Isn't forbidding immigrants from voting an obvious example of taxation without representation?

In the US and Canada the answer is clearly 'no'. Immigrants who are yet to naturalize do have representation in the form of congressional representatives (parliament members in Canada). While they CANNOT vote for them (for obvious reasons, in my view) they will give you their ear and help you out if you ask nicely. As a US taxpayer, the congressional "Taxpayer Advocacy Group" will fight for you regardless of citizenship status.

The danger to the Republic is not taxation without representation.  We are following other once-great nations into oblivion because of representation without taxation.  Half the working public (and the rapidly growing half, at that) pays no taxes.   The top 5% is demonized in pop culture for not paying its "fair share" of taxes.......as if 59% of all taxes were not enough.  Essentially because of the influx of illegal immigrants whose children become automatic citizens, the future belongs to a culture of wealth redistribution.  John Kennedy's famous 1961 Inauguration phrase of "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," has been perverted by the current generation of Democrats.  The one and only thing that Democrat voters care about, is what the government will give them.  The essential message of Democrat politicians is, "Vote for me.  I'll make someone else pay your living expenses. "  And it is apparently a winning message.                                                                                     So, yes, I admit to not wanting illegal immigrants to vote.   Ever.  Previous generations of immigrants did not arrive expecting government freebies.  They wanted only a chance to become one of the top 5%.

The current rash of immigration into Europe and Sweden in particular results in a massive net and permanent economy drain. Despite which Sweden in particular is fast-tracking immigrants to full citizenship. This is the opposite side of the coin to taxation without representation. This is welfare with representation.

Immigrants voluntarily move to the United States. No one has forced them to move to the US. As such, they are guests of the country and are bound by the laws of the country. Legal immigrants also have the opportunity to gain citizenship and would therefore have opportunity to have representation. If you a an immigrant and have no desire to become a citizen but wish to remain in the country, they you actively choosing to have no representation. Putting all that aside, there are plenty of people who do represent the non citizen immigrant as well as people who represent the illegal alien.. So in the end, legal immigrants to have the opportunity to have representation if they so desire.

Is it fair for me to work in NYC and live in NJ and get tax money withheld by NY state? I can't vote in NY - but they take my money. I write it off as that state affording me the opportunity of employment.  Kinda like I would write off paying the local leg breaker to not break my legs.... Is becoming a citizen to much to ask? Because I know moving to NY is to much to ask of me...

It is an extremely simple concept: citizens are allowed to vote, non-citizens are not.

Become a Citizen of which ever country your fussing about and you will have the right to vote.  You will also have the responsibility to go to war to defend that country.

I believe a very blunt and less philosophical answer to your question is that you need to be a citizen to vote. Individuals should only be allowed to vote in one country (or you could have "citizens of the world" and imagine what a headache that would be during elections...) therefore you must become a citizen to vote in the US. The reason they pay taxes in the US is because they are benefitting from infrastructure and systems that were paid for with taxes by citizens and non citizens. Anyone in the world can make a buck in the US (many many people do), however as payment for the benefit of "using" the strong US economy, Uncle Sam will take his cut. If I invest in a German company on a German exchange and make money I will pay whatever gains taxes Germany may have (or I would, don't know the specific laws). I certainly wouldn't feel that I had the right to vote, however. Works for real estate as well. Oddly enough, I would also pay US taxes on my German gains, because the US tax code actually requires citizens to report GLOBAL income. Edit--Just saw the "attach legal disclaimer" button haha. I guess I should stop.This answer is not a substitute for professional legal advice....

This question is malformed and is hard to read.  I'm fascinated by it. I'll try to answer it as asked: forbidding any person from voting is not an obvious example of taxation without representation.  Making it unduly difficult to vote when qualified (whether natural born or immigrant), or making it extraordinarily difficult for people to become qualified as a voter would be an obvious example of a nation/state creating an unjust system of establishing the electorate.  Then, yes, all manners of injustice are likely. People pay tax all the time, whether qualified as voters in a specific municipality, state, province, country, with no say as to where the money goes. Quoting: "An argument can be made for their (immigrants) exemption from taxation," .. I'd like to hear one.  Make it.  No person (and no corporation!) should be exempt from the tax schedule. Quoting: "Isn't it time to abolish the xenophobia that considers representation an undeniable 'right'.."  The "right" to _choose_ representation is deniable by society.  See the part above where it should not be extraordinarily difficult to become a participant.  Unrelated but continuing, felons, by law, do not get to participate in choosing their representatives.  They are still protected by law.