SkyhookJackson

Posting by 2 people wasn't intentional - I don't think you can put 2 user names on 1 email address. The point is, my husband has studied the issue of "Lost Canadians" for years and knows what he's talking about. It would be nice if you could forego your CIA-like investigation of my previous posts so the person with the "Lost Canadians" question can figure out his citizenship. It's a confusing issue and Mr. Skyhook has a wealth of information about it. That said, this is Mrs. Skyhook checking out and going back to friendlier boards.

I knew this would happen. I told Mr. Skyhook, the CANADIAN-American who posted about the "Lost Canadians" and who was the initial poster on this board before I discovered it that he should change the user name or, at the very least, put a profile stating this: THERE ARE 2 INDIVIDUALS WHO POST FROM THE THE SAME EMAIL ADDRESS AND USE THE SAME NAME ON THE BOARD. MRS. SKYHOOK JACKSON WAS BORN IN VERMONT IN 1949. MR. SKYHOOK WAS BORN IN NOVA SCOTIA IN 1947. For the record, this is MRS. posting at the moment. I had stopped posting on this board because of the number of rude people. Further posts will be from MR. Skyhook unless otherwise noted.

My citizenship situation sounds very similar to yours. I was born in Canada in 1947 and my family moved to the USA in 1952. My father, who was a Canadian citizen, became naturalized as an American citizen in 1957. Fortunately, my mother who was born in England, but became a Canadian when she married my father, did not naturalize at the same time. If she had, I and my siblings would automatically have become American citizens. Instead, we retained our statuses as permanent resident aliens with "green cards." There is a widely-held misunderstanding about loss of Canadian citizenship between 1947 and 1977. The Canadian media have not helped in setting the record straight. The article you cited contains many errors. It was originally published by Mapleleafweb some time ago, but was removed from the main page based, I think, on my objections to its faulty contents. It is unfortunately still in circulation as an archived document. Among the many errors is the statement that if the responsible parent emigrates to another country, he automatically loses his Canadian citizenship. That is simply untrue. For a few years, I thought that I had lost my Canadian citizenship based upon this and other articles like it. I discovered the Citizenship Policy Manual online and found that since I did not become an American citizen at the same time as my father, I did not lose my Canadian citizenship. Because I thought I was "stateless," based upon faulty information, I did become a naturalized American citizen in 2003, almost against my will. In any case, I had nothing to lose because Canada has allowed dual citizenship since 1977. You said that you were "declared" a US citizen in 1960 based upon your father's acquistion of American citizenship. I sounds like you did not become an American citizen at the same time as your father if he was naturalized in 1955 and you in 1960. Or is it that you simply learned of your new citizenship in 1960 and had actually became an American citizen in 1955 at the same time as your father? The dates are important. Did you have a green card indicating that you were still a permanent resident alien? If you became an American citizen at the same time as your father or if your parents became US citizens at the same time, you may have lost your Canadian citizenship.

What is really disturbing is the U.S. military, large majority Christians, actually defending these barbaric actions of Muslims in Iraq and dying for their barbaric actions. I am now more convinced than ever, this should have been totally a push button war and damn the consequences. I'm confused. You're upset with the war and the way it is being executed, yet you want the Republicans to pull ahead in the presidential election? So you can have more of the same? Or are you hoping for someone loonier than what we've already got who'll just "push the button" and nuke them all?

Wrong...there was plenty of funding available.....the State of Minnesota and the Feds decided to build a small light rail line (for the tree huggers) between the Mall of America, airport, and downtown Minneapolis instead. Ironically, the $700,000,000 light rail passes very close to the now fallen 35W bridge. Instead of new or overhauled bridges, we got a gold plated choo-choo: http://www.metrotransit.org/rail/station_detail.asp Would that have been for treehuggers or "big bidness?" Mall of America is a travel destination for heaven's sake. (Another topic in itself - shopping to the degree a Mecca must be built for it.) That said, it was stupid to spend money on new infrastructure when old infrastructure is falling down. The priorities in this country are upside down.

