yourdomain.com

[David R Gold]

Some of you better resolve yourself to a long wait. Reuters

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.

Official statistics show the number of U.S. workers entering Canada dropped to 15,789 in 2002 from 21,627 in 2000. Early indicators on Wednesday showed little sign of this changing.

A spokesman for Canada's foreign affairs ministry said there had been no increase in the number of hits on the Washington embassy's immigration Web site, while housing brokers said they doubted they would see a surge in U.S. business.

"Canada's always open and welcoming to Americans who want to relocate here, but we don't think it would be a trend or movement," said Gino Romanese of Royal Lepage Residential Real Estate Services in Toronto.

Those wishing to move to Canada could always take a risk and claim refugee status -- the path chosen earlier this year by two U.S. deserters who opposed the war in Iraq.

"Anybody who enters Canada who claims refugee status will be provided with a work permit ... it doesn't matter what country they're from," Iadinardi said.

Refugee cases are handled by special boards, which can take months to decide whether to admit applicants. The rulings can be appealed and opposition politicians complain some people ordered deported have been in Canada for 10 years or more.

[David R Gold]

Libs are passing this around the web.

[David R Gold]

Harpers
SOURCE
Electing to Leave
A reader’s guide to expatriating on November 3
Posted on Wednesday, November 3, 2004. Originally from Harper's Magazine, October 2004. By Bryant Urstadt.
Sources

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.

[David R Gold]

Reuters
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.

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

[Daisy]

I thought it rather amusing that Canada wants the liberal Americans to waith their turn before migrating there. Don't you recall when we asked Canada to help us by tightening their borders after we caught the Islamisit
Terrorist coming across. Canada refused, saying they were open to all they also help new arrivals with cash, and other help needed to build a new life...

[David R Gold]

Great point Daisy.

[David R Gold]

Vancouver lawyer visiting U.S. cities to tell Americans how to emigrate
cnews.canoe.ca ^ | November 9, 2004 | WENDY COX
SOURCE

VANCOUVER (CP) - A Vancouver immigration lawyer is travelling to three U.S. Pacific Coast cities to tell Americans who can't face another four years of George Bush how to find the life they hoped for in Canada.

Rudi Kischer said his firm has gotten about two dozen calls from frustrated Americans, so he's set up seminars in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles to brief people on the ins and outs of Canada's immigration system. "A lot of people are feeling disenfranchised after the last election," Kischer said.

"We saw a growth in that in the last 12 months, we saw a lot of people coming up to Vancouver or paying us for a consultation asking what it would take to emigrate and how they'd qualify."

Stories about Americans wanting to move to Canada began appearing within 24 hours of U.S. President George Bush trumpeting his second election win.

Within hours of Bush's acceptance speech, six times more Americans than usual, some 115,016, surfed Canada's immigration site.

Websites popped up suggesting - satirically - that sympathetic Canadians marry an American.

A new website, CanadianAlternative.com,-was launched Thursday, designed as clearing house for Americans looking for information on Canadian immigration, housing and employment, while promoting Canadian policies on culture, gay rights, medicare and the war in Iraq.

But while some of the Americans checking out those websites were no doubt surfing in anger, many haven't abandoned the idea as the bad hangover they're feeling from the Bush victory wears off.

Kischer said he's got serious clients - people that are already spending the $250 Kischer charges for a consultation fee and are prepared to spend the almost $1,500 in government fees to complete the process.

"I don't think people are talking about coming up here for four years and moving back," Kischer said.

"I think what they see is the way the United States has gone for the last four years, they've got another four years of this and given the strong pro-Bush turnout in the middle of a war against terrorism, there's some question whether the Democrats will win the next one after this."

Ralph Appoldt has started the emigration process for he and his wife.

The 50-year-old sales manager in Portland, Ore., was born in Winnipeg, but became a naturalized U.S. citizen after his parents moved him to California when he was six.

He spent the rest of his life in the United States, and now works a job that puts him in charge of eight northwestern states and brings him to Canada often for work and to visit family.

He said he wanted to move after Bush won - or didn't win, as he puts it - the last time, but his wife wasn't keen.

