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

[bush_cheney2004]

Bill, this whole tangent is a digression, but really, LOOK! Just LOOK. :

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cansk/maps/ethnic-bloc.html

Interesting...is there really a Sasketch hamlet named "Assinboia"?

[Wilber]

All I'm saying is that I don't think there's a general anti-American bigotry (and resistance to American ideas because of their origin) as much as a distaste for specific policies. I think we actually agree on the main point though.

I think there is a certain amount of both. The ratio depends on the individual.

[Molly]

It is indeed odd. And the renouncement requirements aren't as strict as they're being made out to be. The U.S. doesn't prevent a naturalized citizen from holding a passport from their old country. There is no formal renouncement required by law. I'm sure if he had become an American citizen he would have become unelectable in Canada, though.

They are made out as being not strict at all- in fact the requirement is routinely ignored- but you are misrepresenting your own law to suggest that renouncement is not a requirement. It is rarely checked up on, but anyone who fails to do so can be stripped of US citizenship if 'found out'.

In effect they swear they have renounced, which no doubt would also be extremely badly recieved in the supposedly renounced nation, too. The political hay that could be made of it is far more dramatic than present petty foolishness.

[Topaz]

Maybe we should ask HIM if its true?

[Guest American Woman]

They are made out as being not strict at all- in fact the requirement is routinely ignored- but you are misrepresenting your own law to suggest that renouncement is not a requirement. It is rarely checked up on, but anyone who fails to do so can be stripped of US citizenship if 'found out'.

In effect they swear they have renounced, which no doubt would also be extremely badly recieved in the supposedly renounced nation, too. The political hay that could be made of it is far more dramatic than present petty foolishness.

...a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not ... require a person to choose one citizenship or another.

....dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. travel. state. gov

Naturalized citizens are not required to renounce citizenship to their former country.

Edited March 19, 2011 by American Woman

[Molly]

Interesting...is there really a Sasketch hamlet named "Assinboia"?

No, it's not a hamlet. It's a town.

http://www.municipal.gov.sk.ca/Administration/Guide/Comparison-Formal-Entities

[g_bambino]

...a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not ... require a person to choose one citizenship or another.

....dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. travel. state. gov

Naturalized citizens are not required to renounce citizenship to their former country.

And yet, the US oath of citizenship requires the oath-taker to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen."1 Rather contradictory, isn't it?

[fmt link]

Edited March 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

And yet, the US oath of citizenship requires the oath-taker to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen."1 Rather contradictory, isn't it?

[fmt link]

I'm quite aware of the oath, which is not requiring the naturalized citizen to renounce their previous citizenship. The oath states that they will not to remain loyal to another country's state over that of the U.S., which is completely different from renouncing one's previous citizenship. Makes sense to me. You think a naturalized Canadian citizen could remain loyal to the previous state over Canada and still retain their Canadian citizenship? Because I'm thinking not.

[William Ashley]

I'm quite aware of the oath, which is not requiring the naturalized citizen to renounce their previous citizenship. The oath states that they will not to remain loyal to another country's state over that of the U.S., which is completely different from renouncing one's previous citizenship. Makes sense to me. You think a naturalized Canadian citizen could remain loyal to the previous state over Canada and still retain their Canadian citizenship? Because I'm thinking not.

There is no above.

It is an equal basis as a citizen of more than one country you are bound to the laws of both countries. Laws need not contradict one another.

US citizenship law is different than Canadian citizenship law. They don't equate.

There are specific disallowances, if allegiance is owed. Naturalized citizens plege allegiance - while some dual nationalities do not work if they expressly forbid dual nationality etc..

This isn't the case of all countries and it is based on the laws of the countries involved.

Edited March 19, 2011 by William Ashley

[Guest American Woman]

There is no above.

It is an equal basis as a citizen of more than one country you are bound to the laws of both countries. Laws need not contradict one another.

I'm not referring to laws. I'm referring to loyalty to the state. So I repeat:

....dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. travel. state. gov

The U.S. obviously recognizes the need to obey the laws of both countries as it's stated quite clearly. Furthermore, even those who have religious objections et al to the oath have other options. It's not a renouncement of one's former citizenship.

[Molly]

Sounds like one to me.

Particularly, it would sound like one to Canadian voters.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Molly

[Guest American Woman]

Sounds like one to me.

Then that makes "what it sounds like to [you]" wrong. Simple as that.

Particularly, it would sound like one to Canadian voters.

Which begs the question, how does his referring to the U.S. as his country and himself as an American sound to Canadian voters?

Edited March 19, 2011 by American Woman

[Molly]

Then that makes "what it sounds like to [you]" wrong. Simple as that.

I bow to your perfect knowledge.

[Guest American Woman]

I bow to your perfect knowledge.

Good for you, because that results in your having learned something today. Naturalized citizens of the U.S. are not required to give up or renounce their previous citizenship.

[William Ashley]

I'm not referring to laws. I'm referring to loyalty to the state. So I repeat:

....dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. travel. state. gov

The U.S. obviously recognizes the need to obey the laws of both countries as it's stated quite clearly. Furthermore, even those who have religious objections et al to the oath have other options. It's not a renouncement of one's former citizenship.

