O, Canada! More Americans Heading North
The Number of Americans Moving to Canada in 2006 Hit a 30-Year High
By MARCUS BARAM
July 31, 2007 —
Blame Canada!
It may seem like a quiet country where not much happens besides ice hockey, curling and beer drinking. But our neighbor to the north is proving to be quite the draw for thousands of disgruntled Americans.
The number of U.S. citizens who moved to Canada last year hit a 30-year high, with a 20 percent increase over the previous year and almost double the number who moved in 2000.
In 2006, 10,942 Americans went to Canada, compared with 9,262 in 2005 and 5,828 in 2000, according to a survey by the Association for Canadian Studies.
Of course, those numbers are still outweighed by the number of Canadians going the other way. Yet, that imbalance is shrinking. Last year, 23,913 Canadians moved to the United States, a significant decrease from 29,930 in 2005.
"There has been a definite increase in the past five years the number hasn't exceeded 10,000 since 1977," says Jack Jedwab, the association's executive director. "During the mid-70s, Canada admitted between 22,000 and 26,000 Americans a year, most of whom were draft dodgers from the Vietnam War."
Canada
votes in a minority government of neo-cons: Alberta is the Texas of Canada
an excellent analysis of what this means from one of the best Canadian political
experts on "deep politics"
Canada's 2006 election shows a country becoming increasingly polarized - it
is possible that Canada could split into multiple countries. These divides are
deeper than the issues of Quebec independence.
Canadian
Immigration
If you want to move to Canada, here's the Canadian immigration test:
Moving to Canada will probably not be a solution for
US citizens seeking to escape the breakdown of American democracy, just like
Jews who moved from Berlin to Amsterdam in 1933 didn't go far enough away from
the Nazis (they had a few years reprieve, but they suffered the same fate as
Jews who stayed in Berlin).
The US has established the "Northern Command,"
a new military department that has jurisdiction over Canada, chaired by the
same General who supervised the (lack of) air defenses on 9/11. "Northcom"
will be able to control Canada, especially in the near future as Canadian natural
resources become more critical for the empire (water, oil, natural gas). Second,
Canada and the US signed a border agreement after 9/11 that removes Canada as
a political haven for draft resisters. It would be easy for this agreement to
be extended to political dissidents. Most of the close US allies, especially
in the English speaking world and those that are members of NATO, have stated
they will not harbor US draft resisters (unlike previous policies during the War on Vietnam).
Most Canadian cities would be unliveable in their present configuration without
abundant fossil energy to heat the buildings in the wintertime (with the possible
exceptions of coastal BC). In the days before fossil fuels, Canada's population
was much lower, and lots of firewood was used to keep buildings from freezing.
How will downtown Montreal or Toronto or Edmonton stay functional when the natural
gas used to heat their buildings runs out?
Worse, there's probably nowhere on Earth that is far enough away from
the consequences of the US sliding into full strength fascism.
from the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)
Re: Election Issue: Canada DID Join Missile Defense
For a year now, my peace/anti-war activities have centred on opposing what
is euphemistically called America's "missile defense shield." And,
since February 23, 2005, when Paul Martin cleverly pretended to oppose so called
"missile defense," I've focused my efforts on conducting and publishing
original research to reveal Canada's hidden role in this massive, weapons-creation
and -development program.
What I found is that for years now, Canadian corporate and scientific communities,
as well as government departments, agencies and crown corporations, have been
busily participating in the creation, development, maintenance, operation, financing
and planned deployment of "missile defense" weapons systems.
However, because Canadians are generally unaware of their country's involvement
in "missile defense," many immediately praised the Liberal government
for its supposed refusal to join this offensive weapons scheme. Now, nine months
later, although the Liberal government is credited on a daily basis with having
kept Canada out of U.S. "missile defense" plans, the Liberal's have
yet to substantiate their hollow pronouncement with even a single, concrete
action. And, many Canadians -- including some key activists who oppose "missile
defense" -- continue their unfounded applause for the Liberal government's
phoney "no" to involvement in the U.S. weapons-development scheme.
This federal election is an opportune time to draw attention to Canada's participation
in so called "missile defense" and to hold the Liberals accountable
for pretending that they prevented Canada from "joining."
I continue to hope that my efforts to unveil Canada's actual complicity in "missile
defense" preparations will help in some small way to resuscitate Canada's
nearly-defunct -- but once vibrant -- anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) movement.
The peace/antiwar movement can indeed be proud that prior to the government's
much-ballyhooed, but totally hypocritical and duplicitous, "no to missile
defense," we built a strong opposition to this offensive, U.S. weapons
program. It is tragic, however, that as soon as the government made its fake
pronouncement, grassroots opposition acquiesced and protests disappeared.
