Will Ignatieff maintain his promise to go "home" to the US

[scouterjim]

if he loses the next election. That is what he said he would do. I find it amazing the leader of a national political party can call another country his "home".

[Guest American Woman]

if he loses the next election. That is what he said he would do. I find it amazing the leader of a national political party can call another country his "home".

He's identified himself as an American more than once; I find it surprising that any Canadian would vote for someone who has identified himself as such.

[g_bambino]

I find it amazing the leader of a national political party can call another country his "home".

What sets national political party leaders apart from, say, any other Canadian, including our own head of state?

[Shakeyhands]

if he loses the next election. That is what he said he would do. I find it amazing the leader of a national political party can call another country his "home".

Do you have a cite for this?

[kimmy]

What sets national political party leaders apart from, say, any other Canadian, including our own head of state?

Aside from going before the people of Canada and asking them to trust you to lead the country?

-k

[g_bambino]

Aside from going before the people of Canada and asking them to trust you to lead the country?

Well, a prime minister can only ask the majority of representatives elected by the majority of Canadian voters to be allowed to advise the monarch and/or her representative on how to govern the country. But, again, that monarch calls more than one country home and herself both Canadian and British. The viceroys and vicereines have been of dual nationality. Why, again, can the leader of a political party not be?

[Guest American Woman]

Well, a prime minister can only ask the majority of representatives elected by the majority of Canadian voters to be allowed to advise the monarch and/or her representative on how to govern the country. But, again, that monarch calls more than one country home and herself both Canadian and British. The viceroys and vicereines have been of dual nationality. Why, again, can the leader of a political party not be?

The monarch in question calls more than one country home et al because the countries in question are bound together by an allegiance. There is no such allegiance between Canada and the U.S. Again, I find it odd that Canadians would elect a politician who has spoken of himself as an American. Where does his allegiance lie?

[dre]

The monarch in question calls more than one country home et al because the countries in question are bound together by an allegiance. There is no such allegiance between Canada and the U.S. Again, I find it odd that Canadians would elect a politician who has spoken of himself as an American. Where does his allegiance lie?

You cant expect everyone to vote based on your criteria. Some people buy that kind of gotcha/gaff politics and some people vote on policy and other things. Id personally be more interested in whether or not he had good ideas and competence than statements like this. But some people wont look past it, and definately those kind of statements DO hurt you.

[g_bambino]

The monarch in question calls more than one country home et al because the countries in question are bound together by an allegiance. There is no such allegiance between Canada and the U.S. Again, I find it odd that Canadians would elect a politician who has spoken of himself as an American. Where does his allegiance lie?

But they're not bound in allegiance. They're foreign countries connected only through the person of the shared monarch; citizens of a particular state give their allegiance to that person only specifically as sovereign in right of that state. Hence, Commonwealth Realms can be, and some have been, at war with one another.

In other words, Canada and Britain are legally as foreign to each other as Canada and the US. Which draws me back to my suspicion that the bounds of acceptable and unacceptable dual nationalities run parallel with the dominant emotional allegiances, rather than legal ones or even rational logic. Somehow the Queen's multiple nationalities and John Turner's dual British-Canadian citizenship passed and still passes by without comment; yet, Michaelle Jean was all but forced to renounce her French citizenship before her formal appointment as governor general and Stephane Dion said he would do the same should he have become prime minister. Now, it's Ignatieff facing scrutiny because of his relationship with the United States (but not Britain?). Sometimes there's a hint of sense: Canada and the US have been at war; Canada and the UK (and any other current Commonwealth Realm, for that matter) have never. Still, there seems to be little consistency in these unwritten rules.

[c/e]

Edited March 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[Evening Star]

I do think there's a difference between having dual citizenship and actually referring to the other country as your "home" to which you promise to return if your political ambitions here don't succeed, although I would definitely need a cite to believe that Ignatieff actually said this. I also think it's a fairly minor issue compared to someone's actual policy positions, however.

[Guest American Woman]

....I would definitely need a cite to believe that Ignatieff actually said this.

