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 It is unfortunately still in circulation as an archived document.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.

With all due respect, and keeping in mind nothing much surprises me any more, you're not taking this to the bank . . . are you? I'd never heard of Sean David Morton so I googled him - spiritual guidance, weight loss and beauty products all in one place. I think if Bush had gotten OBL, he'd be on the tube 24/7 from now until the end of time.

There are 2 possibles in Newt Gingrich on the right and Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an Indie. Bloomberg claims he isn't interested, but I wouldn't bet on it. Newt's going to watch and see if the others crash and burn first. Al Gore has been pretty adamant about not being interested and I don't think he'll get in, although I suppose there's a very outside chance after the Nobel prizes are awarded. Oops, I forgot Chuck Hagel, a Republican. He officially became a "noncandidate" earlier in the year, but has been seen dining with Bloomberg. After the first primary they'll drop like flies and we'll be left with 2 or 3 on either side for about a month. In all honesty, none of the candidates have captured my vote yet. I don't like any of the Republicans (and - believe it or not - I've actually cast a vote for McCain in the past). The Dems have their "stars," but Richardson is probably the most qualified from either party. Unfortunately for him he's also the least charismatic. Obama is the most inspiring; Kucinich the most idealistic; Gravel the most nuts. Hillary is a very smart woman - and I'd love to cast a presidential vote for a woman - but I can't stand her and I can't put my finger on it. Biden is very smart as well and well qualified, but was shown to be in the pockets of the credit card companies after his vote on the bankruptcy bill in the last Congress. That grates. Edwards is a rather sweet man. I'm looking forward to meeting him before the New Hampshire primary. Should be interesting. Thanks for starting the thread.

I am a proud liberal and I do not want to see the "Fairness Doctrine" enacted. If Faux News had to provide the opposite side of an issue (truth), it would take all the fun out of things. I love it when they put Mark Foley up on the screen and identify him as a Democrat. They did it to Arlen Specter the other day. It's a riot that O'Reilly is in a tizzy over some demon leftie referring to the pope as a "primate." He needs to get a dictionary. The pope IS a primate. The hate that comes out of the right wing media is the best free advertising liberals can get. (Although, I admit, I've never understood the Log Cabin Republicans.)

There was an interesting piece on the PBS show NOW this week that dealt with voter caging in the 2004 election. It appears disenfranchised voters included military people serving in Iraq. What has put this particular instance of voter caging in the spotlight is that it focused on a specific group of people who the Republicans deemed likely to vote Democratic (people of color). Investigation is ongoing. Also a note about a previous post on New Hampshire. We went blue last election. Very blue. In fact, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat, won her seat solely with grassroots support. She was such a long shot the national party pretty much ignored her. The governor's a Democrat, the state legislature is Democratic, and my Congressman, Paul Hodes, won a previously-held Repbublican seat. Of course, we've still got some time left on the clock for our Republican Senators, but it's not looking very good for Sununu, who's up in 2008. The last poll I saw was something like 70-30 in favor of former Democratic Governor Jean Shaheen, should she be his opponent.

Then I guess "you" gonna die, eh? Uninsured Americans are just dropping dead like flies! I would think that keeping the home would be a distant concern. Here's a nice "kidney" story from Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/03/22/...suit050322.html There are horror stories from everywhere, it's just the U.S. has the market cornered on them. 18,000 are reported to die each year from lack of insurance. I'd love to know the number who die from insurance companies denying care to their insured. Sicko showed a couple of examples of those. I'd bet the number far exceeds the uninsured. That's why you see bake sales and car washes to pay for bone marrow transplants that are often disallowed. Does that happen in Canada? England? France? Germany? Who decides on treatment in those countries? Physicians or insurance company clerks? There's a reason there are organizations of medical professionals who agree with the notion of single payer, universal healthcare. http://www.pnhp.org/ Those are real nurses appearing around the country with Michael Moore. Facts don't lie and all the people in the countries I cited are healthier than we are, live longer than we do and have a lower infant mortality rate. Considering more per capita is spent in this country, that shouldn't be the case. Maybe that's where the profit motive and high CEO salaries come into play.