"For the longest time, I thought (Canada) was a much nicer country. But my life is here. I've got property and a good job," he said in an interview.

This time, though, he has no hesitation about leaving. He's hired Kischer to see if he still has Canadian citizenship and if not, what he has to do to get it for he and his wife.

"I mean the country (the U.S.) has just gone in such a horrible direction. (Bush) is just such an awful, little man. To have the majority of the country behind him and his programs is just devastating to me as a human being."

His four children, aged 23 to 26, will stay behind in the United States, but "we're all lefties," said Appoldt.

Kischer said he's hearing from a cross-section of people, including parents with young sons that are worried there may be a draft, gays stung by the unanimous rejection of same-sex marriage in 11 state referendums and others who are unhappy with how Bush has positioned the United States in world affairs.

"I have one guy who is extremely wealthy. He lives on his yacht in the Caribbean and he's just finding that with an American passport, he gets hassled all the time," Kischer said.

"We've also got a lot of people that are unhappy with education and medicare and they just see Canada as a more livable society."

Appoldt bristles at suggestions that if he really wants change to come to the United States, staying and fighting for it would be a better way.

"I've spent tens of thousands of dollars for all the causes I believe in and the Democrats never really give us a good candidate. They always pick the middle of the road guy. It's kind of like picking Republican Light," said Appoldt.

"The Democratic Party to me has just continually let us down. I don't feel like I've abandoned them at all because they have really abandoned the people of this country."

Kischer said Americans wanting to come to Canada likely won't have a terribly difficult time.

Canada's immigration system awards generous points to those who speak English fluently, who have post-secondary education and who have been working in skilled jobs. The Americans Kischer's been talking to comfortably fit that profile.

The first seminar is scheduled for the Crown Plaza Hotel in Seattle Nov. 27. Kischer is planning seminars in San Francisco and Los Angeles for the following week.

"We're not going to Texas," he deadpans.

[Orin]

I grew up near the Canadian border. It's stupid cold. Stupid, stupid cold. -40 bites, figuratively and literaly. I love Texas winters.

[David R Gold]

Wash Times
SOURCE
Paris in the fall
"Enjoyed your article," James B. Davis writes about our item on disgruntled Americans who are contemplating moving to Canada or beyond because they can't stomach four more years of President Bush.
Mr. Davis, fittingly enough, is founder of Help.Them.Leave.com, a 501(c)3 organization that offers relocation assistance for "disenfranchised" citizens at absolutely no cost.
"In return for your irrevocable renunciation of your United States citizenship, and a sworn statement that you will never return, we will provide free one-way transportation to one of our politically matched, recommended countries on one of the jets we have chartered to provide this service," the organization states.
It goes so far as to carefully match relocation countries to political leanings:
•Leftists: France, Germany, Italy or Spain
•Socialists: Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, Norway or Sweden
•Communists: Cuba or North Korea

[David R Gold]

Atheists thinking of heading North. San Diego Union

Many worry election portends blending of religion, government
By Mark Sauer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

November 11, 2004

SOURCE
K.C. ALFRED / Union-Tribune
Norman Hall, an oceanographer at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says there's talk among some in San Diego's atheist community about moving abroad.
Millions of Americans last week voted to ban gay marriage, claimed "moral values" as their top concern and returned born-again Christian George W. Bush to the White House for a second term.

In the election aftermath, local atheists say they're feeling more marginalized than ever.

"Among our community, a lot of people are saying it's time to think about moving to Canada," said Norman Hall, a San Diego oceanographer and avowed atheist.

Jeff Archer, president of the Atheists Coalition of San Diego, said that after Nov. 2, "Atheists are now at the bottom of the barrel in American society. At least that's how we feel we are perceived.

"The Christian side has been working very hard the past 20 years or so. They have never given up; if they lost a battle, they came back hard and tried to win the war. Many believe now that they have."

Local atheists interviewed, many of them scientists and engineers, expressed the fear that a born-again president believing he has a mandate will strongly assert religious beliefs, like pushing for the teaching of creationism along with evolution in schools.