I was curious as to whether or not he actually said that, too, and in doing a search, I think this is the quote in question:

“If I am not elected, I imagine that I will ask Harvard to let me back,” Ignatieff told the Crimson last Tuesday, sparking angry controversy for declaring what Canadian media viewed as a less-than-full commitment to Canada. link

That's an old quote, too: Published: Wednesday, December 07, 2005

This is a quote from June of 2010 from "Angry in the Great White North:" Maybe Michael Ignatieff would suddenly transform himself and the Liberals would prevail. If not, as is likely, then he gets the boot if he doesn't just resign (far more likely he would resign and return home to the United States).

[Guest American Woman]

But they're not bound in allegiance. They're foreign countries connected only through the person of the shared monarch; citizens of a particular state give their allegiance to that person only specifically as sovereign in right of that state. Hence, Commonwealth Realms can be, and some have been, at war with one another.

Countries have engaged in Civil War, too. The "shared monarch" does give Canada and Great Britain ties.

In other words, Canada and Britain are legally as foreign to each other as Canada and the US.

Since you share a monarch with Great Britain, which is why the Queen refers to herself as Canadian, too, that's simply not true.

Which draws me back to my suspicion that the bounds of acceptable and unacceptable dual nationalities run parallel with the dominant emotional allegiances, rather than legal ones or even rational logic. Somehow the Queen's multiple nationalities and John Turner's dual British-Canadian citizenship passed and still passes by without comment; yet, Michaelle Jean was all but forced to renounce her French citizenship before her formal appointment as governor general and Stephane Dion said he would do the same should he have become prime minister.

Actual duel citizenship is one thing. Referring to yourself as something you're not to me implies wishful thinking. Duel citizenship is due to their birth right in the instances you speak of. They didnt' seek out British and/or French citizenship.

Now, it's Ignatieff facing scrutiny because of his relationship with the United States (but not Britain?). Sometimes there's a hint of sense: Canada and the US have been at war; Canada and the UK (and any other current Commonwealth Realm, for that matter) have never. Still, there seems to be little consistency in these unwritten rules.

[c/e]

His "relationship with the United States" includes living in the United States for many years and referring to himself as an American, which he is not. That's quite different from someone simply having duel citizenship as a consequence of their birth. Someone can have duel citizenship and have no active "relationship" whatsoever with that country. When one chooses to have a relationship, to refer to himself as a citizen of that country, it's a different matter, and I personally would question his allegiance under the circumstances. And while he didn't say he would "return home to the U.S." if he lost the election, he did say he imagined that he would ask Harvard to take him back which implies a return to the U.S. if he lost the election back when he said it. He regretted having said it of course, and quickly clarified as to 'what he really meant.'

[Molly]

We have a monarch and Britain has a monarch. Australia does, too, and so does India It happens to be the same person, but doesn't have to be. All it really means is that we have some shared history-- most of which is also shared with your nation.

That citizenship should ex-clude instead of in-clude is an especially US concept. In Canada, we care whether someone is a Canadian citizen. What other countries think of them is irrelevant to that relationship. Dual (or more) citizenship is generally advantageous, whether birthright or earned, and it's not offensive in any manner.

I have friends and family who are strewn across the globe, some Canadian, some US citizens (and some both, some neither)--every last one of them at least semi-regularly refers to the people of wherever they are as 'us'. Every one of them will go where their job takes them for however long it takes them there, and not feel confined by their citizenship to living in North America.

Citizenship is an open door, not a trap or a restriction.

[Guest American Woman]

We have a monarch and Britain has a monarch. Australia does, too, and so does India It happens to be the same person, but doesn't have to be. All it really means is that we have some shared history-- most of which is also shared with your nation.

It means more than that. We have shared history too, but no ties to the monarchy.

That citizenship should ex-clude instead of in-clude is an especially US concept.

Hardly true considering the reaction Ignatieff has received in Canada.

In Canada, we care whether someone is a Canadian citizen. What other countries think of them is irrelevant to that relationship. Dual (or more) citizenship is generally advantageous, whether birthright or earned, and it's not offensive in any manner.

Who said it was offensive? But evidently there are plenty of Canadians who do care. What g_bambino had to say about politicians with dual citizenship in Canada confirms it.