By pulling the wool over our eyes on "missile defense," the Liberal
government also managed to pull the rug right out from under our feet! This
is the kind of manoeuvre that typifies Liberal governments. They talk from the
left side of their mouths, while governing from the right.
Original Research in Press for Conversion!
The results of my research on "missile defense" is contained in three
lengthy issues of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) magazine, Press
for Conversion! The full text of these issues (totalling about 100,000 words!)
is now available online:
Issue #57: "Canada's Role in so called 'Missile Defense,'
Part II: Sea-based, Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense" http://coat.ncf.ca/TBMD
Issue #56: "Canada's Role in so called 'Missile Defense,'
Part I: NORAD, Government Largesse & the ABC's of Corporate Complicity." http://coat.ncf.ca/missiledefense
COAT's next issue, to be published early in the new year, will deal with Canadian
complicity in the militarisation of space, the role of Canadian space technology
in U.S. warfighting and implications for "missile defense" weapons
systems.
Victoria, BC - beautiful mural of traditional canoes and longhouse
First Nations lands are for lease by the "crown"
Canadian treatment of indigenous peoples is not much better than the US government's
behavior
Northcom and
the North American Anschluss
http://207.44.245.159/article8069.htm
SEAN GORDON, TORONTO STAR -
An influential tri-national panel has considered a raft of bold proposals
for an integrated North America, including a continental customs union, single
passport and contiguous security perimeter. According to a confidential internal
summary from the first of three meetings of the Task Force on the Future of
North America, discussions also broached the possibility of lifting trade
exemptions on cultural goods and Canadian water exports.
Those last two suggestions were dismissed in subsequent deliberations, say
members of the task force, an advisory group of academics, trade experts,
former politicians and diplomats from Canada, the United States and Mexico
sponsored by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. Members said
the task force's final report this spring will focus on "achievable"
rather than simply academic questions like that of a single North American
currency.
Nevertheless, the initial debates prompted a sharp reaction from trade skeptics
and nationalist groups like the Council of Canadians, who fear business leaders
and the politically connected are concocting plans to cede important areas
of sovereignty at the behest of American business interests.
Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow said the summary, a copy of
which was obtained by the Toronto Star, was "disturbing" and "shocking."
"What they envisage is a new North American reality with one passport,
one immigration and refugee policy, one security regime, one foreign policy,
one common set of environmental, health and safety standards ... a brand name
that will be sold to school kids, all based on the interests and the needs
of the U.S.," she said.
She said the discussions have added weight because the panel includes such
political heavyweights as former federal finance minister John Manley.
Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 23 November 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html
Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and
military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"Binational integration" of military command structures is also
contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law
enforcement and intelligence.
At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit
of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues
is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.
The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate
in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article
widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete
text.
SUMMARY
For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching
military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the
border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station
American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's
defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but
at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US
Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation
of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction
over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with
a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US
DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as
well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well
as the Canadian Arctic.
NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental]
aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s
civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American
Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm
Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all
of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest
transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'"
(Ibid)
Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM,
a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group
(BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002,
with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and
sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United
States".
The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military
body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is
neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.
The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners",
who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork
for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works
in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee
at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military
planning".
Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the
Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).
The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions
As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting
the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions
in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency
plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US
border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the
BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios"
would involve:
"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from
civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in
the US or Canada."In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks,
the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security
Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded
in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security
Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It
also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.
What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration"
is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas
of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left
over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing
process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of
data banks, is completed?
Canada and NORTHCOM
Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two
years mandate.
No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the
national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and
"will make Canada more secure".
Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic
Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to
divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American
military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic
Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes
in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program
controlled by the Pentagon.
And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will
cease to function as a Nation:
• Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information
on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
• US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result
of a binational arrangement.
Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their
Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding
where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination.
Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial
control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.
The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced
the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the
spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not
only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of
the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military
command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East,
including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of
POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security
doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's
pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a
means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003.
(See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism"
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)
Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration,
policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation,
would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist
policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary
arrest of anti-war activists.
Chalmers Johnson (author of "Blowback") recommends that US citizens
buy an apartment in Canada (is there room for everyone?)
2/16/2004: "Chalmers Johnson: the Sorrows of Bush's Endgame
"If you listen to the Bush Ministry of Disinformation, Rush Limbaugh,
Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly -- and millions of Americans do, every day --
you get the impression people opposed to Bush's plan for endless war are Marxist
nutbars and shrill hate-America malcontents.
Sure, some of them are Marxists. But most of them are normal people. In fact,
some of them are even former CIA consultants.
Like Chalmers Johnson.
Johnson thought antiwar demonstrators during the Vietnam were naive. He voted
for Ronald Reagan. In retrospect, Johnson told John Wilkens of the San Diego
Union-Tribune, he was "a spear carrier for the empire." "If you have a little money, I'd prepare your escape route,"
Johnson says. "You might want to go up to Vancouver and buy yourself
a condo." I thought about this last year. In fact, I was looking at Vancouver.