"The administration we have now has no respect whatsoever for science, and because of that, they have no respect for the truth, and that can be fatal," said Hall, who was raised a Methodist.

"I think unless the country gets a belly-full of this over the next four years and this turns around, the future of civilization will shift to Europe or elsewhere and not be led by the U.S. administration."

Categorizing nonbelievers as atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc., gets tricky. "It's important to emphasize there are many different kinds of atheists; we are not a lock-step group," said Heather Campbell, of the San Diego Atheist Coalition.

And it's difficult to know just how many nonbelievers there are.

In the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, adults in the "identifying with no religion" category numbered 29.4 million, or 14.1 percent of the population. That was up from 8 percent in a similar 1990 survey. A more-recent survey by political scientist John Green at the University of Akron in Ohio suggests atheists and agnostics make up 3.2 percent of the U.S. population.

It is undeniable, as Bush and John Kerry, a Roman Catholic, demonstrated in repeated professions of their faith, that a nonbelieving candidate in 2004 would have about as much of a chance of becoming president as Ralph Nader.

Pollster John Zogby found during the 2000 election year that when voters are given a hypothetical list of Jewish, black, female, Arab-American, gay or atheist vice-presidential candidates, they were least likely to support the atheist.

If atheists have a political mission, it is to reinforce the wall between government and religion, which they believe is crumbling under Bush and his constituents in the Religious Right.

For that reason, Susi Reed, of the Humanist Fellowship of San Diego, said she considers Bush's re-election "a tragedy."

"I'm scared to death about what may happen," Reed said. "I abhor any power that religion has in government. They shouldn't be there, and Bush is inviting them in."

Andy Pavelchek, of the San Diego Atheist Coalition, said: "I am worried that as things go wrong, as the wheels come off in Iraq and the economy, liberals, gays, atheists, feminists and people who believe in the rule of law will be scapegoated."

A registered Republican who voted against Bush both times, Pavelchek said he is not afraid to "wear my atheism on my sleeve" and has bumper stickers declaring his beliefs.

But several local atheists said they tend to remain "in the closet" and avoid discussions that could lead to confrontations over religion.

"I don't go out and broadcast that I'm an atheist, especially now (after this election) and especially in San Diego, where we are really a minority," said Reed. "I tell close friends and relatives.

"But the humanist fellowship is not an anti-God group. We don't preach against religion, and we don't try to convert people to atheism.

"I feel if religion makes you a better person, go for it. I just don't want it in government."

[David R Gold]

Boston Globe

Canadians urge disaffected left to elect a move north
Blue-staters log on to migration sites
SOURCE
By Gene Johnson, Associated Press | November 15, 2004

SEATTLE -- Got the blue-state blues? Rudi Kischer feels your pain.

The immigration lawyer in Vancouver, British Columbia, plans seminars in three US cities -- Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles -- to tell Americans frustrated with President Bush's reelection that the grass is greener north of the border. And that is not an allusion to Canada's more-lenient marijuana laws.

"We started last year getting a lot of calls from Americans dissatisfied with the way the country is going," Kischer said. "Then after the election, it's been crazy up here. The Canadian immigration website had 115,000 hits the day after the election, from the US alone. We usually only get 20,000 hits."

There was so much interest that a Vancouver-based Internet company, Communicopia, set up a new website this month -- www.canadianalternative.com -- to suggest Canada as a viable option for its American clients, including anyone concerned about constitutional bans on gay marriage passed in 11 states this month.

"We invite you to get to know Canada," the site says. "Explore the richness and diversity of our regions. And find out why Canada is the perfect alternative for conscientious, forward-thinking Americans."

Another website urges Canadians: "Open your heart, and your home. Marry an American. Legions of Canadians have already pledged to sacrifice their singlehood to save our southern neighbors from four more years of cowboy conservatism."

Canada suddenly has utopian appeal for many left-leaning Americans. Its universal health care, gay rights, abortion rights, gun-control laws, drug laws, opposition to the Iraq war, ban on capital punishment, and ethnic diversity mirror many values of the American left. Immigrants, including an estimated 1 million Americans, make up nearly 20 percent of Canada's population. The United Nations named Toronto the world's most multicultural city.