Yea, the US federal budget of nearly $2,900,000,000,000 is only devoted to war...nothing left for anything else. I'm waiting for the first post that claims the Bush administration felled the bridge with secret bombs planted by Neocon Ninjas...you know...like the World Trade Center. Polynewbie where are you?? (Sung to the theme song for Car 54, Where Are You?) Well, to quote someone you probably worship, "There you go again." With a budget the size of ours, you'd think a few bucks would be thrown at infrastructure. The last bill was underfunded because His Highness threatened to veto it. Remember when the new regime first took over and they sent everyone a feel-good check for a few hundred bucks? I would have happily given up my check to prevent a tragedy such as the one in Minnesota from happening. This administration has focused on war, tax cuts for the wealthy and welfare packages to big oil and gifts to big pharma. Maybe if we offer to give Halliburton all the contracts they'll fix the bridges.

It will be interesting to learn whether funds directed toward war contributed to the apparent lack of maintenance of the Minneapolis bridge. I heard on the news it was deemed "structurally deficient" 2 years ago. Aren't federal funds used to maintain the interstate highway system? There seems to be no money for anything but war and tax cuts for the megarich.

I'm not an Edwards fan, but this post is a cheap shot. All the candidates, from all parties, get questionable contributions. What matters is whether there is quid quo pro. I don't care where a candidate gets his or her money from, I only care if there's payback when they're elected. If you look at the current administration, it's obvious where their contributions came from.

If Cheney told me the sky is blue, I'd have to look outside. Not only is this guy NOT above the law, he works for the American people. We're sick to freaking death of being kept in the dark like a bunch of mushrooms, being fed what mushrooms are fed (it comes out of the back end of a horse). By the way, did you know that during the Clinton years the Republicans investigated the "Socks the Cat Fan Club?" Uh huh. And now they obstruct and whine about investigations relating to wars and corruption. It boggles the mind.

That's sarcasm . . . right? While the majority of Americans did support it, we were also fed a bill of goods. But how were we to know? We don't have access to intelligence. Sadly, though, about 40% of Americans still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that Sadam and Osama were partners in crime and that Iraq had WMD. And Bushco is still trying to scare the bejesus out of us. He invoked Al-Quaeda 96 times in a speech the other day. To add insult to injury it's costing us nearly 2 billion a week (and Bush has the nerve to threaten a veto of the children's health care bill). Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, the poor citizens who remain in the country are living in 130 degree heat with hardly any electricity, water or sewage disposal. I truly pity the next president. What a bloody mess to clean up.

What's his position on healthcare? I looked at his site and couldn't find it.

He has some good thoughts, but I couldn't support someone as rabidly anti-choice as Ron Paul. In a perfect world there would be no abortions, but in the meantime I'd like politicians to keep their noses out of womens' uteri (uteruses?? not sure). I suppose that will never come about until men can get pregnant.

Well said. The Jessica Lynch incident was a bunch of lies, too. She was mortified that she was portrayed as some female incarnation of Rambo, especially since so many of her fellow soldiers died that day.

Right now it would Rudy/Hilly - that's clear. But I have a hard time seeing the GOP nominating a guy with his messy family history and a liberal on social issues. As for Clinton, maybe she just rubs me the wrong way but I can't see her sustaining her popularity over the next 15 months. I'd think the Republicans would be pretty nervous about having Rudy as a candidate. I've got a feeling if he's the nominee, the ex-wife (Donna, not the other one) and the estranged kids will join the firefighters who are reportedly trailing him around the country to let the world know what they think of him. I'm really puzzled about the attraction of the guy and the whole "9/11 hero" thing. What, exactly, did he do on 9/11?? He walked. And walked. And walked. And walked. He was walking because he had the bad sense to put his command center in the WTC after it had already been attacked once and he had nowhere to go. The rescue workers died because they couldn't communicate with the lousy radios he provided. I just don't get it.

Can you prove he wasn't? Apparently we'll find out since the investigation is continuing.