[joe_mamba]

>we are taxed with no representation in government.

In which country can you emigrate to and be allowed votes in government representation just because you pay taxes? I'm an EU citizen and living in another EU country and am not allowed to vote in that country's government elections, just local ones. If you want to vote at government level then you need to apply and get citizenship which also comes with the responsibility(or obligation more accurately) of military draft.

Everything about this seems pretty fair to me. I'm not sure why not to you. If you're not a citizen you shouldn't be allowed to vote at gov level since you're not subject to a draft, because in case the shit hits the fan militarily, unlike citizens, you can just pack your bags and go back to your home country and avoid dying in the front lines. So why would any country let people who aren't subject to draft vote? Makes no sense. You don't have the same skin in the game as citizens who are draftable just because you pay some taxes.

Now if you're paying taxes in a foreign country where you can't vote, it means you're there voluntarily because you're getting a much better deal than being in your own country where you can vote. Probably you're in the US because you make orders of magnitude more money than in your own country, but nobody in the US dragged you there against your will to work and pay them taxes, you agreed to this situation voluntarily because it also benefits you personally, and you would just as easily leave if it stopped benefiting you.

[doix]

> In which country can you emigrate to and be allowed votes in government representation just because you pay taxes?

There are a few, with varying degrees of residency time (and possibly other conditions) required. New Zealand requires being a resident for a year.

The UK is particularly interesting, if you're a citizen of a common wealth nation you can vote in national UK elections if you're a resident.

Personally, I agree with you though. I didn't vote in the UK despite being able too. Let the citizens decide the future of their nation, I have the privilege to leave (and have done so already). Feels wrong for me to influence the nation when I'm not fully invested in the outcome.

[geodel]

Indeed. Entitlement on immigration issues is through the roof here.

[eschaton]

As a person, why should you not have a say in how things are governed where you live?

The idea that you should be required to swear some loyalty to a government before you get a say in how the place you live is governed is the position that’s actually absurd.

(Yes, I do think there should be a global republic and that there should be full freedom of movement. It’s way past time for that.)

[decafninja]

Because as a non-citizen, you are technically still a guest?

If you love the place you're living in and want to actively participate in its governance, including implementing any changes, you should obtain citizenship.

And even if you do, your stake would still be less than those who've been living there all their lives, across many generations. Maybe the natives actually don't want the changes that the immigrants want to see implemented.

(not going to argue the finer details of ethics like racism or xenophobia, etc. which I acknowledge can often come up in cases like this).

[auyez]

It make sense, you don't want to give voting rights to someone who might decide not to continue living in your country anymore. If they are serious about it, then they must go through the process of obtaining citizenship. I have same issue with dual citizenships, it is absurd that someone holding foreign passport can have major decision making roles in your government.