And as Michael Moore noted in "Bowling for Columbine," required viewing for many on the left, in some parts of Canada there is apparently no reason to lock your door.

On the other hand, it's cold. The baseball's not very good -- so long, Expos. And the taxes are higher.

But as one American who has his bags nearly packed likes to say, at least the taxes go toward good causes.

"I just like their way of life a lot better, and with everything the Bush administration has done -- for the American people to give him their seal of approval, it's basically the last straw," said Ralph Appoldt, a resident of Portland, in the barely blue state of Oregon.

"Canada's basic population is much more intelligent, polite, and civilized. I like their way of government a lot better. Their tax dollars go to helping those who need it, instead of funneling money back up to the wealthy and feeding this huge military-industrial machine."

Appoldt, 50, a sales manager, and his wife, a nurse, figure that selling their house and getting their immigration approved could take more than a year. But they are moving, they say. They have hired Kischer to help them.

Kischer has no illusions of a mass American exodus to Canada. Americans have to follow the same procedures as everybody else, including the $500 application fee, the $975 landing tax, and the wait of six months to two years. He only expects about 100 people at each of the how-to-move-to-Canada seminars, all scheduled in blue states -- Dec. 4 in Seattle, Dec. 5 in Los Angeles, and Dec. 6 in San Francisco.

Nancy Bray, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, said her agency's received 261,000 hits from the United States in the two days after the election, but it will be many months before officials can guess how many of them were serious. "Our interest, our goal, is to attract the best possible immigrants," Bray said. "If there's a lot of publicity about our country, that's to our benefit. But we're not interested in people's political leanings or political dissatisfaction."

Jason Mogus, Communicopia's chief executive, said that while his company wanted to help interested Americans, moving to Canada should be plan B.

"We strongly encourage Americans to stay and build a culture in line with their values," Mogus said. "In other words, stay and fight."

[David R Gold]

Think twice before heading to Canada
Seattle P-I
SOURCE
Saturday, November 20, 2004

DAVID GRIMES
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Now that President Bush has won re-election and the Republican Party controls everything in the country up to and including photosynthesis, some disgruntled Democrats are wondering if life might be better north of the border.

So the working title for today's essay will be:

Moving to Canada: Big Mistake or Bad Idea?

The first thing I learned in my research is that Canada, as a country or colony or appendage or whatever the heck it is, is not exactly jumping up and down with glee at the prospect of 56 million glum Kerry supporters shuffling morosely across its border. (The lines at Starbucks are apparently too long already.)

Canadian officials have said that any Americans so fed up with Bush that they would actually consider moving to a place where hockey is the national sport should be prepared to stand in line like any other would-be immigrants -- a wait that could take up to a year.

"They'll join the crowd like all the other people who want to come to Canada," said Immigration Minister Judy Sgro when asked if Americans would get special treatment because they are, well, let's face it ... Americans.

This is not an encouraging sign. The fact that the Canadian government would not be excited about, let alone give special treatment to, 56 million sullen coffee snobs with no jobs or health insurance tells me that it would probably also not be excited later when we tear down all their hockey rinks and replace them with Internet cafes.

Another drawback to moving to Canada is the language barrier. Canadians talk incessantly about a boot, as in, "I'll be there to watch hockey at a boot 7." Immigrant Americans would squander much of their first year in Canada trying to comprehend the national fascination with high-topped waterproof footwear, a dispiriting prospect at best.

(On the other hand, I suspect that transplanted Americans would have little difficulty getting accustomed to the repetitive use of "eh," as in: "Let's go out for pizza, eh, and beer." "Eh" is nothing more than a slightly shorter version of the common American syllable, "huh.")

Food might present another problem for expatriated Americans. An example of Canadian haute cuisine is poutine, a combination of French fries, barbecue sauce and cheese curds, sometimes referred to by connoisseurs as "heart attack in a bowl."