But I don't have the money for a condo and, besides, I think America is worth
sticking around and fighting for. But the way things are going it may be a
lost battle.
Chalmers makes it sound bleak. "I fear that we will lose our country," Johnson
writes in his latest book, "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy,
and the End of the Republic."
Bush and the Pentagon are bankrupting the nation, dismantling the Constitution,
and leading us down the path to endless war. America is afflicted with the
same "economic sclerosis of the former USSR," Chalmers explains
in a ZNet interview. But at least Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet
Union before it imploded. No such luck with Bush and the neocons. "The
United States is not even trying to reform, but it is certain that vested
interests here would be as great or greater an obstacle. It is nowhere written
that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must
go on forever. The blowback from the second half of the twentieth century
has only just begun."
It's not a good sign when former Generals begin casually speculating on the
demise of the Constitution and the imposition of martial law, as Tommy Franks
did a while ago.
"I fear that [after 9/11] we are going to get even more militarism," Johnson told Jeff Shaw of In These Times magazine. "That is,
more and more functions -- including domestic police functions -- will be
transferred from civilian institutions to the military, and the military will
have ever greater authority in our society. We know how that will end. We're
talking here about imperial overstretch, and the weaknesses of the imperial
structure that will ultimately lead to a collapse... If this attack is an
attack on our foreign policy, as I believe it is, we should be looking much
harder at what our foreign policy is. If the United States is now going to
go out and bomb some innocent people in Afghanistan who have already gone
through two decades of living hell -- most of it sponsored by our government
and that of the other erstwhile superpower, the former Soviet Union. Then
you must say, we deserve what we're going to get."
Since there is no way to fight against the enormous military power and technology
of the United States, adversaries will increasingly resort to asymmetric warfare,
what Bush and the neocons call terrorism. Realizing they have no choice, Iran
and North Korea are attempting to build nukes. It may be the only way they
can prevent the United States from invading. Or it may give the US an excuse
to bomb those countries in "preemptive" fashion, as the neocons
like to call it.
Sooner or later somebody will light the Big Candle -- and that will be the
end of life as we know it. "The only hope for the planet is the isolation and neutralization
of the United States by the international community," Chalmers explains.
"Policies to do so are underway in every democratic country on earth
in quiet, unobtrusive ways. If the United States is not checkmated and nuclear
war ensues, civilization as we know it will disappear and the United States
will go into the history books along with the Huns and the Nazis as a scourge
of human life itself."
Johnson explained the "sorrows" mentioned in his latest book in
an interview with Steve Dalforno of Z magazine last November.
"I think four sorrows inevitably accompany our current path. First is
endless war... As it stands right now, since 9/11, Articles 4 and 6 of the
Bill of Rights are dead letters. They are over... Second, imperial overstretch...
The third thing is a tremendous rise in lying and deceit... The difficulty
to believe anything that the government says any longer because they are now
systematically lying to us on almost every issue. The fourth is bankruptcy.
Attempting to dominate the world militarily is a very expensive proposition...
The United States, for the last 15 years, has had trade deficits running at
5 percent every year. We are on the edge. If the rest of the world
decides not to cooperate with us or just the rich people of East Asia decide
the Euro is a better currency to put their money in
than the dollar, we become a junkyard almost at once. The stock exchange would
collapse and we would have a howling recession. All four of those
things are likely to prevail... [The United States suffers from an] inability
to reform. I think it is quite easy to imagine the defeat of George Bush as
president. I do not find it easy at all that any successor to George Bush
would make any difference... That leads me to the conclusion that we are probably
going to reap what we have sown. That is blowback."
That is scary.
John Kerry or Howard Dean or whatever vanilla flavor of Republican Lite the
Democrats throw out there will not make a lick of difference. Don't waste
your time voting for them.
Boycott the elections. Go in the street on March 20th. Make a stink. Bang
pots like the poor outside the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas,
Venezuela, when the CIA attempted to overthrow Hugo Chavez. Let them know
you're pissed.
Or buy a condo in Canada.
And hope the wind is blowing in the right direction on the day Bush launches
the nukes.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292
Unhappy Democrats Need to Wait to Get Into Canada
Wed Nov 3, 2004 01:16 PM ET
By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Disgruntled Democrats seeking a safe Canadian haven after
President Bush won Tuesday's election should not pack their bags just yet.
Canadian officials made clear on Wednesday that any U.S. citizens so fed up
with Bush that they want to make a fresh start up north would have to stand
in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that can take up to a
year.
"You just can't come into Canada and say 'I'm going to stay here'. In
other words, there has to be an application. There has to be a reason why
the person is coming to Canada," said immigration ministry spokeswoman
Maria Iadinardi.
