Immigration patrols on domestic Amtrak

On Jul 23, 6:41 pm, sechumlib wrote:
On 2007-07-23 18:14:15 -0400, Sapphyre said:

Do you guys ever look stuff up before responding as though I make
things up like types of ID, tax rates for where I live, etc? This
stuff is all easily available on the Internet.

We're not the ones who need the info.

You are missing the point. I said I lived in Ontario and paid 14%
sales taxes on items I bought. Someone replied and told me they were
mistified by the Ontario surtax and that it sounded like I lived in
the Atlantic provinces. Don't be mistified, just check it out. It's
not my job to argue where I do or do not live. I don't need the info,
I formerly worked in retail, so I know very well what taxes I add to
purchases. Obviously if someone's asking for clarification, they want
to know, what I don't get, is if eveyrthing I write is so confusing to
read, why not check online. If you don't live in Ontario or visit
here, you don't need to know what taxes I pay here either.

S.

On Jul 23, 6:48 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
I believe that would be a non-immigrant (travel) visa, a form most Canadians
wouldn't have filled out. Most Canadians don't require visas to enter the US.

Canadians are the only one exempt. It's either an I-94 or I-94w. I
used the I-94w.

I never said I had a passport while being a PR,
Quoted above, you just said you entered the US with a foreign (to Canada)
passport, the passport of the country of your previous nationality, yes? Until
the recent change in the law, Canadians not immigrating to the United States
didn't require passports nor visas.

Eek, you got me there... Yes, I had a foreign (to Canada) passport to
enter the US. I should have specified that I didn't have a Canadian
passport while in possession of PR status in Canada (which someone
seemed to think I had). Heh, guess I type faster than I think.

I wasn't talking in circles. When I made the comment, it wasn't clear to
me from your messages that you'd subsequently been nationalized.

Sorry, I am a little testy because of some comments I get, and when I
say something and someone quotes the law (which is correct, the quote)
but the information is irrelevant because my post is misunderstood...
let's say I'm easily frustrated? Okay, I think we have it understood.
This all came about because I was posting various experiences and
someone noticed that I referred to myself in both statuses while
travelling. The status of my presences in Canada is only relevant when
referring to the treatment I get crossing borders, since I am going to
be processed differently as a Canadian than as not a Canadian, as
you've pointed out.

Funny how this may seem, I never had a single problem crossing the
border until I did a few things 1) naturalize, 2) legally change my
name, 3) get a Canadian passport. I didn't cross in the 18 months that
all this was being achieved, but it's like I became blacklisted as a
suspected terrorist who is trying to hide because I did these things.
I don't know if it's warranted or not, some might say it's better to
be careful than sorry... but I live my life in a law abiding way in
Canada, so I'm not used to being treated with suspicion (generally
speaking).

I understand you were identifying yourself as friendly at the immigration
check. Don't really know much about immigration law, but I don't see how
showing it complies with US law since it's a foreign visa. I assume that
you were required to show it to return to Canada, yes?

We have been required to show a PR card to return to Canada only since
2004, but I had my card issued in 2000 which I have shown. Yes, I know
that's not a direct answer, but was I required? No, not when I
travelled 2003 and before. Did I? Yes, of course. If you don't have a
PR card (pre 2004), you were able to show your landing papers (it's a
certificate with nice colours, typed text with your landing details
and a photograph) as proof of PR status. They changed that in January
2004 (if I remember correctly because of the stigma in the newspapers
about it, and it affected some of my friends who made Christmas travel
plans). I turned in my PR card in July of 2004, and did not travel at
all in 2004 to the best of my memory, so the requirement to show it
did not affect me directly.

My dad told me that visitors to Canada who are travelling are treated
differently than residents at Immigration because they would want
proof of return to where it is I'm returning to (vaguely speaking). He
said if I have a PR card, they know that place is Canada, so
travelling on foot, by bus or in a car with friends would make it
obvious that I'm going back to Canada with them, AND prove to
officials that I'm allowed to return to Canada so they don't have to
deport me to where ever. He thought it was a good idea, I don't know
what other people would have done. Since I arrived in 1981 on my
mother's passport, records of my original arrival are sketchy at best,
dad told me to get the card before leaving Canada. 2000 was the first
time I left Canada by myself. I'm only almost 30, so any travel
experience I had pre-2000 would have been when I was very little.

S.

On 2007-07-23 21:05:42 -0400, Sapphyre said:

On Jul 23, 6:41 pm, sechumlib wrote:
On 2007-07-23 18:14:15 -0400, Sapphyre said:

Do you guys ever look stuff up before responding as though I make
things up like types of ID, tax rates for where I live, etc? This
stuff is all easily available on the Internet.

We're not the ones who need the info.

You are missing the point. I said I lived in Ontario and paid 14%
sales taxes on items I bought. Someone replied and told me they were
mistified by the Ontario surtax and that it sounded like I lived in
the Atlantic provinces. Don't be mistified, just check it out. It's
not my job to argue where I do or do not live. I don't need the info,
I formerly worked in retail, so I know very well what taxes I add to
purchases. Obviously if someone's asking for clarification, they want
to know, what I don't get, is if eveyrthing I write is so confusing to
read, why not check online. If you don't live in Ontario or visit
here, you don't need to know what taxes I pay here either.

We are not missing the basic point, which is that you seem to be very
argumentative for no good reason. You keep posting these nasty messages
about things that apparently don't really matter to you; why? There
seems little point in just arguing for the sake of argument.

On 24 Jul 2007 00:02:51 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

Nobody wrote:
Clark F Morris wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:50 -0700, Sapphyre wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:36 pm, Hatunen wrote:

We do have a case here in Tucson of a woman who came to the USA
very young and had no idea she wasn't a citizen. She's been
voting here and all, but now this has come out. It's causing here
a real headache because she is actually an illegal, although she
had no idea of that.