On the other hand, the hot new food-like product just out in the United States (and just in time for Thanksgiving) is Turkey and Gravy soda and Green Bean Casserole soda. (Be sure to save room for the Fruitcake Soda.)

If you're having trouble deciding, be advised that the sodas are all calorie- and carb-free, something that cannot be said of the poutine.

Canadian music, or, more accurately, music by Canadians, also might take some getting used to. A quick survey of musical groups with Canadian roots uncovered these lyrics:

"When she was three

Her Barbies always did it on the first date."

-- "Life in a Nutshell" (Barenaked Ladies)

"I've never seen your breath before

But I'm disgusted by the thought of it."

-- "Big Dumb Rocket" (Our Lady Peace)

"My software is not

Compatible with you."

-- "Without Rings" (Neil Young)

Finally, Americans will have to come to terms with the fact that they are moving from a country that is a superpower to a country that is, well, not.

Here is how the two countries match up in several key areas:

Armed Forces budget: U.S. -- $267,700,000,000; Canada -- $7,861,000,000

Best ground weapon: U.S.-- M-1 Abrams tank; Canada -- Mounties

Military hero: U.S. -- Gen. Douglas MacArthur; Canada -- Dudley Do-Right

Secret Weapon: U.S. -- Stealth technology; Canada -- Rabid beavers

So, it's my opinion that Americans should think twice before moving to Canada. It's cold, the food is weird and rumor has it that there are people there who are almost indistinguishable from the French.

And, besides, you don't want to miss out on all the fun. Because in the United States, there's always another election just around the corner.

[David R Gold]

This guy pleads not to go. Seattle Times

Bush dodgers: Moving to Canada is a selfish act — stay and fight

SOURCE
Once again, the urge to move to Canada is a popular one among some liberals, thanks to Bush's election.

Why? Well, the top reasons, as cited by www.canadianalternative.com, include universal public health care, tolerance of gay marriage, no war in Iraq, and no federal deficits.

The site also notes that "the United Nations has ranked Canada the best country to live in for eight consecutive years." And while taxes are higher, people feel better about where those taxes are going.

In short, Canada is progressive, and seen as safe and friendly. All the things Bush's America isn't perceived to be.

But moving to Canada is, ultimately, a selfish move. And aren't the liberal impulses to help the poor and sick, to seek equality, to protect the environment, to not force their personal religious beliefs onto others, all rooted in anti-selfishness? Isn't the liberal agenda one that considers the greater good?

If so, then stay and fight. Continue to try and make America truly the land of freedom and opportunity we like to claim it is.

Make America a real leader, and not just in the number of people in prison or gun deaths or resource consumption or any of those wonderful distinctions we do have.

Let's actually lead the world in areas we now trail in, such as education, science, public health care and services, environmental protection, and in practicing as well as preaching equality, justice and freedom.

American history is a two-steps-forward, one-step-back dance. The Bush era is just the step backward. America still has all the promise and potential, as well as the fortunate location and abundant resources, that brought us this far. We are still a federated Republic, not entirely a Christian Taliban.

While our representative democratic process has some serious problems, exacerbated by Republican maneuverings these past few years, it can, I hope, be fixed.

And our free-market system does give us great power. Corporations are not automatically bad, capitalism not inherently evil, privatization not always wrong. But it requires that we police and put checks on the tendency of this system to pursue profit at the sake of all else, even lives and the long-term best interests of the American people, our health, our environment and our overall economy.

Did America not survive years of segregation, McCarthyism and fear of Communism, Korea, Vietnam and Watergate? We will survive homophobia, the Patriot Act, fear of terrorism, Iraq, Bush's corporate favoritism and intelligence scandals.

In five or 10 years, America will once again leap forward. But only if we don't let the slide backward continue unchallenged.

Heck, if nothing else, good ol' greed and need will force progress. You think America will stand by while Canada makes billions off of hemp products, especially when those products are cheaper, better quality and much better environmentally than those made with American lumber, cotton, chemicals or petroleum and plastics?

Do you think America will be happy to buy all its clean-energy production equipment from France, or all its gas-free cars from Japan?