There are anywhere from 600,000 to a million Americans living in Canada, a
country that leans more to the left than the United States and has traditionally
favored the Democrats over the Republicans.
But recent statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work
in Canada, which has a creaking publicly funded healthcare system and relatively
high levels of personal taxation.
Government officials, real estate brokers and Democrat activists said that
while some Americans might talk about a move to Canada rather than living
with a new Bush administration, they did not expect a mass influx.
"It's one thing to say 'I'm leaving for Canada' and quite another to
actually find a job here and wonder about where you're going to live and where
the children are going to go to school," said one government official.
Roger King of the Toronto-based Democrats Abroad group said he had heard nothing
to back up talk of a possible exodus of party members.
"I imagine most committed Democrats will want to stay in the United States
and continue being politically active there," he told Reuters.
Americans seeking to immigrate can apply to become permanent citizens of Canada,
a process that often takes a year. Becoming a full citizen takes a further
three years.
The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which
in all cases requires a work permit. This takes from four to six months to
come through.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-29.htm
Posted on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 at Harper's Magazine
Electing to Leave
A Readers Guide to Expatriating on November 3rd
by Bryant Urstadt
So the wrong candidate has won, and you want to leave the country. Let us
consider your options.
Renouncing your citizenship
Given how much the United States as a nation professes to value freedom, your
freedom to opt out of the nation itself is surprisingly limited. The State
Department does not record the annual number of Americans renouncing their
citizenship-"renunciants," as they are officially termed-but the
Internal Revenue Service publishes their names on a quarterly basis in the
Federal Register. The IRS's interest in the subject is, of course, purely
financial; since 1996, the agency has tracked ex-Americans in the hopes of
recouping tax revenue, which in some cases may be owed for up to ten years
after a person leaves the country. In any event, the number of renunciants
is small. In 2002, for example, the Register recorded only 403 departures,
of which many (if not most) were merely longtime resident aliens returning
home.
The most serious barrier to renouncing your citizenship is that the State
Department, which oversees expatriation, is reluctant to allow citizens to
go "stateless." Before allowing expatriation, the department will
want you to have obtained citizenship or legal asylum in another country-usually
a complicated and expensive process, if it can be done at all. Would-be renunciants
must also prove that they do not intend to live in the United States afterward.
Furthermore, you cannot renounce inside U.S. borders; the declaration must
be made at a consul's office abroad.
Those who imagine that exile will be easily won would do well to consider
the travails of Kenneth Nichols O'Keefe. An ex-Marine who was discharged,
according to his website, under "other than honorable conditions,"
O'Keefe has tried officially to renounce his citizenship twice without success,
first in Vancouver and then in the Netherlands. His initial bid was rejected
after the State Department concluded that he would return to the United States-a
credible inference, as O'Keefe in fact had returned immediately. After his
second attempt, O'Keefe waited seven months with no response before he tried
a more sensational approach. He went back to the consulate at The Hague, retrieved
his passport, walked outside, and lit it on fire. Seventeen days later, he
received a letter from the State Department informing him that he was still
an American, because he had not obtained the right to reside elsewhere. He
had succeeded only in breaking the law, since mutilating a passport is illegal.
It says so right on the passport.
Heading to Canada or Mexico
In your search for alternate citizenship, you might naturally think first
of Canada and Mexico. But despite the generous terms of NAFTA, our neighbors
to the north and south are, like us, far more interested in the flow of money
than of persons. Canada, in particular, is no longer a paradise awaiting American
dissidents: whereas in 1970 roughly 20,000 Americans became permanent residents
of Canada, that number has dropped over the last decade to an average of just
about 5,000. Today it takes an average of twenty-five months to be accepted
as a permanent resident, and this is only the first step in what is likely
to be a five-year process of becoming a citizen. At that point the gesture
of expatriation may already be moot, particularly if a sympathetic political
party has since resumed power.
Mexico's citizenship program is equally complicated. Seniors should know that
the country does offer a lenient program for retirees, who may essentially
stay as long as they want. But you will not be able to work or to vote, and,
more important, you must remain an American for at least five years.
France
Should one candidate win, those who opposed the Iraq war might hope to find
refuge in France, where a very select few are allowed to "assimilate"
each year. Assimilation is reserved for persons of non-French descent who
are able to prove that they are more French than American, having mastered
the language as well as the philosophy of the French way of life. Each case
is determined on its own merit, and decisions are made by the Ministère
de l'Emploi, du Travail, et de la Cohésion Social. When your name is
published in the Journal Officiel de la République Français,
you are officially a citizen, and may thereafter heckle the United States
with authentic Gallic zeal.
