SkyhookJackson
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SkyhookJackson
-
-
Really? Interesting, considering you posted this in the Sicko thread:
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.
-
- I was born in Toronto in August of 1946 of two Canadian born parents. (third generation Canadians)
- My family moved to the states in 1950 and my father became a US citizen in 1955.
- My mother died in the states in 1960, when I was 14 years old.
- I was declared a US citizen in 1960 based on my father's US citizenship.
My question is: Am I still a Canadian citizen???
I'm attaching a synopsis of the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act which "implies", because I was born prior to 1947, that my situation doesn't fall under the Act. Since I never renounced my Canadian citizenship ... it looks to me like I am a Canadian citizen.
Anyone know for sure what my citizenship status is?
Canada’s First Citizenship Act
1947 Citizenship Act legally defines what it means to be a Canadian.
In 1946, the Government of Canada passed its first citizenship legislation, which came into effect on January 1, 1947. Prior to 1947, Canadian citizens, per se, did not exist. Instead, all persons born in Canada were considered to be British subjects. In this way, those who moved to Canada from Great Britain (or other Commonwealth countries) were already considered British subjects upon arriving in Canada, while individuals from non-Commonwealth countries were governed by legislation such as the Naturalization Act of 1914 (naturalization was a process that all non-British subjects had to go through before they could have the identical rights, such as the right to vote, enjoyed by Canadian nationals. The requirements of naturalization included that an individual reside in Canada for at least five years and be of “good character”).
Canada was the first Commonwealth country to establish a citizenship separate from Britain. The rationale for taking this course of action included promoting a greater sense of national identity, and putting immigrants on an equal legal footing with those born in Canada. The Citizenship Act of 1947 accomplished a number of objectives, including:
defining who was automatically considered to be a Canadian citizen;
establishing criteria for immigrants to acquire citizenship (immigrants could apply to become Canadian citizens after they had resided in Canada for five years and had reached the age of 21);
outlining the conditions under which Canadian citizens would lose their citizenship; and,
providing men and women equal citizenship status. Under the new legislation, a woman would not automatically lose her Canadian citizenship upon marrying a citizen from another country.
Despite the substantial changes associated with this new legislation, individuals who did not automatically become Canadian citizens when the legislation was enacted did not lose any rights they had enjoyed previously.
The legislation, however, had a number of shortcomings.
Problems with the legislation
It gave special treatment to British subjects. Unlike immigrants from non-Commonwealth countries, British subjects did not have to take the oath of allegiance or participate in a formal swearing in ceremonies in order to attain Canadian citizenship. Excusing British subjects in this fashion was a compromise, designed to appease members of the public who felt that it unfair to make British subjects wait five years before they could apply for Canadian citizenship. Dissatisfaction with the different rules for British subjects increased during the 1960s, as the percentage of non-British immigrants rose significantly.
It did not permit dual/multiple citizenships. Canadians who chose to become citizens of another country had to renounce their Canadian citizenship. This was not all that unusual. Today, many countries still do not permit individuals to have dual or multiple citizenships, or only allow individuals to maintain dual citizenship until they reach a certain age (at which time they must choose which country’s citizenship they wish to keep).
However, this created problems for a group of individuals who, unknowingly, lost their Canadian citizenship as children. Under the terms of the 1947 Citizenship Act, although born in Canada, children automatically lost their Canadian citizenship if the “responsible parent” (usually the father) lost his Canadian citizenship when s/he emigrated to another country. The decision to move and take up residence in another country was frequently driven by financial considerations; in many cases the “responsible parent” was the only member of the family to leave Canada, doing so in order to find work. In other cases the family returned to Canada after only a few years, at which time the “responsible parent” took steps to regain his/her Canadian citizenship. Unfortunately, the family frequently remained unaware of the need to regain Canadian citizenship for the children as well.
The 1977 Citizenship Act endeavoured to correct this flaw in the original legislation. From 1977 onwards children would not, under similar conditions, lose their Canadian citizenship. However, since the legislation was not retroactive, it had no impact on the legal status of children, born between 1947 and 1977, who lost their Canadian citizenship in this manner. These individuals, dubbed the “Lost Canadians” by the media, frequently remained unaware of their citizenship status until they applied for government services where Canadian citizenship is required (such as social assistance or a pension). While free to remedy the situation by applying for Canadian citizenship, they would need to follow the procedure for resumption of citizenship outlined in section 11 (1)(d) of the 1977 Citizenship Act. This section states that former citizens must live in Canada as a permanent resident, for one year, before applying to resume their Canadian citizenship. (Permanent resident status is the legal status given to individuals when they first immigrate to Canada ). Throughout the duration of their permanent resident status, the “Lost Canadians” would remain ineligible for benefits normally available to Canadian citizens.
Over time, the cause of the “Lost Canadians” was taken up by Conservative party members, particularly MP John Reynolds and Senator Noel Kinsella. As a result, in May 2005, the House of Commons unanimously passed legislation correcting this flaw in the 1947 Citizenship Act. Originally introduced in the Senate, Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, exempts these individuals from the need to live in Canada as a permanent resident for one year prior to applying for Canadian citizenship.