That really oughta suck to be her...

As for your earlier comment, yes, everyone should have papers, but how
many people carry their naturalization papers on them all the time?
Most people get ID and documents and carry those (SSN card, driver's
license, state ID card, or whatever else you guys call ID in Ameirca).

In Canada, I have more ID than most, only because I needed to apply
for this and that to prove I have the right to stay here now that I'm
naturalized. Most people here have a birth certificate, health card,
and driver's license, if even... I know, because I used to take ID
from people as part of my daily job, and i met all sorts who were
probably born here, but couldn't prove it to save their life.

There are a number of people in Canada who found out that they lost
their citizenship due to obscure changes in the law regarding time
spent out of country and other things. Many World War II brides have
gotten caught by another change. I don't recall the details but the
CBC web-site (Canada's national radio/TV network) www.cbc.ca should
have more information.

Canadian citizenship didn't exist till 1 January 1947... the problems
(in simple terms) are tied up with complications from what was known
as being a "British subject"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law

I read the article, taking the usual grain of salt. That does not blame
Canada's earlier nationality laws, based on British law. All by
themselves, the Canadians thunk up the concept of expiring citizenship
that had to be renewed on one's 28th birthday. That's outrageous.

You're not reading the DETAIL of what triggers that.

Also, I love the bit about unregistered citizens born abroad not having
citizenship recognized, being required to apply for retroactive
recognition by a deadline. The infant's parents would have been
traveling on passport (unless they happened to give birth in the US) and
would have known to apply for a passport, else they couldn't have
brought the kid back into Canada. How isn't that a birth registration?

Merritt has told us the story several times of his son's inability to
prove that he was a native born American, father American, mother
Japanese, born abroad. Finally, they remembered that he was issued a
passport as a newborn infant, and thus the State Department recognized
him as a native.

Surely the same thing is true of Canadians born abroad.

In message "Stephen
Sprunk" wrote:

It's in their interests to have as bad a security setup as
the FDIC will let them get away with.

No, it's in their interests to have as CHEAP a security setup as the
FDIC (and other insurance carriers) will let them get away with.

Bad and cheap are closely related, but not 100%.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Nobody wrote:
On 24 Jul 2007 00:02:51 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Nobody wrote:

Canadian citizenship didn't exist till 1 January 1947... the problems
(in simple terms) are tied up with complications from what was known
as being a "British subject"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law

I read the article, taking the usual grain of salt. That does not blame
Canada's earlier nationality laws, based on British law. All by
themselves, the Canadians thunk up the concept of expiring citizenship
that had to be renewed on one's 28th birthday. That's outrageous.

You're not reading the DETAIL of what triggers that.

Yes, I did, but the detail was entirely invented in Canadian law and had
nothing to do with prior British law. It was arbitrary and capricious.

DevilsPGD wrote:
In message "Stephen
Sprunk" wrote:

It's in their interests to have as bad a security setup as
the FDIC will let them get away with.

No, it's in their interests to have as CHEAP a security setup as the
FDIC (and other insurance carriers) will let them get away with.

Bad and cheap are closely related, but not 100%.


Nonsense!

I worked in bank operations for 13 years, and while it is a bit out of
my area of expertise, I don't think FDIC insurance covers bank
robberies. Banks have private insurance for that, and the rates are far,
far higher and in addition to FDIC deposit insurance.

FDIC insures the customer's deposits, which would only come into play if
the bank were robbed of sufficient cash to cause it to not be able to
pay withdrawals. Consider that only about 10% of a bank's assets are
actual cash, and you begin to get the picture. Most of a bank's assets
are in loans receivable, with a much smaller amount as deposits at other
banks, the federal reserve, and finally a much smaller amount as actual
cash. where I worked, our assets were roughly 1 billion ($1,000,000,000)
but our typical cash in all branches was something like five million
($5,000,000).


A typical bank robber only walks away with something like $3,000. Even a
"take over" robbery where the vault is empties would not result in
enough of a loss in assets to get FDIC the involved except in the case
of a very poorly run bank.

The difference in cost, on a day after day basis for an armed guard
verses a not armed guard (or no guard) adds up to an awful lot of money,
and I'd say in most cases, a lot more than you will lose from
robberies. Actually, the loss from a typical "robber hands teller a
note" robbery comes in under the deductible for the bank's insurance and
is simply written up as an operating loss.

Regards,

DAve

James Robinson wrote:
...
Essentially, people born outside the country to Canadian parents had to be
registered, and had to live in the country a certain number of years before
their 23rd birthday. If their parents didn't properly register the births,
they weren't automatically citizens.

The government is supposedly rushing through legislation to correct the
problem, since so many people were affected.

There's a good description of the issues at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/war-brides/



--
Seinfeld Lists http://tinyurl.com/f7k9d
Sawyer's Nicknames http://tinyurl.com/gowma

Whitelightning wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
...
I suppose WWII era had a few draft dodgers, but no one has ever said.


yes they did and if caught they did jail time. One who ran in the face of
the enemy
was caught, convicted and shot.

Martin Sheen, I believe. ;-)




--
Seinfeld Lists http://tinyurl.com/f7k9d
Sawyer's Nicknames http://tinyurl.com/gowma

Hatunen wrote:
...
Uh. If he ran in the face of the enemy he wasn't a draft dodger.

Right, a deserter. Still can't listen to "Have yourself a Merry Little
Christmas" without thinking about Martin Sheen's death scene in "The
Execution of Eddie Slovik".






--
Seinfeld Lists http://tinyurl.com/f7k9d
Sawyer's Nicknames http://tinyurl.com/gowma