The coalition of the willing
Should the other candidate win, war supporters might naturally look to join
the coalition of the willing. But you may find a willing and developing nation
as difficult to join as an unwilling and developed one. It takes at least
five years to become a citizen of Pakistan, for instance, unless one marries
into a family, and each applicant for residency in Pakistan is judged on a
case-by-case basis. Uzbekistan imposes a five-year wait as well, with an additional
twist: the nation does not recognize dual citizenship, and so you will be
required to renounce your U.S. citizenship first. Given Uzbekistan's standard
of living (low), unemployment (high), and human-rights record (poor), this
would be something of a leap of faith.
The Caribbean
A more pleasant solution might be found in the Caribbean. Take, for example,
the twin-island nation of St. Kitts and Nevis, which Frommer's guide praises
for its "average year-round temperature of 79°F (26°C), low humidity,
white-sand beaches, and unspoiled natural beauty." Citizenship in this
paradise can be purchased outright. Prices start at around $125,000, which
includes a $25,000 application fee and a minimum purchase of $100,000 in bonds.
Processing time, which includes checks for criminal records and HIV, can take
up to three months, but with luck you could be renouncing by Inauguration
Day. The island of Dominica likewise offers a program of "economic citizenship,"
though it should be noted that Frommer's describes the beaches as "not
worth the effort to get there."
Speed is of the essence, however, because your choice of tropical paradises
is fast dwindling: similar passport-vending programs in Belize and Grenada
have been shut down since 2001 under pressure from the State Department, which
does not approve. In any case, it should be noted that under the aforementioned
IRS rules, you might well be forced to continue subsidizing needless invasions-or,
to be evenhanded, needless afterschool programs.
Indian reservations
Our Native American reservations, which enjoy freedom from state taxation
and law enforcement, might seem an ideal home for the political exile. But
becoming a citizen of a reservation is difficult-one must prove that one is
a descendant of a member of the original tribal base roll-and moreover would
be, as a gesture of political disaffection, largely symbolic. Reservations
remain subject to federal law; furthermore, citizens of a reservation hold
dual citizenships, and as such are expected to vote in U.S. elections and
to live with the results.
The high seas
You might consider moving yourself offshore. At a price of $1.3 million you
can purchase an apartment on The World, a residential cruise ship that moves
continuously, stopping at ports from Venice to Zanzibar to Palm Beach. Again,
however, your expatriation would be only partial: The World flies the flag
of the Bahamas, but its homeowners, who hail from all over Europe, Asia, and
the United States, retain citizenship in their home nations.
To obtain a similar result more cheaply, you can simply register your own
boat under a flag of convenience and float it outside the United States' 230-mile
zone of economic control. There, on your Liberian tanker, you will essentially
be an extension of that African nation, subject only to its laws, and may
imagine yourself free of oppressive government.
Micronations
The boldest approach is to start a nation of your own. Sadly, these days it
is essentially impossible to buy an uninhabited island and declare it a sovereign
nation: virtually every rock above the waterline is now under the jurisdiction
of one principality or another. But efforts have been made to build nations
on man-made structures or on reefs lying just below the waterline. Among the
more successful of these is the famous Principality of Sealand, which was
founded in 1967 on an abandoned military platform off the coast of Britain.
The following year a British judge ruled that the principality lay outside
the nation's territorial waters. New citizenships in Sealand, however, are
not being granted or sold at present.
A less fortunate attempt was made in 1972, when Michael Oliver, a Nevada businessman,
built an island on a reef 260 miles southwest of Tonga. Hiring a dredger,
he piled up sand and mud until he had enough landmass to declare independence
for his "Republic of Minerva." Unfortunately, the Republic of Minerva
was soon invaded by a Tongan force, whose number is said to have included
a work detail of prisoners, a brass band, and Tonga's 350-pound king himself.
The reef was later officially annexed by the kingdom.
More recently, John J. Prisco III, of the Philippines, has declared himself
the prince of the Principality of New Pacific, and announced that he has discovered
a suitable atoll in the international waters of the Central Pacific. As of
publication, the principality has yet to begin the first phase of construction,
but it is already accepting applications for citizenship.
Imaginary nations
Perhaps the most elegant solution is to join a country that exists only in
one's own-or someone else's-imagination. Many such virtual nations can be
found on the Internet, and citizenships in them are easy to acquire. This,
in fact, was the route most recently attempted by Kenneth Nichols O'Keefe,
the unfortunate ex-Marine. In February 2003, O'Keefe went to Baghdad to serve
as a human shield, traveling with a passport issued to him by the "World
Service Authority," an outfit based in Washington, D.C., that has dubbed
more than 1.2 million people "world citizens." While laying over
in Turkey, however, he was detained; Turkey, as it turns out, does not recognize
the World Service Authority. O'Keefe was forced to apply for a replacement
U.S. passport from the State Department, which rather graciously complied.