Individuals also lost their citizenship for other reasons, such as serving in a foreign military. In the years that followed, it was determined that the parameters governing the revocation of Canadian citizenship were far too broad.
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.
-
Systematic violence against Christians by Muslims in many areas of Africa and Asia is one of the most appalling yet least talked about trends going on in the world right now.
I can only assume the reason for the silence on this issue is that it's mostly occurring in second-rate little countries that are apparently beneath our notice.
-k
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?
-
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.
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:
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.
-
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.
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'll bet the list of contributors to Edwards campaign reads like a who's who of ambulance chasers. With their man in the white house the prospect of new laws to sue America out of business is endless.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...4019.shtml?s=po
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.
-
should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html
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.
-
Because of course all Americans supported it.
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.
-
Hi Skyhook,
To be honest, Paul isn't advocating that abortion be made illegal - his own opinion is against abortion - but he still does advocate that these laws be made on a state by state basis, in a democratic fashion - ie let the people decide.
I agree with you wrt a pro-choice stance at least for early term abortions (I don't agree with late term abortions unless the mothers' life is in danger).
There are many on both sides of the fence (repub/dem) who want Paul silenced and have taken some things he has said out of context - you know the usual smear.
Check out his site - there are articles there wrt the abortion issue.
I don't think anyone will ever find a political rep. with whom they agree 100%. If my only bone to pick with Dr. Paul is that over the abortion issue then so be it. 9/10 ain't bad!!
What's his position on healthcare? I looked at his site and couldn't find it.
-
For those of you who are a fan of Paul, here is the link to his site and this, his most recent article.
If any man should be president of the US, Ron Paul is it!
Caution: You are about to read a column by a politician who actually speaks the truth - please sit down so to avoid injury.
The Fear Factor
by Ron Paul
While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.
Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.
The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.
As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.
It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.
To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.
*snip*
How wonderfully refreshing it is to read the words of a true Patriot, true American and true Constitutionalist. It is no wonder that so many fear him. They should. He is a dose of sanity badly needed in the post 911 sociopathic governmental administrations.
Now, if only we could find ourselves a Ron Paul for up here in Kanuckistan.
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.
-
It's been settled and known for some time now that Tillman was killed by friendly fire. Whether it was an accident or on purpose, is, IMO not overly important as well as being somewhat beside the point here:
The Administration LIED about it.
Get it? They LIED wrt to his death - and continue to LIE.
Funny - the whole war was based on LIES.
Osama + 911 = LIE
Iraq + 911 = LIE
WMD in Iraq = LIE
Yellowcake from Niger = LIE
Mission Accomplished = LIE
Now say it all together now: LIES, LIES and more LIES.
That pretty much sums it up.
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.
-
I disagree on Clinton. She is a good public candidate and perosnally I believe Obama, in a general election, would show that there is little of substance there and what is would be far less paletable to American voters than what Clinton might say.
You're probably more on the ball with Guiliani. But the current evidence seems to belie your theory. Guiliani is, for now, more than holding his own in the race.
Of course it's a long time from now 'till then. But we are still having this discussion. As such we must look at what is happening now. Taking the bromide you cite to its extreme - we shouldn';t even be discussing this at this early time. Maybe right in a platonic sense, but pragmatically - we are all thinking about it so why not chat.
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.
-
If you can prove he was fragged, go for it.
Can you prove he wasn't?
Apparently we'll find out since the investigation is continuing.
-
Sean David Morton, has come out and said again, that OBL IS dead and the US took him out in 2002. Sean does have friends in high places in D.C. and that the BinLaden family asked the Bush family to keep it quiet so they could take the body back to Saudia Arabia and bury it near Mecca. To his followers, they too know he is dead but they believe he is still alive in their hearts! This was confirmed by when the gov't asked for DNA samples of OBL to ID him. A missile took out the caravan out when he was travelling over a mt. range to Pakistan. Bush is also keeping it a secret to use OBL ghost to keep the war going. On another subject, Morton is saying that there will be a conflict between Cheney and Bush and Cheney will be "thrown to the wolves" so to speak. Bush, himself will be in danger around Nov.-Dec. and may not finish his term. Speaking of, the reason for bombing Iran, Cheney and Bush believe that the Dems will sweep the election having control in the Congresss and Senate and will pull out of Iraq, leaving Iran to get control over the area and with Dems in power for 8 years,Iran will be able to have the "nuke" because the Dem President would not go into Iran. Bush is said to be desperate to bomb Iran before leaving office. Morton said he wanted to when the English had their military kidnapped by Iran but Blair said no and Bush tried again in April, but Israel said no, because of the attack they had suffered with their neighbor. All came from an intel.info. and friends in high places.
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.
-
... 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.
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.
-
...Under the circumstances, I think it was perfectly understandable that I would find your preference to live in the States interesting. Furthermore, your husband wasn't born in the United States and he didn't live here all of his life and I'm guessing he must love where he lived, etc, so again, my finding your choice "interesting" is not deserving of rudeness.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
They discover, after you arrive and sit in the waiting room for 2 hours (oops, sorry, and that's a conservative estimate for the time spent reading People Magazine while watching people vomit), that you are uninsured.
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?
-
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).
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).
Citizenship Question
in Canada / United States Relations
Posted
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.