Immigration patrols on domestic Amtrak

"Nobody" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:41:34 -0400, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)"
wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
...
Is SIN used as a taxpayer identification number too?

Authorized uses of the SIN in Canada:
http://tinyurl.com/2lx4kb (government web site)


The Big Catch-All comes under the Income Tax Act, explanatory clause 5
in this link's simplified usages.

I fought for years with banks which demanded my SIN for the simplest
of transactions.

I won for a while... the Social Insurance Number was never
intended/designed to be the "Big Brother Watcher" it has turned into
(or, into which it has turned, if the English-language purists who
permeate here, get involved).

It is the LAW in Canada then WHENEVER a Canadian financial institution asks
for your SIN it MUST be given. Fine is $100 a DAY for non-compliance.

James Robinson wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

There is nothing like this in American law either. An American (due to
the nationality of one or both parents) born abroad is a native
American, period, no potential loss of citizenship thanks to a
bureaucratic snafu. What other free world country has such a
capricious law recognizing nativity?

The US does have some similar requirements related to births abroad. The
person can essentially claim citizenship prior to their 18th birthday under
what is called expedited naturalization. If they don't act before their
birthday, that option expires.

http://travel.state.gov/family/adopt.../info_456.html

Huh. It seems there are circumstances in which a child born of an
American isn't automatically an American if the American parent hasn't
lived here for at least five years.

"Sapphyre" wrote in message
oups.com...

However if you visit Quebec, and you buy something for $10.00,
you pay $0.60 GST and PST on the value of $10.60. (Unless they
changed that since I lived there...)

They have not.

Richard

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:13:56 GMT, "sharx35"
wrote:


"Nobody" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:41:34 -0400, "TheNewsGuy(Mike)"
wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
...
Is SIN used as a taxpayer identification number too?

Authorized uses of the SIN in Canada:
http://tinyurl.com/2lx4kb (government web site)


The Big Catch-All comes under the Income Tax Act, explanatory clause 5
in this link's simplified usages.

I fought for years with banks which demanded my SIN for the simplest
of transactions.

I won for a while... the Social Insurance Number was never
intended/designed to be the "Big Brother Watcher" it has turned into
(or, into which it has turned, if the English-language purists who
permeate here, get involved).

It is the LAW in Canada then WHENEVER a Canadian financial institution asks
for your SIN it MUST be given. Fine is $100 a DAY for non-compliance.



As I intimated in my previous post, "I fought the Law, and The Law
won"! I refused to provide chartered banks with my SIN... but....

The SIN system from (when? early 1960's?) was NEVER intended to be
the catch-all it has ballooned to be.

And it certainly cannot be regarded as "identification". It's a card
with a bunch of nuimbers and a name. Whose? For what?

Even my workplace "Extended Health Plan/Dental Plan" insisted on using
it for a while as their ID number until enough people said "NO!" on
privacy reasons.

The group won.

In article ews.net,
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Nobody wrote:
On 24 Jul 2007 03:39:21 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
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.

No you're not.. you're equating what you want Canadian law to be,
vis-a-vis your American view.

A lot of us in this world could give a "fig" what youse Ammuricans
think.

That's really brain-dead counter-criticism, given that you idiots CHANGED the
law so that citizenship no longer expires. In America, citizenship DOES
NOT expire, period, assuming the person being naturalized made a
truthful immigration and citizenship application.

Name another country in the free world with expiring citizenship for
some of its nationals. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

I also "suspect" that you believe that "the concept of the 28th
birthday" renewal applies to everyone reaching that "milestone" (?).

I already stated that I was aware of for whom citizenship expired.

IF you read it "carefully", you'll see this successive date refers to
an extended, non-resident classification.

Bull****. Where the affected person resides has nothing to do with his
citizenship expiring. The condition has to do with having one parent who
isn't a Canadian national regardless of immigration status (which is what
"resident" means, or I supposed "landed").

QUOTE: Any person born outside Canada from 15 February 1977, who has a
Canadian parent at the time of birth, is automatically a Canadian
citizen by descent.

If the Canadian parent is also Canadian by descent and the other
parent is not born or naturalized in Canada, then Canadian citizenship
will be lost on that person's 28th birthday unless the person
successfully applies to retain Canadian citizenship.

There is nothing like this in American law and never has been.

Those born outside Canada between 1 January 1947 and 15 February 1977
are generally not Canadian citizens unless their birth was registered
with the Canadian government before they were two years of age (and
neither they nor their responsible parent subsequently lost Canadian
citizenship by becoming citizens of another country before 1977) OR
they applied for Canadian citizenship by descent before 14 August
2004.

There is nothing like this in American law either. An American (due to the
nationality of one or both parents) born abroad is a native American, period,

FALSE TO FACT. At least according to the USCIS. And Federal statue,
including, among others Public Law 106-395, and 103-416.

no potential loss of citizenship thanks to a bureaucratic snafu. What other
free world country has such a capricious law recognizing nativity?

The United States, for starters. grin

I quote from the USCIS web-site (referring to "Foreign-born children of
American Citizens):
"Individuals who are 18 years old or older on February 27, 2001, do not
qualify for citizenship under the new law. However, an individual over
the age of 18 can apply for naturalization, if eligible in all respects."

Robert Bonomi wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Nobody wrote:
On 24 Jul 2007 03:39:21 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
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.

No you're not.. you're equating what you want Canadian law to be,
vis-a-vis your American view.

A lot of us in this world could give a "fig" what youse Ammuricans
think.