Upon his arrival in Baghdad, O'Keefe promptly set the replacement passport
on fire. But he remains, to his dismay, an American.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-28.htm
Published on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Ten Reasons Not to Move to Canada
by Sarah Anderson
Ready to say screw this country and buy a one-way ticket north? Here are
some reasons to stay in the belly of the beast.
1. The Rest of the World. After the February 2003 antiwar protests, the
New York Times described the global peace movement as the world's second superpower.
Their actions didn't prevent the war, but protestors in nine countries have
succeeded in pressuring their governments to pull their troops from Iraq and/or
withdraw from the so-called coalition of the willing. Antiwar Americans
owe it to the majority of the people on this planet who agree with them to
stay and do what they can to end the suffering in Iraq and prevent future
pre-emptive wars.
2. People Power Can Trump Presidential Power. The strength of social movements
can be more important than whoever is in the White House. Example: In 1970,
President Nixon supported the Occupational Safety and Health Act, widely considered
the most important pro-worker legislation of the last 50 years. It didn't
happen because Nixon loved labor unions, but because union power was strong.
Stay and help build the peace, economic justice, environmental and other social
movements that can make change.
3. The great strides made in voter registration and youth mobilization must
be built on rather than abandoned.
4. Like Nicaraguans in the 1980s, Iraqis Need U.S. Allies. After Ronald
Reagan was re-elected in 1984, progressives resisted the urge to flee northwards
and instead stayed to fight the U.S. governments secret war of arming the
contras in Nicaragua and supporting human rights atrocities throughout Central
America. Iraq is a different scenario, but we can still learn from the U.S.-Central
America solidarity work that exposed illegal U.S. activities and their brutal
consequences and ultimately prevailed by forcing a change in policy.
5. We Can't Let up on the Free Trade Front Activists have held the Bush
administration at bay on some issues. On trade, opposition in the United States
and in developing countries has largely blocked the Bush administrations corporate-driven
trade agenda for four years. The President is expected to soon appoint a new
top trade negotiator to break the impasse. Whoever he picks would love to
see a progressive exodus to Canada.
6. Barak Obama. His victory to become the only African-American in the U.S.
Senate was one of the few bright spots of the election. An early opponent
of the Iraq war, Obama trounced his primary and general election opponents,
even in white rural districts, showing he could teach other progressives a
few things about broadening their base. As David Moberg of In These Times
puts it, Obama demonstrates how a progressive politician can redefine mainstream
political symbols to expand support for liberal policies and politicians rather
than engage in creeping capitulation to the right.
7. Say so long to the DLC. Barry Goldwater suffered a resounding defeat
when he ran for president against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but his campaign
spawned a conservative movement that eventually gained control of the Republican
Party and elected Ronald Reagan in 1980. Progressives should see the excitement
surrounding Dean, Kucinich, Moseley Braun, and Sharpton during the primary
season as the foundation for a similar takeover of the Democratic Party.
8. 2008. President Bush is entering his second term facing an escalating
casualty rate in Iraq, a record trade deficit, a staggering budget deficit,
sky-high oil prices, and a deeply divided nation. As the Republicans face
likely failure, progressives need to start preparing for regime change in
2008 or sooner. Remember that Nixon was re-elected with a bigger margin than
Bush, but faced impeachment within a year.
9. Americans are Not All Yahoos. Although I wouldn't attempt to convince
a Frenchman of it right now, many surveys indicate that Americans are more
internationalist than the election results suggest. In a September poll by
the University of Maryland, majorities of Bush supporters expressed support
for multilateral approaches to security, including the United States being
part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (68%), the International Criminal
Court (75%), the treaty banning land mines (66%), and the Kyoto Treaty on
climate change (54%). The problem is that most of these Bush supporters weren't
aware that Bush opposed these positions. Stay and help turn progressive instincts
into political power.
10. Winter. Average January temperature in Ottawa: 12.2°F.
Sarah Anderson (saraha@igc.org) is a fellow of the Institute for Policy
Studies.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1099000208964
Toronto Star
Oct. 30, 2004. 01:00 AM
Canada at risk from U.S. malaise
Divisive election a nightmare scenario
THOMAS WALKOM
A crisis of legitimacy is brewing in America. The divisions inside the U.S.
between supporters of President George W. Bush and challenger John Kerry are
so deep as to be almost irresolvable.
No matter who wins in Tuesday's presidential vote, the outcome seems destined
for rejection by almost half the country -- particularly if the results are
close.
Each side accuses the other of encouraging voter fraud. Both have hired legions
of lawyers ready to contest the results as soon as they are known.
Far too many Democratic voters assume that Bush stole the last election and
is out to steal this one.
Far too many Republican voters assume that Kerry's efforts to register blacks,
youth and others who don't usually vote are attempts at massive electoral
fraud.
Far too many on both sides assume that if their man does not win, America
will be placed in mortal danger.
For the U.S., this is potentially tragic. Democracies work only if those who
lose at election time accept the outcome.