I have friends and family who are strewn across the globe, some Canadian, some US citizens (and some both, some neither)--every last one of them at least semi-regularly refers to the people of wherever they are as 'us'. Every one of them will go where their job takes them for however long it takes them there, and not feel confined by their citizenship to living in North America.

Referring to people et al as "us" and referring to oneself as a nationality one doesn't possess are two different things entirely.

Citizenship is an open door, not a trap or a restriction.

No, it's not an open door. There are restrictions with regards to one's citizenship. That's a fact.

Edited March 19, 2011 by American Woman

[Wild Bill]

But they're not bound in allegiance. They're foreign countries connected only through the person of the shared monarch; citizens of a particular state give their allegiance to that person only specifically as sovereign in right of that state. Hence, Commonwealth Realms can be, and some have been, at war with one another.

In other words, Canada and Britain are legally as foreign to each other as Canada and the US. Which draws me back to my suspicion that the bounds of acceptable and unacceptable dual nationalities run parallel with the dominant emotional allegiances, rather than legal ones or even rational logic. Somehow the Queen's multiple nationalities and John Turner's dual British-Canadian citizenship passed and still passes by without comment; yet, Michaelle Jean was all but forced to renounce her French citizenship before her formal appointment as governor general and Stephane Dion said he would do the same should he have become prime minister. Now, it's Ignatieff facing scrutiny because of his relationship with the United States (but not Britain?). Sometimes there's a hint of sense: Canada and the US have been at war; Canada and the UK (and any other current Commonwealth Realm, for that matter) have never. Still, there seems to be little consistency in these unwritten rules.

[c/e]

This is simply not true at all, but it would appear that over the past couple of decades some folks are trying very hard to make it true!

You make it sound like there is no connection between Britain and Canada other than the Crown. This is where your argument fails. Canada was first a colony of Britain and then an independent Dominion. We had an existing area of the country that was of French descent and the rest was predominantly British. Our immigration was overwhelmingly from the British Isles. True, there were people from other countries but they were very much in the minority. They were welcome but it was recognized that our core culture outside of Quebec was British and newcomers were expected to assimilate. Certainly, the idea of multiculturalism was a foreign concept indeed and the idea of it as practiced these past few years would have been denounced and firmly rejected by previous generations of Canadians.

There was a great deal of loyalty and pride involved with being part of the Commonwealth and the British Empire. Why not? Britain had been a world leader in the Industrial Revolution, the advancement of sciences, the development of the Arts and her navy ruled the seas. Most Canadians were descended from Irish, Scottish and English stock, including large pockets in Quebec. In Quebec, French culture was legally recognized, as long as allegiance was given to the Crown. It may have been true that there was historically some discrimination in that positions of power were mostly Anglo but that was the way of the world at that time. As we matured we discarded some those old ways. The situation in Quebec today is completely different. Now we often see that its the owners and managers of businesses that are of French descent and many workers on the floor are Anglos - and nobody cares!

The cultural bonds between Britain and Canada are still very strong, despite the fact that the federal policy of multiculturalism has been that British Culture is both non-existent and worthless while ALL foreign cultures are to be equally respected and officially preserved within Canada. The idea of assimilation has been discarded. It constantly is happening anyway, of course. Kids lose the connection to their families previous country far faster than their parents. Where they grow up is home, not where the stories their parents tell come from.

It is said that Trudeau himself was disgusted with how his idea of multiculturalism had been twisted by subsequent governments into a vote-grabber. He had truly thought that immigrants would develop a sense of Canadian pride and culture as primary and their former culture as merely a cherished memory. Turner, Mulroney, Chretien and now even Harper have tied it to immigration so firmly that no politician seeking to get elected dares to declare that Canada was and is a British descent nation, with strong historical and cultural ties.

I'm presently reading Lowell Green's new book, 'Mayday! Mayday!' about this very topic. I don't quite agree that things are as bad or as drastic as he claims but one thing is for sure, he is anything but a racist! To label him such would be merely a cheap ad hominem trick from the partisan brain dead, who almost certainly would make such pronouncements without even reading his book!

