definition « bad » Or is it the fact that Musk does not care about convention and pieties? That for him, doing something that he believes is much more important then whatever anyone else thinks. That last one sounds like envy to me. Because which one of us has not dreamed of the freedom to actually make a difference and has never succeeded.
So, is Musk a bad man? In my opinion, no. Robert Pickman is a « bad man ». Bernardo is a « bad man ». I did not hear anyone demanding that we take away citizenship. Need I say more?
I truly think that our chattering and political classes are regressing like Benjamin Button and we have now reached the stage of toddler. They don’t even know what actual bad men truly look like.
Our leaders have dropped the ball and they know it. They love distractions like this. Takes the heat off where it belongs.
Since we’re talking morality, (that’s what bad is) we can say that Elon Musk is a bad man the way Steve Jobs is a bad man.
They both abandon their children. This is sadly not a rare thing with men, but however rare or common, it is enough all by itself to identify a man as bad.
Good men do not abandon their children. Ever.
Knowing this doesn’t help solve Canada’s problems though.
Those are bad fathers. In any case I see nothing that musk has done to Canada or Canadians to make us hate him to that extent. We seem to be overwhelmed with hate right now and it is honestly unpleasant.
“One increasingly incontrovertible fact about Elon Musk is that he is a bad man.”
It's an incontrovertible fact that Musk is demonized daily by legacy media. What these media narratives have to do with Musk himself is anybody's guess, but since the attacks are clearly politically motivated it's doubtful an identity relationship exists between the man and the caricature.
According to legacy media, Trump, Vance, and anybody who voted for them are all bad, stupid or confused. The entire 'other side' gets categorically dismissed as deplorable, but somehow it isn't legacy media that's 'divisive.'
Isn't this just a fancy form of cancel culture?
Most ex-pats do more for the country than many people think - do you want to remove the citizenship of the following:
Wayne Gretzky. Anne Murray. Bill Murray. William Shatner. Evangeline Lilly. Celine Dion. Justin Bieber. Drake. Ryan Reynolds. Ryan Gosling, Dan Akroyd. Tommy Chong.
Maybe a quarter of Canada's Nobel prize winning scientists?
If you like, maybe think about which benefits should be tied to residence instead of citizenship, similar to how we do taxes, rather than trying to work the whole thing the other way around?
My own child was born out of the country. And while I don't think she has dual citizenship, she did until she was 18. That country doesn't allow dual citizenship past the age of 18, but we have never actively renounced it. It would be awful to have her Canadian citizenship removed and to have her forced to "return" to the country she lived in her first year of life but has no real attachment to. The whole idea of removing one's citizenship for something so silly disgusts me. Those who signed the petition like to refer to Trump as a bully but seem to ignore their own bullying tendencies.
I wonder about the overlap between people demanding revocation of Musk's citizenship and those opposed to the Harper era proposal to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens engaged in overseas terrorism? I suspect considerable
A question that was raised some years ago and might be considered again. [Political mischief making here]
Various and sundry people have advocated for independence of Quebec from Canada and have even - horrors! - gone so far as to hold a referendum to determine the popularity of the idea. Of course, the Clarity Act has indicated such action is "acceptable."
On the other hand, what if a) there was no Clarity Act or b) the Clarity Act was repealed? Would that mean that proponents of Quebec independence, or even the proponents of my province of Alberta being independent [disclosure: I find that concept "intriguing"] be the equivalent of Elon Musk, that is, someone who works against the interests of Canada?
Just asking. It seems to me that, again, sauce - goose, sauce - gander.
I, like the author, am a Canadian citizen. Unlike the author, I was born in Canada and that is the basis of my citizenship.
The basis of citizenship is set forth in the Citizenship Act and, until that Act is changed, Musk remains a citizen - assuming, of course, that he does not in the future renounce that citizenship.
Canada originally introduced the Citizenship Act and, has from time to time, amended it. I think it quite acceptable if the Citizenship Act is amended in the future, but only after due consideration and not at all for political reasons. Such amendment could add clarification, for example clarifying precisely what does and DOES NOT constitute "fraud and misrepresentation", the current bases for stripping one of citizenship. But, again, again, such action should be taken only after due consideration. Further, such consideration should include the concept that the then current proponents of change might subsequently be in opposition and therefore might themselves be considered for such an action. You know, goose - gander, goose - sauce.
All in all, I commend Professor Sihota for his fine contribution herein.