But for Canada, a legitimacy crisis in America is downright dangerous.
Our relations are tricky enough when the U.S. functions properly. A systemically
dysfunctional America promises nightmares.
When Canadians talk about the effect of American elections on this country,
they usually are referring to the perennial batch of cross-border trade disputes.
Will the U.S. continue to discriminate against Canadian softwood lumber? Will
it reopen the border, partially closed as a result of the mad cow scare, to
Canadian beef? Will it continue to rail against existence of the Canadian
Wheat Board?
Since the 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington, these hardy perennials
have been joined by an entirely new crop of bilateral Canada-U.S. issues.
Will the Americans expect us to join them in their missile defence adventure?
Will they up the pressure to help them out in Iraq? Will they continue to
push for a Fortress North America security perimeter in which Canada plays
only the most junior of roles?
Will they be nicer to the multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations,
in which Canada places so much stock?
At some moments in history, the outcome of the quadrennial American presidential
election does matter.
The fact that Ronald Reagan was president in the mid-1980s had much to do
with the Canada-U.S. free trade deal.
The fact of George W. Bush's presidency in 2000 forced Canada and the rest
of the world to re-evaluate the structure of Western international co-operation
that America itself created after World War II.
Is Tuesday's election equally pivotal? Some, particularly those critical of
Bush, argue that it is.
However, for a wide range of bread-and-butter issues, it is not clear that
the outcome matters that much to Canada.
Theoretically, Republicans are open to free trade. Yet, Bush's record has
been one of higher subsidies for U.S. farmers and more protection for U.S.
industry.
Theoretically, Democrats are more protectionist. Yet, during his career as
a senator, Kerry placed himself firmly in the camp of the so-called Clinton
Democrats, fans of fiscal conservatism and open borders.
Kerry has talked during his campaign of getting tough with what he calls unfair
trade. But when pressed, he refers not to America's largest trading partner,
Canada, but to China.
In truth, Canada doesn't matter much in Washington. To Congress, which has
significant authority over economic matters, Canadians are just another lobby
group, albeit a particularly ineffectual one that can neither vote nor legally
donate money.
Reacting to this, Canadian policy-makers place much importance in the president,
and particularly to the relationship between America's head of state and whoever
happens to be this country's prime minister.
Yet, even at the presidential level, U.S. domestic politics trumps all. Former
prime minister Jean Chrétien had a warm relationship with then-president
Bill Clinton and a frosty one with Bush.
That didn't stop the Clinton administration from levying punishing assaults
on Canadian softwood lumber. Nor did the alleged Bush-Chrétien animosity
interfere with Canada's booming export trade to U.S. markets.
Some Senate Democrats, such as South Dakota's Tom Daschle, are vehemently
opposed to opening the U.S. border to Canadian beef. This certainly would
make it difficult for a Democratic president Kerry to move on the issue.'If
Kerry wins, Canada ... will be under more pressure to go into Iraq'
Stephen Clarkson, University of Toronto But, as U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci
noted recently, such domestic opposition has made it equally difficult for
a Republican president like Bush to solve the problem.
Prime Minister Paul Martin calls improved Canada-U.S. relations a priority.
Yet, the record shows that foreign leaders who tie their stars too closely
to a particular U.S. president do so at their own risk.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's loyalty to Bush has hurt him at home.
Mexican President Vicente Fox, who gambled that he could strike a key immigration
deal with Bush, was left crippled domestically once the U.S. leader switched
his focus to war.
Many Canadians assume that Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, would be friendlier
to this country than the somewhat less knowledgeable Bush (famously ridiculed
four years ago for responding seriously to fictitious statements from an equally
fictitious Canadian prime minister named "Jean Poutine"). Yet, there
is no evidence of that.
"Canadians should disabuse themselves of the notion that presidents from
states close to the border have a better sense of Canada, because it is empirically
incorrect," says University of Toronto political scientist John Kirton,
a trade specialist.
"This election won't matter much to us as North American citizens,"
says fellow U of T political scientist Stephen Clarkson, who has written extensively
on Canada-U.S. relations. "But it will matter to us as global citizens."
Certainly, most of the rest of the world thinks Tuesday's contest matters.
Polls show that in countries around the globe (Russia and Israel being two
notable exceptions), most hope Kerry will win.
In Canada, the figures were 60 per cent for Kerry, 20 per cent for Bush. But
how much of a difference would a Kerry victory mean in terms of America's
relations overall with the rest of the world? If one takes the challengers'
campaign rhetoric seriously, the answer is not clear.
Bush says he is committed to the pacification of Iraq and wants to involve
other countries. Kerry says the same thing.
Bush says he'll leave American troops in that country until the job is done.
So does Kerry, although he says he hopes that task will be accomplished within
four years.
Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Kerry has made
it clear that he won't sign it either.