There is no loyalty owed without law requiring loyalty. (even if on a basis of convention)

Renouncing is a seperate act, although renouncing a citizenship that is contradicotry to US citizenship law requires renouncing of citizenship in addition to the oath.

Not all countries require "allegiance" - there may be "Free societies" that don't require submission to the state.

The US requires

citizens obey the US Constitution, to renounce non US federal allegiance, defense of the constitution, obey the draft, obey the levy (law stating civilians need to do things)

The renunciation thing is complicated because the US supreme court (which is subset to congress) alienated reunciation on a matter of question of duplicity and contradition that being a contradiction in the nature of the laws of two countries to the point in which one requires the US citizenship requirements to be in question.

For instance if the US drafted or passed laws requiring something, but the other country also drafted the person or passed laws that are in contradition to the US law.. the person would have to choose one citizenship or another. BUt really they would just be liable at law to the penalties for not obeying the draft for whatever country they chose, etc..

meaning the penatlies would not be alienated - the person would however violate the oath of allegiance/citizenship...

and whatever penalizations exist for that.

Edited March 19, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

I'm quite aware of the oath, which is not requiring the naturalized citizen to renounce their previous citizenship.

Not explicitly, no. But, citizenship is generally dependant on allegiance. One can't be a citizen of Canada without giving allegiance to the Canadian monarch. Other monarchies have the same requirement; in republics, allegiance to the constitution or "the people" is usually demanded; it's the way one promises to abide by the rules and authority of the state. So, as long as an American citizen has citizenship in another state, he or she has dual allegiances - as your own link states: "dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country" [emphasis mine] - which is a violation of the oath.

Neither the Canadian Citizenship Oath nor any citizenship law makes a similar demand of the oath taker.

[+]

Edited March 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Not explicitly, no. But, citizenship is generally dependant on allegiance. One can't be a citizen of Canada without giving allegiance to the Canadian monarch. Other monarchies have the same requirement; in republics, allegiance to the constitution or "the people" is usually demanded; it's the way one promises to abide by the rules and authority of the state. So, as long as an American citizen has citizenship in another state, he or she has dual allegiances, which is a violation of the oath.

Neither the Canadian Citizenship Oath nor any citizenship law makes a similar demand of the oath taker.

[+]

You're putting your spin on it. I've quoted from government sites that dual citizenship is recognized/allowed in the United States. Whether or not a naturalized American citizen loses their previous citizenship is dependent on whether or not their previous country allows dual citizenship. The U.S. does not require them to give it up and the U.S. still recognizes U.S. citizenship when/if an American citizen takes an oath of alliance to another country upon acquiring citizenship there.

[g_bambino]

I've quoted from government sites that dual citizenship is recognized/allowed in the United States.

Sure. And I provided quotes from US government sites that contradict one another. Maybe the US just needs to tidy up some loose ends around immigration and citizenship.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure. And I provided quotes from US government sites that contradict one another. Maybe the US just needs to tidy up some loose ends around immigration and citizenship.

Or maybe you just have to accept the fact that the contradictions are your take on it rather than the reality of the situation. Canada dealt with this issue around twenty years ago, the U.S. around ten years ago. Dual citizenship in the U.S. is no different from dual citizenship in Canada. Both countries allow it, recognize it, and don't require that the other citizenship be relinquished. You can choose to believe otherwise, but you'll be wrong.

[g_bambino]

Or maybe you just have to accept the fact that the contradictions are your take on it rather than the reality of the situation.

Mmm... Well, I'm only pointing out what's all there in black and white, as they say.

[D]ual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country...

US State Department

I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

US Oath of Allegiance - US Citizenship and Immigration Service

I'll let others then judge who between us is in touch with reality and who's in denial.

[+]

Edited March 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

Interesting...is there really a Sasketch hamlet named "Assinboia"?

Do you mean Assiniboia? If so it's about the same size as French Lick Indiana.

[Battletoads]

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).

So if he isn't elected he will return to his previous job?

Shocking stuff people.

[Guest American Woman]

Mmm... Well, I'm only pointing out what's all there in black and white, as they say.

I'll let others then judge who between us is in touch with reality and who's in denial.

[+]

Sigh. As I already pointed out, the first quote is in regards to a country while the second quote from the oath is in regards to the state/power which is something different. How many times have we heard that the U.S. and the U.S. government are not synonymous? If the oath were intended to renounce the country/citizenship, it would be stated as such. "Country" would be a lot simpler to state than "foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty."

The government makes it clear that dual citizenship is allowed/recognized in the United States. This is the last time I will repeat it. If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it. Live in ignorance. Spread the ignorance. That's your right. But to state the obvious, people who are actually living in the United States with dual citizenship are not the ones living in denial.

[Molly]

But to state the obvious, people who are actually living in the United States with dual citizenship are not the ones living in denial.

You do not want to know how many members of my family that touches.

[Guest American Woman]

You do not want to know how many members of my family that touches.

What difference would it make?