No. America will eventually legalize hemp, seriously pursue environmentally friendly technologies and more, because that is where the future is, that is where the profits and jobs will be.

True, these do nothing for social issues like homophobia or racism. But changes on social issues take time, and will happen on a generational scale, as children raised around tolerance and greater access to information replace generations socialized on old intolerances and stereotypes.

So, to all you educated professionals thinking of moving to Canada, I say stay. Don't leave the progressive movement to the fiscally or socially unrealistic utopian dreamers.

And to the socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republicans, I say fight as well. Don't let your party continue to be hijacked by the radical homophobes, racists, war hawks and other extremists.

Go on and think Canadian if you want. But act locally, eh.

[David R Gold]

Before Libs move to Canada better check this out. Wash Post

Before You Flee to Canada, Can We Talk?

By Nora Jacobson

Sunday, November 28, 2004; Page B02
SOURCE
TORONTO

I moved to Canada after the 2000 election. Although I did it mainly for career reasons -- I got a job whose description read as though it had been written precisely for my rather quirky background and interests -- at the time I found it gratifying to joke that I was leaving the United States because of George W. Bush. It felt fine to think of myself as someone who was actually going to make good on the standard election-year threat to leave the country. Also, I had spent years of my life feeling like I wasn't a typical American and wishing I could be Canadian. I wanted to live in a country that was not a superpower, a country I believe to have made the right choices about fairness, human rights and the social compact.

So I could certainly identify with the disappointed John Kerry supporters who started fantasizing about moving to Canada after Nov. 2. But after nearly four years as an American in the Great White North, I've learned it's not all beer and doughnuts. If you're thinking about coming to Canada, let me give you some advice: Don't.

Although I enjoy my work and have made good friends here, I've found life as an American expatriate in Canada difficult, frustrating and even painful in ways that have surprised me. As attractive as living here may be in theory, the reality's something else. For me, it's been one of almost daily confrontation with a powerful anti-Americanism that pervades many aspects of life. When I've mentioned this phenomenon to Canadian friends, they've furrowed their brows sympathetically and said, "Yes, Canadian anti-Americanism can be very subtle." My response is, there's nothing subtle about it.

The anti-Americanism I experience generally takes this form: Canadians bring up "the States" or "Americans" to make comparisons or evaluations that mix a kind of smug contempt with a wariness that alternates between the paranoid and the absurd.

Thus, Canadian media discussion of President Bush's upcoming official visit on Tuesday focuses on the snub implied by his not having visited earlier. It's reported that when he does come, he will not speak to a Parliament that's so hostile it can't be trusted to receive him politely. Coverage of a Canadian athlete caught doping devolves into complaints about how Americans always get away with cheating. The "Blame Canada" song from the "South Park" movie is taken as documentary evidence of Americans' real attitudes toward this country. The ongoing U.S. ban on importing Canadian cattle (after a case of mad cow disease was traced to Alberta) is interpreted as a form of political persecution. A six o'clock news show introduces a group of parents and children who are convinced that the reason Canadian textbooks give short shrift to America's failed attempts to invade the Canadian territories in the War of 1812 is to avoid antagonizing the Americans -- who are just waiting for an excuse to give it another try.

My noisy neighbors revel in Canada's two hockey golds at the 2002 Olympics because "We beat the Americans in America!" The first gay couple to wed in Ontario tells the press, before they say anything else, that they are glad they don't live in the United States. A PR person at the hospital where I work, who has been eager to talk to me about a book I've published, puts down her pen when she learns that I'm American and that the book is nearly devoid of "Canadian content."

More seriously, in the wake of 9/11, after the initial shock wore off, it was common to hear some Canadians voice the opinion that Americans had finally gotten what they deserved. The attacks were just deserts for years of interventionist U.S. foreign policy, the increasing inequality between the world's poorest nations and the wealthiest one on earth, and a generalized arrogance. I heard similar views expressed after Nov. 2, when Americans were perceived to have revealed their true selves and thus to "deserve" a second Bush term.