It was a fair question given all the volunteered information and negative will expressed about the USA, particularly the proposed decision if democratic election results fall short of a "supermajority", which is all but guaranteed. I work with several Canadians who have made America home and prize their "green cards". This is not to say they don't disagree with American politics or policies (even amongst themselves), but none are fickle enough to pee on our rug (LBJ reference). My slave ancesters wouldn't go back to Africa either.....so I'm sure as hell not leaving over healthcare. Of course you're not leaving over healthcare. You obviously have access to healthcare and enough wealth to cover the deductibles, co-pays and uncovered 20% without landing in a Maytag box on the street. Gosh, golly, gee whiz. Sorry if I sounded rude, folks. It had something to do with that tone of "love or leave it" in response to why I don't move to Canada. I'm sorry, but I have little patience with people who can't take what they're dishing out. A person who truly loves their country speaks out when it's going down the wrong path. To remain silent in the face of all that has gone wrong since the Bush 43 regime took over would be to relegate the United States to the trash pile. We're better than that. We can fix it. I've been politically active for a long, long time and, quite honestly, I'm tired. I'd like to live out my life doing the things that really bring me joy rather than arguing with the small percentage of Bush supporters who would follow him off a cliff. For that reason, I look to the north. It's not just healthcare. The Canadians seem to have different priorities. The stock portfolio doesn't appear to be god. When I go there I'm reminded of how happy I felt decades ago and I always leave wishing we'd set up our life there when we were married in the 70's - we thought about it. Maybe I'm wrong about Canada. I've never lived there, I don't know. Maybe some Canadians will chime in and take my rose-colored glasses off.

As a number of posters noted, you need to be a resident of Canada. For me, that may happen sooner than later. We've been delaying our final decision until election night, 2008, hoping a supermajority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president might adopt the Conyers/Kucinich legislation. So evidently, in spite of what you think about the U.S. and the war and healthcare, etc., you've found it preferrable to live in the States rather than in Canada. I find that interesting. Well . . . duh. I was born in the United States. I've lived in the United States my entire 58 years. I've lived in the same home in the same place for years and years. I love the place we live - my gardens, the wild life, our surroundings. It's called "life." Until 3 years ago I could (barely) afford health insurance. Until 6 years ago we had presidents who didn't belong in an insane asylum. God! I look back on the Nixon years as the "good old days" at this point. I do have hope that once the "evil doers" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are gone, the U.S. might head in the right direction again. Maybe not. Who knows at this point? In any case, Canada is a wonderful place and I can see myself living quite happily there. By the way, what exactly do you mean by what I think of the U.S.?? The country is separate from the sorry leadership. It's a shame we don't have a parliamentary system, we could throw the bums out now. The majority of Americans are just as pissed off as I am, if not more. You must see the polls. It's not that we don't love the country, it's that the country has changed and not for the better. Outsourced jobs, unaffordable college tuitions, health care. And, worst of all, we've gone from a "we" mentality to a "me" mentality. "I've got mine, to hell with you." That's not the way it should be.

Two hours is that all. Here people know going in that they have no insurance, and the government has your money. The difference being, of course, you folks eventually get treatment. In the U.S., no cash = no treatment. True, if you turn up at the ER with a broken leg they'll fix it, but if you can't pay and don't qualify for any sort of program for the poor (and you have to be really, really poor), they'll take everything you own, garnish your wages and drain any bank account if you're lucky enough to have one. So, yes, you can obtain basic, absolutely necessary, treatment in our for-profit health care system. You can't turn up sans insurance and get perks such as chemotherapy, a kidney transplant and multitudes of other procedures that will allow you to live a normal life span. And, then there's the down side of having had your home taken away and finding a nice refrigerator box to live in on the sidewalk. Does that happen much in Canada? Do you have many bankruptcies over health care bills?

If your husband is a Canadian, why can't you, as his spouse, get healthcare there? As a number of posters noted, you need to be a resident of Canada. For me, that may happen sooner than later. We've been delaying our final decision until election night, 2008, hoping a supermajority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president might adopt the Conyers/Kucinich legislation.

Sicko finally made it to the hinterlands and I saw it this afternoon. Now I'm more cranked up than ever (and more grateful than ever my husband was born in Canada). How anyone can see this film and not question the sanity of our "for profit" system is beyond me. Re the previous post about businesses and tax advantages: everyone who paid more income taxes than Rupert Murdoch last year, raise your hand (if you paid a dollar, that hand needs to be up).