Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)

RE: Freedoms

I want to clarify - I don't believe corporations per se are evil, but when you team them with government you get a nasty beast called "corporate fascism." A beast which our current president's in bed with as much as any other, unfortunately.

And that's the way it is because people here are okay with it (or ignorant of it). Otherwise, Ron Paul would be our current president.

RE: Freedoms

RE: Freedoms

That's a point that a lot of Americans on here seem to have trouble with... They're all ONE - different sides of the same coin. (With a notable exception here and there like Ron Paul.)

RE: Freedoms

Div, check out this account from an actual American citizen:

"I, too, am a dual citizen of both the US and Canada -- a citizen of the US because I was born in the US, and a citizen of Canada because I went through the Canadian naturalization process (an action which did not cause me to lose my US citizenship)."



"But I thought US law didn't permit one to be a dual citizen -- that if you were (by birth or otherwise), you either had to give up the other citizenship when you came of age, or else you'd lose your US status. And that if you became a citizen of another country, you'd automatically lose your US citizenship. So what's all this talk about dual citizenship?

It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.

Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent -- at least in theory -- to people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation and continues to consider the person's original citizenship to be in effect.

The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized (i.e., accepted) as a fact of life. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they'll almost always say it's OK. "

RE: Freedoms

The USCIS site is non-searchable at the moment, but this is from the US Dept. of State:

"Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship."

And (from another, non-gov., site):


Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952).

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not define dual citizenship or take a position for it or against it. There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship
exists. United States law does not contain any provisions requiring U.S. citizens who are born with dual citizenship or who acquire a second citizenship at an early age to choose one or the other when they become adults (Mandeli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133) (1952). The current citizenship laws of the United States do not specifically refer to dual citizenship. While recognizing the existence of dual citizenship and permitting Americans to have other citizenships, the U.S. Government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy because of the problems that it may cause.

RE: Freedoms

True, IF the country of origin does not permit dual citizenship, THEN you can't have dual citizenship with that (or those) countries. However, it neither Canada nor the U.S. prohibit dual citizenship, so one can - and many do - have dual Canadian/US citizenship.

RE: Freedoms

Hmmm...well, then check these out:

RE: Freedoms

Diva, to my knowledge the U.S. does permit dual citizenship. I've been looking into that because I have someone in Canada I've grown kinda fond of.

RE: Freedoms

Yes, I agree, Jacquie. The Patriot Act is the U.S. at its very worst.

RE: Freedoms

I seem to recall Clinton bombing a few people himself, Diva... Granted, nothing on the scale of the Little (Would-be) Dictator, Bush.

RE: Freedoms

Right, Jacquie. The US is VERY uneven in its applications of freedom. In some ways we're virtually totalitarian! I think the main thing about Americans is that they believe freedom is a premier talking point for debating various political issues. That is, they debate the subject, then generally go ahead and adopt rules granting government more power.

RE: Freedoms

It's still legal to kill Native Americans in South Dakota (e.g., if three or more are present at once). It doesn't happen that often here, though.

RE: Freedoms

To expand a bit on what I think might be the difference between European and Americans' views of freedom is that Americans in general hold it to be an important if not preeminent issue, whereas Europeans in general would be more likely to name "quality of life" or something similar as the preeminent issue.

Do you think I have that right, O?

RE: Freedoms

Well, here in America we're free to hurt others, so I think we've go you beat, O!

Seriously, though, I had an interesting discussion with a Norwegian customer years back where he informed me that names were regulated by the Norwegian government (there was a limit on certain surnames, he claimed, if I recall correctly).

I thought I misunderstood him, and asked him to clarify, and he stuck to his claim.

Was he BSing me, O, or is that true?

RE: Freedoms

By the way, I think this is an excellent thread idea, Oslo. I'm fascinated by how people of other Western countries view this issue. I certainly expect them to view it VERY different from how I do - I'm a libertarian - but then I could say the same about Americans.

RE: Freedoms

I'd guess that Americans enjoy marginally more freedoms than do Europeans in general (I'm thinking principally of Germany, Spain, UK, and France). However, there is some considerable variation in freedom from state to state within the U.S.

By "freedom," I'm thinking mainly of government interference in exchanges between individuals, and also of "civil liberties" such as freedom of speech. Germany and Canada, for instance, do not permit as much freedom of speech as does the U.S. (so-called "hate-speech" is illegal in those countries, for instance).

There are doubtless more differences of that nature, but I wouldn't expect that they're particularly substantive. Americans are more enamored of talking about liberty than actually believing in it.

There was a point in our past where we were vastly freer by any rational measurement than we or other countries are now (but then one could say the same of Great Britain, which is a 1984ish parody of its original self).

RE: Playing the Field

Then he's not only a thoughtless jerk, but a brainless one as well.

RE: Now these are what I call put downs with class.

Pretty fantastic, G!

RE: I read "20 minutes with the President" by Charlie Sheen ,Do you think 9/11 was an inside job

Actually, the US intelligence community was well-aware of this scenario (one of the many controversies about 9/11), and in fact war games involving hypothetically hijacked commercial airliners were being conducted just before the actual event.

I have a question for all you apparently self-confident proclaimers that the Bush Administration conspiracy theory is the gospel truth and that anyone questioning that account is a nutcase: Have you ever read anything of substance - critical or otherwise - about the subject? By "substance" I mean books or formal essays on 9/11, not a newspaper article or two.

I have, and I think the truly gullible ones - incredibly gullible, actually - are those who buy the Bush Administration line.

RE: Challenges of the Long Distance Relationship

Of course I can't help but wonder what went wrong? A year of being together like that would've - I would think - have been pretty intense?

RE: Challenges of the Long Distance Relationship

You have to work hard to keep the communication flowing, but the bottom line is that you or your partner must be willing to relocate and/or travel. Absent that, your love will be "DOA."

RE: What can I learn from this?

Well, I think when we experience something negatively it feels more like the experience is imposing itself on us, but when we find something positive in an unpleasant event, it's more like we're imposing our will on the event. It's empowering, I think, to be able to do that.

Always a pleasure to provide pleasure, Athens.

RE: Love is found on CS!

It's not that long of a drive, Bridget. Funny how the miles fly by when you're in love...until you run into that nosy customs agent at the border! Oh, the questions they will ask Ken or you.

RE: What can I learn from this?

Olive trees?

An interesting OP, Athens. I think you're onto something there. For me, it's one of life's big lessons - that your perspective on events has so much to do with how one experiences them.

RE: Love is found on CS!

Ah, another Canadian-American love affair!

Have you two lovebirds met yet? I'm up in Canada right now enjoying my most exceptional love!

RE: Faithful

You think she was joking?

RE: How important are looks to you when looking for a date?

Speaking of looks, that kitty of yours continues to freak me out...

RE: What was the original sin caused by Adam & Eve?

What could be more fair than that? Besides, having created humans and given them a particular nature, when they act according to their nature they clearly deserve their creator's ire and tough love. What could be more obvious than that?

RE: What was the original sin caused by Adam & Eve?

Thanks for clarifying all that for us, Rilly.

RE: What was the original sin caused by Adam & Eve?

The original sin was being human. I think God was having a bad-logic day when he decided that.