Canadians often use three metaphors to portray their relationship with the United States. They describe Canada as "sleeping with an elephant." Even when the elephant is at rest, they worry that it may suddenly roll over and crush them. They refer to the U.S.-Canadian border as "the longest one-way mirror in the world" -- Canadians peer closely at Americans, trying to make sense of their every move, while the United States sees only its own reflection. Finally, they liken Canada to a gawky teenage girl with a hopeless crush on the handsome and popular boy next door. You know, the one who doesn't even know she exists.

The self-image conveyed in these metaphors is timid and accommodating. Perhaps this is how Canadians see themselves (or would like to be seen), but my experience is that they are extremely aggressive (if somewhat passively so) when it comes to demonstrating their deep ambivalence toward Americans. Take the popular TV show "Talking to Americans," which simultaneously showcases Americans' ignorance about Canada and mocks Canadians' unhealthy preoccupation with what Americans really think of them. Of course, there's often something of the stalker in that gawky teenage girl, isn't there?

Part of what's irksome about Canadian anti-Americanism and the obsession with the United States is that it seems so corrosive to Canada. Any country that defines itself through a negative ("Canada: We're not the United States") is doomed to an endless and repetitive cycle of hand-wringing and angst. For example, Canadians often point to their system of universal health care as the best example of what it means to be Canadian (because the United States doesn't provide it), but this means that any effort to adjust or reform that system (which is not perfect) precipitates a national identity crisis: To wit, instituting co-payments or private MRI clinics will make Canada too much like the United States.

The rush to make comparisons sometimes prevents meaningful examination of the very real problems that Canada faces. (For me, it has become the punch line of a private joke that whenever anything bad happens here, the first response is a chagrined cry of "But we're Canadian!" -- the "not American" can be inferred.) As a Canadian social advocate once told me, when her compatriots look at their own societal problems, they are often satisfied once they can reassure themselves that they're better off than the United States. As long as there's still more homelessness, racism and income inequality to the south, Canadians can continue to rest easy in their moral superiority.

Many Canadians have American relatives or travel frequently to the United States, but a large number are pretty naive about their neighbors to the south. A university student confidently told me that there had been "no dissent" in the United States during the run-up to the Iraq war. Toronto boosters argue that American cities lack the ethnic diversity found in Canada's largest metropolis. The author of a popular book on the differences between the Canadian and American characters (a topic of undying interest here) promotes the view that Americans are all authority-loving conformists.

Ultimately, Canadian anti-Americanism says more about Canada than it does about the United States. Because some 80 to 90 percent of this country's trade is with the United States, the reality is that Canadians need Americans to sustain their economy and thus the quality of life they value. Such dependence breeds resentment. In "officially multicultural Canada," hostility toward Americans is the last socially acceptable expression of bigotry and xenophobia. It would be impossible to say the things about any other nationality that Canadians routinely say -- both publicly and privately -- about Americans. On a human level, it can be rude and hurtful. (As it was on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, when an acquaintance angrily told me that she would now have to curtail her travel plans because she was afraid she might be mistaken for an American.) And there's no way to argue against it. An American who attempts to correct a misconception or express even the mildest approval for the policies of U.S. institutions is likely to be dismissed as thin-skinned or offensive, and as demonstrating those scary nationalistic tendencies that threaten the world.

I felt a strong tug toward America when the borders shut for several hours on the afternoon of 9/11, and again after the election this month. Canadian friends were honestly shocked when I, a caricature of a bluestocking blue-stater (I've spent most of my life in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and Wisconsin, with short stays in Washington state and the bluest part of Colorado), said that I would in many ways prefer to live in the United States, and not just because it's home. They assume that it's better, more comfortable, to be in a place seemingly more in tune with one's own political and philosophical leanings. Right after the election, many asked me if I would now apply for Canadian citizenship.

I don't intend to do that, because experiencing the anti-Americanism I've described has been instructive: Living here and coping with it has forced me to confront my own feelings about America. And it's helped me discover what I do value about it: its contradictions, its eccentricities, its expansive spirit, all the intensity and opportunity of a deeply flawed, widely inconsistent, but always interesting country. Perhaps I am a typical American, after all.