He quotes numbers extensively from the StatsCan 2006 census. On page 57 of his book, in a table headed "Immigrant Population by Place of Birth and Period of Immigration, that before 1991 we show a number of 515,135 from the United Kingdom and after 1991 it drops to 64,485! The table then lists all the traditional source countries such as the USA and Europe to arrive at total numbers of 1,845,630 before 1991 and only 529,515 after!

Meanwhile, the next table shows the numbers from Asian, the middle East and Third World countries, Like China, India, Pakista, Iraq, Bangladesh and so on. The table shows huge increases in immigrants from such countries. I quote: "China has become a greater source of immigrants since 1991 than all of the UK and Europe combined."

This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Good citizens can come from anywhere. However, when we have official government policy to encourage immigrants from different cultures other than the Canadian mainstream, in order to acquire ethnic votes every election, we do have a problem.

Couple this with an unofficial policy that holds our traditional British culture somehow of lesser worth and we find those Canadians of British stock whose family has been here since before Canada was founded feeling upset and abandoned!

To those who say "what unofficial policy?" I would cite how Olivia Chow changed the police parade in Toronto to feature a Chinese dragon, shoving aside over a hundred years of a tradition of a British bagpipe band. We could talk about minor details, like taking Christmas out of the schools but the real factor is the dramatic change in our sources of immigration. The British number has been officially pruned to only a shadow of it's former magnitude, in favour of immigrants from non-British cultures.

Anyhow, it's a shame that you don't share this sense of British heritage. Like it or not, Canada WAS and IS descended from British culture and shares much of her history! To long-term Canadians like myself it sometimes makes one feel like you've welcomed someone into your home and then they promptly started making demands to change the decor!

This phenomenon may also account for some of the rural/urban divide in politics. In the 'old days', immigrants settled all over the country and literally built our infrastructure 'from Sea to Shining Sea". Now they overwhelmingly flock to Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and that's about it! They have formed 'ghettos' where no one speaks English or French and feels absolutely no need to bother learning how!

It's interesting to note that with the relatively new policies of multiculturalism and immigration Quebec has been given powers to totally control and protect her own culture. No other province has similar powers.

Anyhow, you're welcome to your own opinion, Mr. Bambino. However, I must caution you that you are provoking divisionism when you knock our Queen. To someone like me, who's ancestors came to Canada from Britain in 1690, sailing on the good ship Hector to land in Pictou, Nova Scotia, you sound almost treasonous! I'm PROUD of my British heritage and firmly believe that it was and is one of the strengths that developed my country! I do NOT believe that all cultures are of equal worth, just that all PEOPLE are of equal worth!

I get furious when some immigrants bring their old conflicts here, into their new home. And I expect them to adopt and respect Canada's existing culture and heritage.

That includes our Queen!

[Molly]

Our immigration was overwhelmingly from the British Isles. True, there were people from other countries but they were very much in the minority. They were welcome but it was recognized that our core culture outside of Quebec was British and newcomers were expected to assimilate. Certainly, the idea of multiculturalism was a foreign concept indeed and the idea of it as practiced these past few years would have been denounced and firmly rejected by previous generations of Canadians.

Spoken like a true-blue Ontarian.

[Smallc]

and so does India

No, not anymore.

[Molly]

You are right. That was dumb.

Point stands, though. The relationship any number of nations holds to Queen Elizabeth is independent of the relationship other nations hold to her and/or to one another. It indicates some level of common history, but similar history is also shared with other nations that may or may not consider her, or anyone, their queen.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Molly

[Molly]

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/ethnic_bloc_settlements.html

This is for you, Bill. You might find it interesting.

[Wild Bill]

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/ethnic_bloc_settlements.html

This is for you, Bill. You might find it interesting.

Old news, Molly! Of course there were immigrants from non-British sources. Your link points out that many immigrants to the West came from various European countries.

This doesn't change my point at all. In total numbers these other immigrants were dwarfed by the number of British stock. What's more, those immigrants to the West didn't come here expecting to change the Canadian culture to an Ukrainian one. Having the band play polkas was fine but at the end of the night they still closed with God Save the King!

