Ok, so under what conditions should I be able to go to Canada and become a citizen?

They have nationalized health care - if I need health care and I'm without it, and there are jobs in Canada, shouldn't I be able to move to Canada just as freely as capital moves between the US and Canada under the terms of NAFTA and other trade agreements? So why is that so difficult to actually do?

Or are you saying that since people can't move so easily, capital and raw materials shouldn't move so easy either?

Follow up question - are some people more valuable than others?

Bryant

n/t

should be able to bring in as much as they like.

On the other hand a person who is of low value, say a librarian, should be kept out.

Bryant

on a whim (as our various trade agreements provide), so labor should have that freedom, as well.

people coming here to have surgery...maybe something like that could be worked out. If you hang on long enough maybe some International Aid workers will get involved...perhaps Hugo will help, like he does with oil.

and Cuba is over there helping them.

I know, cooperation, how thoroughly un-American.

:shrug:

btw- they don't get their nationalized healthcare for "free"- it's paid for with their taxes. how much have you paid in to support the canadian healthcare system? why do you think that you should be able to just move there on a whim and take advantage of the things that their citizens have paid to have for themselves?

A country only allows immigration to the extent that it benefits current citizens.

US citizens do not have a right to escape our problems by moving north. This principle applies to our neighbors to the south too.

No of course you can't just up and move.

Do you have a pre-existing medical condition that might put a strain on the system? If so, you may not get in. Were you a foreign worker? Might be easier. Do you have work skills Canada is looking for at the moment? Can you speak French - if looking to settle in Quebec? Got half a million to invest - no problem.

The whole idea behind national health care is to provide birth to death medical care for all citizens. Key word being citizens.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/apply-who.asp

Convention Refugee

Convention refugees are people who are outside their home country or the country where they normally live, and who are unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on:

race
religion
political opinion
nationality or
membership in a particular social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation.
Person in need of protection

A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their home country or country where they normally live would subject them personally to:

a danger of torture;
a risk to their life; or
a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

.
.
.

as one poster mentioned

Our National Health-care is funded by our taxes we pay starting from our first paycheck, as well from sales taxes

If Canada allowed uncontrolled amounts of older Americans, or even just those in need of constant medical care,

our system would get overloaded and go bust.

It's that simple regarding the Health-Care issue.

If you want to check out the particulars,

check Citizenship and Immigration Canada

http://www.cic.gc.ca/

unskilled people and blue collar workers that trade agreements neglect to address their concerns? And why is it when Americans say that the same restrictive immigration policy should be in place in the US which is in place elsewhere, that we are being xenophobic?

Many Americans have no passport, and think a world-wide trip means going from Jersey City to Miami. That's not xenophobic, just funny. Also, Americans like to argue on both sides of the fence, rethug and demo, but really have no course of action. Just like to talk. Other countries are weak on talk, but act.

.
.
.

It sorta sounds like an insult of some sort - but I see it has different interpretations




1. Yellow Dog Democrat

Someone (generally from the South) who would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat. Alternately, someone who would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican. The term probably dates back to the 19th century and gained national recognition in the 1928 Presidential election. Today, used most often as a term of approval or self-identification.

My daddy was a yellow dog Democrat and my granddaddy was a yellow dog Democrat and would never vote Republican.

democrat politics yellow-dog democrat republican south
by Porch-sitter Nov 9, 2006 share this


2. Yellow Dog Democrat

a republican in sheep's clothing

Yellow Dog Democrat why don't you just switch to being conservative republicans you dirty incest-loving hicks.
poo you do have stinky bum
by AndreaCow Dec 9, 2006 share this

3. Yellow Dog Democrat

More than likely some sort of Southern White, urban or hick, who is enamored with radical liberalism that he sees on the East and West Coasts of the USA. May be a biker, Vietnam veteran, etc. Usually champions the causes of minorities and homosexuals, but yet tries to keep the facade of being somebody that will die for Old Glory.

That old fool right there is probably a Yellow Dog Democrat.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yellow%20Dog%20Democrat

so tell me

is it the one that would rather vote for a dog than a republican you are referring to

or the "republican in sheep's' clothing"?

I suspect you are referencing the latter

correct me if I am mistaken

did I mean "blue dog"???? I mean, like a DINO - ostensibly a Democrat, but in many ways, a supporter of traditionally Republican positions, particularly with regard to economic issues.

If you can bring needed monies and agree not to bring deadbeat relatives Canada will welcome you... oh and I hope your not old or diasbled or sick or have a criminal record cause that is right out.

restrictions of movement for labor - having them allows them to play one country's workers against the other. It's to the workers' disadvantage. Yet they continue to fall for it.

We want to protect Americans from cheaper workers, but we can't, since the capitalist can just move as long as the product is moveable.

If the workers united, one set wouldn't be cheaper than another. The corporatists win again by convincing us to scapegoat foreigners - and it is so in every country.

Capitalists don't have borders. They just use them to control the masses.

As to health care, do all of the EU countries have it? The nationals of the EU countries can work in any of them, so you'd think they'd all have to have it or the ones that do would attract a disproportionate number.

For instance, Ireland now has a decent-sized Polish community.

after all that includes Mexico

Then the American govt. will sue us to let you in.

http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/97-3/issue10/nafta.html

The same as there can't be an "America" to move from.