Nora Jacobson is an American medical sociologist living in Toronto.

[David R Gold]

:byebye:
Ventura Cty. Star

Canada beckons dispirited liberals

Immigration law firm holds seminar
SOURCE
By Zeke Barlow, zbarlow@ VenturaCountyStar.com
December 8, 2004

Paul Jacobs is about ready to give up.

He marched in rallies to try to stop the Iraq invasion, but that didn't work.

Advertisement
InsideVC.com
He urged friends to vote because he believed this election was crucial, but that, too, proved to be for naught.

So Jacobs is considering moving to Canada, where his liberal ideals are embraced and where he says the government works better.

"It's hard to ever give up on your home country as a place to live," said Jacobs, 27, a Libertarian from Westlake Village. "I feel like I don't have much of a future here if things continue this way."

After President Bush's November election victory, the Canadian immigration Web sites had 10 times the number of normal hits. As many as 150,000 hits came from the United States in one day, said Maria Iadinardi, spokeswoman for Canada's Citizen and Immigration department.

A Canadian immigration law firm, Embarkation Law Group, held a seminar in Los Angeles on Monday night on how to move to Canada. Nearly 100 people attended, including a handful of Ventura County residents. Other seminars were recently held in San Francisco and Seattle.

"They feel a huge disappointment with their country," Canadian lawyer Rudolf Kischer said of most of the participants. Many have more liberal ideals than the Bush administration and are considering Canada because "our right wing is still left of the Democrats," Kischer said.

Canada has government-supplied healthcare, did not support the Iraq war, allows medical marijuana use and permits same-sex marriages in some provinces. However, taxes in Canada are higher than in the United States.

After the lawyers joked about wearing toques, watching hockey and saying "eh" at the end of every sentence, participants fired off questions, ranging from whether they could bring their pets with them -- yes -- to if there was currently anti-American sentiment in Canada -- no.

Steve Frank, a Simi Valley conservative Republican and political consultant, said there is another solution.

"These people don't need to go to Canada, they need therapy," Frank said. "When these people see the taxes and lack of good healthcare, they may move to Canada but they will still come to Cedars-Sinai for their gallbladder operations."

Frank remembers fellow Republicans talking about moving to Australia after Barry Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but not in the numbers that Democrats are considering Canada.

Leslie Cornejo, chairwoman of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee, said moving because of one election seems irrational.

"Just because an election doesn't go your way, you are going to go and leave your country? I think you should work harder to get your person in next time," she said. Even if liberals and left-leaning voters don't like the current administration, Cornejo said it's a matter of time before the political pendulum swings back their way.

For registered Democrat Kelly Griggs, the idea of heading north held great appeal.

After the election, Griggs, 43, of Oxnard, was depressed for days. Griggs said Bush was taxing the wrong people and fighting the wrong war.

Her mother, Joan Griggs, said Bush has been a disappointment.

"He's all hat and no cattle," she said.

A dislike of Bush coupled with the high price of real estate in Ventura County has three members of Kelly Griggs' family considering a move to Canada.

Kischer thinks most of the people at Monday's meeting probably will go through with it. Iadinardi said the inquiries about immigration hadn't yet translated into applications for residence. She said it could be a few months before they know how serious all those inquiries were.

Alexa Farmer, 28, and her boyfriend, Aron Ross, 33, both of Oxnard, considered heading east but changed their minds and decided to look into going north.

"The election was the thing that if I was thinking about it before, it pushed me to do it faster," she said. Canada seems friendlier and more laid-back to her. She doesn't like the war in Iraq or lack of universal healthcare or how America has become a terrorist target.

"If you summarized Canadian politics, they take care of their own and stay out of other people's business," she said.

Jacobs said he'd like to move to Canada in the next few years. He's hopeful things will get better here, but he's skeptical. With the Patriot Act, the war and the national debt, he's not sure he wants to be part of America anymore.

"I always loved this country since the time I was 3 or 4 and was a big believer in the principles and freedoms we were supposed to embody," he said. "But this hurts to watch."