We had a mainstream British culture with a great number of European influences. Some of my personal heroes were European and not British. Marconi for one. Tesla for another.

My inlaws came from Italy in the early 50's. They were proud of their adopted country and worked very hard to assimilate!My father-in-law likely knew more about Canada's history than I do! When they started a Ti-Cat game you could hear him sing the national anthem across tiers of seats, in his thick accent that he just couldn't shake, no matter how hard he tried.

This attitude towards and amongst immigrants changed only recently in our history, like during the last 30 years or so. The idea that you can come here but keep your parent culture first and foremost used to be laughable! Now we had a case where a Canadian boy of Serbian descent went over to fight for Serbia during the Kosovo conflict, ending up not only firing at Canadian soldiers and their allies but chaining captured Canadian UN reps to a lamp post! Later, he actually came back to Canada and was accepted!

To my mind, if a Canadian fires weapons at Canadian soldiers he is a traitor and should be treated like one.

Anyhow, the fact is that Canada no longer takes an appreciable portion of its immigrants from Britain OR Europe! The vast majority come from countries with cultures that have little or nothing in common with our traditional roots. To these new immigrants, Walter Ostenek and his polka band would be playing music from Mars!

Come to think of it...

Edited March 19, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Molly]

Old news, Molly! Of course there were immigrants from non-British sources. Your link points out that many immigrants to the West came from various European countries.

There's a lot more to it than that, Bill. They pointedly settled in ethnic communities, even though those communites were small and had large admixtures- and some came here specifically because they were granted greater group-freedom than in the nation of their origins. Doukhobours, Hutterites and other communal groups stand out, but they were not unique. What's more, they were recruited.

Even more than that, the British/Ontario class structure was not accepted nor respected, and it wasn't just 'some' who came from non-British sources- it was the vast majority.

You'll find that as a group they love Canada dearly, but they aren't English/British now, never were and never will be. They assimilated-- into the (multicultural) Canada that they made, not into the British way of life.

[Guest American Woman]

You are right. That was dumb.

Point stands, though. The relationship any number of nations holds to Queen Elizabeth is independent of the relationship other nations hold to her and/or to one another. It indicates some level of common history, but similar history is also shared with other nations that may or may not consider her, or anyone, their queen.

The issue isn't shared history, it's a present tie to the monarchy. Canada has it. The U.S. doesn't.

[Evening Star]

I was curious as to whether or not he actually said that, too, and in doing a search, I think this is the quote in question:

“If I am not elected, I imagine that I will ask Harvard to let me back,” Ignatieff told the Crimson last Tuesday, sparking angry controversy for declaring what Canadian media viewed as a less-than-full commitment to Canada. link

That's an old quote, too: Published: Wednesday, December 07, 2005

This is a quote from June of 2010 from "Angry in the Great White North:" Maybe Michael Ignatieff would suddenly transform himself and the Liberals would prevail. If not, as is likely, then he gets the boot if he doesn't just resign (far more likely he would resign and return home to the United States).

Ah, that's very different from what the OP suggested and completely innocuous (and rather sensible).

Isn't it possible to see Canada as an independent multicultural country and also recognize its ties to Britain and the Queen? A shared monarch is more than a coincidence. History is important and our historical connection to Britain, including the basis for our whole Parliamentary system, does go beyond our connection to the US.

[William Ashley]

g_bambino isn't Canadian ingore their statements.

[g_bambino]

You make it sound like there is no connection between Britain and Canada other than the Crown... There was a great deal of loyalty and pride involved with being part of the Commonwealth and the British Empire... The cultural bonds between Britain and Canada are still very strong, despite the fact that the federal policy of multiculturalism has been that British Culture is both non-existent and worthless while ALL foreign cultures are to be equally respected and officially preserved within Canada...

If you read what I wrote again, you'll note I didn't say Canada's only link to Britain was the Crown (the person of the Queen, really, since the Crown is now divided). I said there were also common emotional allegiances; and you've provided a stunning illustration of exactly what I was talking about (thank you!). That's not to say whether I find them valid or invalid. I just see them as a bit loose and sometimes arbitrary.

[c/e]

Edited March 19, 2011 by g_bambino