Bush opposes the idea of the new International Criminal Court having any jurisdiction
over Americans alleged to have committed war crimes. So, it seems, does Kerry.
Bush wants a North American missile defence system. Kerry does, too, although
he has been critical of Bush's specific plan and insists that missile defence
would not be such a high priority for him.
In a vague and generalized way, Kerry is keener than Bush about mending relations
with America's old allies. But as Clarkson points out, this contains its own
dangers. If, as president, Kerry makes a bow to multilateralism, he will expect
America's old friends to help out where it counts -- in Iraq.
"If Kerry wins, Canada -- like France and Germany -- will be under more
pressure to go into Iraq," Clarkson says. "We'll have to do something,
or else in a month or two he'll be in as bad a position as Bush."
All of this assumes a normally functioning America. The wild card, however,
is the vote itself and the willingness of the majority of Americans to accept
the official results - particularly if the Supreme Court or Congress has to
step in.
The history here is mixed.
Americans take their politics seriously. Four sitting presidents -- Abraham
Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy -- have been
assassinated. Disgruntled U.S citizens have tried to kill at least two others.
Only once in America's history has a presidential election been overwhelmingly
rejected by a significant section of the country. But that particular rejection,
of Lincoln in 1860, led to a bloody civil war.
Yet, there have been other less well-known close calls.
In 1876, the business of the Republic ground to a halt for months as the country
tried to decide who had won that year's presidential election.
Federal troops were sent to Washington to keep order. One Kentucky Congressman
promised a march on the capital of 100,000 men to assure the victory of his
candidate.
As in 2000, the 1876 stalemate was the result, in part, of the peculiarities
of the U.S. system. The Democratic candidate, Samuel Tilden, won the popular
vote decisively. But his Republican opponent, Rutherford Hayes, appeared to
have a one-vote edge in the Electoral College that actually chooses the president.
The 1876 contest was further confused by the fact that Republicans and Democrats
in three southern states (including, ironically, Florida) elected rival slates
of Electoral College members, each vying for the right to help select the
president.
That particular stalemate was resolved when Hayes (elected, in part, by the
votes of freed slaves in the south) secretly agreed to end all efforts at
post-war reconstruction, thereby consigning those same ex-slaves to almost
100 years more of second-class status.
In return, Democrats in the Congress agreed to support Hayes and officially
declared him the winner. Since only blacks were disadvantaged by the deal,
the results were accepted by everyone else.
It's not at all clear this time that Americans are in as accommodating a mood.
"They'll have huge legitimacy problems no matter who is elected,"
Clarkson says. "That has to have an impact abroad.
"Back when Quebec was first electing separatist governments, the Americans
were worried about instability on their northern border. They moved tanks
up to the border during the referendum (on Quebec separation).
"Now, it's our turn to be worried."
Additional articles by Thomas Walkom
Americans flock to Canada's immigration Web site
Fri November 05, 2004 01:30 PM ET
By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration
Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning
their homeland after President George W. Bush's election win this week.
"When we looked at the first day after the election, November 3, our
Web site hit a new high, almost double the previous record high," immigration
ministry spokeswoman Maria Iadinardi said on Friday.
On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the Web
site, www.cic.gc.ca -- a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on Wednesday. The
number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday, still well above
the norm.
Bush's victory sparked speculation that disconsolate Democrats and others
might decide to start a new life in Canada, a land that tilts more to the
left than the United States.
Would-be immigrants to Canada can apply to become permanent resident, a process
that often takes a year. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis
is to find a job, which requires a work permit.
But please spare the sob stories.
Asked whether an applicant would be looked upon more sympathetically if they
claimed to be a sad Democrat seeking to escape four more years of Bush, Iadinardi
replied: "There would be no weight given to statements of feelings."
Canada is one of the few major nations with an large-scale immigration policy.
Ottawa is seeking to attract between 220,000 and 240,000 newcomers next year.
"Let's face it, we have a population of a little over 32 million and
we definitely need permanent residents to come to Canada," said Iadinardi.
"If we could meet (the 2005) target and go above it, the more the merrier."
But right now it is too early to say whether the increased interest will result
in more applications.
"There is no unusual activity occurring at our visa missions (in the
United States). Having someone who intends to come to Canada is not the same
as someone actually putting in an application," said Iadinardi.
"We'll only find out whether there has been an increase in applications
in six months."
The waiting time to become a citizen is shorter for people married to Canadians,
which prompted the birth of a satirical Web site called www.marryanamerican.ca.
The idea of increased immigration by unhappy Americans is triggering some
amusement in Canada. Commentator Thane Burnett of the Ottawa Sun newspaper
wrote a tongue-in-cheek guide to would-be new citizens on Friday.
"As Canadians, you'll have to learn to embrace and use all the products
and culture of Americans, while bad-mouthing their way of life," he said.
