I think it would be worth (re?)considering what should meaningfully constitute citizenship. Allegiance to your monarch? Participating in communities? Bringing your country's hono(u)r and values everywhere you go? Committing to a certain number of years of residency? Going to war for some politician's economic or expansionist dreams? Feeling more connected to other citizens who vote with their fear and raw emotions, rather than to some reasonable foreigner?

As it stands, the definition of citizenship from my own practical point of view is, "You've been a permanent resident for long enough, have picked up the language in the process, know a few history facts and the National Anthem, and are willing to give up your previous country's citizenship for us".

With all due respect, that's a lousy set of criteria for whether or not I get to vote in a country that I care about, whose people, policies and politics I follow closely, and that I consider a long-term home for at least a good portion of my life.

Being a citizen is definitely more than being a taxpayer. But then, look at what your criteria would be, and apply that same standard to born citizens. Being born in a certain place, or to a certain set of parents, is obviously a much better criterion to judge people and their connection to a country, is it not?

Obviously that's what people have decided on and continue to uphold. I just find it hard to follow that reasoning.