That's really brain-dead counter-criticism, given that you idiots CHANGED the
law so that citizenship no longer expires. In America, citizenship DOES
NOT expire, period, assuming the person being naturalized made a
truthful immigration and citizenship application.

Name another country in the free world with expiring citizenship for
some of its nationals. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

I also "suspect" that you believe that "the concept of the 28th
birthday" renewal applies to everyone reaching that "milestone" (?).

I already stated that I was aware of for whom citizenship expired.

IF you read it "carefully", you'll see this successive date refers to
an extended, non-resident classification.

Bull****. Where the affected person resides has nothing to do with his
citizenship expiring. The condition has to do with having one parent who
isn't a Canadian national regardless of immigration status (which is what
"resident" means, or I supposed "landed").

QUOTE: Any person born outside Canada from 15 February 1977, who has a
Canadian parent at the time of birth, is automatically a Canadian
citizen by descent.

If the Canadian parent is also Canadian by descent and the other
parent is not born or naturalized in Canada, then Canadian citizenship
will be lost on that person's 28th birthday unless the person
successfully applies to retain Canadian citizenship.

There is nothing like this in American law and never has been.

Those born outside Canada between 1 January 1947 and 15 February 1977
are generally not Canadian citizens unless their birth was registered
with the Canadian government before they were two years of age (and
neither they nor their responsible parent subsequently lost Canadian
citizenship by becoming citizens of another country before 1977) OR
they applied for Canadian citizenship by descent before 14 August
2004.

There is nothing like this in American law either. An American (due to the
nationality of one or both parents) born abroad is a native American, period,

FALSE TO FACT. At least according to the USCIS. And Federal statue,
including, among others Public Law 106-395, and 103-416.

no potential loss of citizenship thanks to a bureaucratic snafu. What other
free world country has such a capricious law recognizing nativity?

The United States, for starters. grin

I quote from the USCIS web-site (referring to "Foreign-born children of
American Citizens):
"Individuals who are 18 years old or older on February 27, 2001, do not
qualify for citizenship under the new law. However, an individual over
the age of 18 can apply for naturalization, if eligible in all respects."

Talk about selective quoting. Were you planning to explain whom that
applies to, or just let us guess?

In article ,
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

In article ews.net,

FALSE TO FACT. At least according to the USCIS. And Federal statue,
including, among others Public Law 106-395, and 103-416.

no potential loss of citizenship thanks to a bureaucratic snafu. What other
free world country has such a capricious law recognizing nativity?

The United States, for starters. grin

I quote from the USCIS web-site (referring to "Foreign-born children of
American Citizens):
"Individuals who are 18 years old or older on February 27, 2001, do not
qualify for citizenship under the new law. However, an individual over
the age of 18 can apply for naturalization, if eligible in all respects."

My son was born to me, an American citizen, and my wife, a Japanese
citizen, in Japan in 1962. We were told by a lawyer at the time of his
birth that when he was an adult, although he could automatically be an
American citizen (no naturalization needed), he should go to a courthouse
and declare his citizenship, as he had a choice of being an American or a
Japanese citizen.

Of course, we never thought of that as he grew up. He registered to vote
in the U.S. and voted. It never became an issue until he needed a
passport, and then he was challenged to prove his citizenship. It was
going to involve getting a statement of his foreign birth from the State
Department, until we remembered that when he was an infant, he came to the
U.S. on a U.S. passport, issued in Japan. Fortunately, we still had that
passport some 30 years later and that was all that was needed to have a
new passport issued.

But the point is, the automatic citizenship of a person born abroad to an
American parent is not automatically assured without the proper evidence.

Merritt

In article ews.net,
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

Robert Bonomi wrote:

I quote from the USCIS web-site (referring to "Foreign-born children of
American Citizens):
"Individuals who are 18 years old or older on February 27, 2001, do not
qualify for citizenship under the new law. However, an individual over
the age of 18 can apply for naturalization, if eligible in all
respects."

Talk about selective quoting. Were you planning to explain whom that
applies to, or just let us guess?

Here is the USCIS page to read:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...5e66f614176543
f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f3a1b6b1b8e1e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=967
19c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

(I would give you a shorter one, but I can't get to the "snip url" site)

I find the information on the page confusing. It will take a bit of
further research to understand the "over 18 as of Feb 27, 2001" provision.

Merritt

Merritt Mullen wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:

I quote from the USCIS web-site (referring to "Foreign-born children of
American Citizens):
"Individuals who are 18 years old or older on February 27, 2001, do not
qualify for citizenship under the new law. However, an individual over
the age of 18 can apply for naturalization, if eligible in all
respects."

Talk about selective quoting. Were you planning to explain whom that
applies to, or just let us guess?

Here is the USCIS page to read:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...5e66f614176543
f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f3a1b6b1b8e1e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=967
19c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

(I would give you a shorter one, but I can't get to the "snip url" site)

I find the information on the page confusing. It will take a bit of
further research to understand the "over 18 as of Feb 27, 2001" provision.

You mean like if they had already entered the United States before that
date before that law was in effect?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:45:07 -0500, James Robinson
wrote:

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

There is nothing like this in American law either. An American (due to
the nationality of one or both parents) born abroad is a native
American, period, no potential loss of citizenship thanks to a
bureaucratic snafu. What other free world country has such a
capricious law recognizing nativity?

The US does have some similar requirements related to births abroad. The
person can essentially claim citizenship prior to their 18th birthday under
what is called expedited naturalization. If they don't act before their
birthday, that option expires.

http://travel.state.gov/family/adopt.../info_456.html


(To Adam. K. Herman) giggle