Answering the OP:
This seems to me more of a GQ, so I’ll try to give a factual answer.
The easy answer first:
Yes, Canada may have different rules from Mexico. Most countries are obligated by law and international treaty to accept refugees (to prevent another discussion, let us be clear that we are discussing refugees, not immigrants!). In practice every country makes its own decisions. In the USA, for example, refugee status is determined by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). During the Cold War, it was much easier for refugees from communist countries to get asylum status (assuming they arrived in the USA) than refugees from military dictatorships that were “friendly” to the USA. Other countries presumably have their own bias.
Many countries defer to the UNHCR’s “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status”. Follow the link for a longer discussion of the subject. The term “persecution” can be interpreted in many ways, but to make a long story short, most countries will not refoule (forcibly repatriate) you if you have sufficient evidence to show that you will suffer physical harm and/or imprisonment upon your return to the country you are fleeing.
In your case, I don’t see the risk of physical harm or imprisonment, so I think it would be difficult for you to find a country that would accept your claim of political asylum and admit you as a refugee.
If things are as bad as all that (and I do remember the Brown shirts rounding up non-Christians during the Reagan admin), then why do you folks think Canada or cuba would be safe? They wouldn’t lasr for 2 seconds.
For what it’s worth, my best friend was an American citizen and became a naturalized Canadian. He remains an American citizen in good standing and has a letter from the State Department saying so. (He wrote them and asked.)
Some years later, he ended up getting a job offer in the States. There was no problem at all; out came the U.S. passport and he was in like Flynn.
If you want to leave the U.S. and take up citizenship in another country, you don’t need to be a political refugee. A lot of little countries in the Caribbean, the Pacific, and Africa will sell you citizenship for $100,000 (more or less). It’s nothing so crass as a bribe, it’s “processing fees.”
Even the bigger and more respected countries have programs in which “investors” are allowed to immigrate and begin the naturalization process. You have to invest a certain amount of money in native buisnesses or government bonds. In the case of the U.S. it’s over $1 million. The last time I checked, it’s something like US$500,000 in Australia. Very few people take advantage of these programs. If they’re going to immigrate, they’re like to chose a tax haven instead. IIRC it’s relatively easy for a rich person to become a resident of Monaco, but not a citizen.
Satan, since your OP was about the ability to leave the US, there should be no problem - you are free to leave anytime as long as there are no warrants outstanding for you. There are quite a few countries which will allow you to live and work there (again, given no criminal record) without the necessity of becoming a citizen of those countries.
But as to your reasons (hypothetical or real) for leaving - a few posters have mentioned that it is unlikely. I will add that the majority of Republican voters favor choice. There is an element in the Republican party that is absolutely against any abortions, but the majority of Republicans are not in that element.
The latest info I heard was about California - there were 15% of the California Republicans who were hard right to life people, and the rest were pro choice.
I hope this clears up a few things for you. Buy the way, the Rupublicans and Democrats have much more in common they they do differences. They are both far from what they say they are. Again, others have said it already, so enough from me.
Why were anti-abortion laws declared unconstitutional? Why did a woman try to get the Supreme Court to give her the right to have an abortion? Why did the Supreme Court spend its precious time deciding whether or not women have the right to havean abortion? Was all of this done just in case, as a hedge against some hypothetical situation in which abortion is declared illegal? Do you really think that the Supreme Court is not the deciding factor in whether abortion is illegal?
Satan, I can’t believe you’re serious. The whole proposition sounds quite silly to me but anyway, whatever …
As for the guy who says dual nationality is not permitted, he just hasn’t a clue. Half my friends have dual nationalities. Furthermore, The USA has a treaty with China dealing with this issue precisely because China is the one who does not recognise dual nationality.
I wish people would know what they’re talking about before they just repeat what someone told them they heard as if it were fact.
Don’t leave, Satan! Don’t you know that Iran et all have named this country after you?!? You wouldn’t want Canada to be called “Great Satan”, would you?!?
'Sides, if you left, we’d miss you. I’d miss you… ::sniff::
Don’t leave!!!
(Okay, I apologize for the excessive amounts of melodrama. Just don’t leave.)
Hey, I think Satan was, as he often is, playing an extreme statement of a serious sentiment. I suspect the country will survive a totally Republican government with strong right-wing influences; we did quite effectively in the 1920s. And yes, I consider that the impact on the Supreme Court will be significant, and lasting.
However, I want to address one point that makes his OP look tame: many of the influential Religious Right supporters of the Republican Party are devoted to a program that calls for nothing less than a theocracy in which America is “a free nation under God’s law.” Boom. And those of you who have been following C&L and related threads know what they mean by “freedom under God’s law” – civil enactment and enforcement of OT moral stipulations, and you’re free to worship as they choose and live under that law. Or else.
I get my information from Stranger at the Gate, by the Rev. Mel White of Soulforce, who was for many years the colleague of these people. And the quote above is from the statement of purpose of the Chalcedon Foundation, which he states from personal knowledge that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc., are strong supporters of.
This truly scares me. And I can see us moving in that direction. And the one accurate 20th Century prophet (because he was not operating from some ESP but from extrapolation of social trends) called the latter half of the 20th century fairly accurately, allowing for a few minor miscues, and saw the anti-intellectual evangelical religious revival starting in the South and spreading, culminating in exactly what they are calling for in about a dozen years.
Although I realize this post sounds totally off-the-wall, I have a very strong conviction that it is more like a 1920s German warning of those crazies in what’s the name of that fringe party again, the national socialists?, and being laughed down.
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, five days, 13 hours, 58 minutes and 19 seconds.
4423 cigarettes not smoked, saving $552.91.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 35 minutes.
If you are not an American citizen but spend more than 183 days in the USA you are required to file a tax return if you meet the income requirements. For tax purposes you are a resident (even if you are not a resident for other purposes).
You’ve got good old fashioned American blood pumping through those ice cold Canadian veins? Hell, come on down to Texas. We’ll check out a football game, drink some beer (Lonestar Beer of course), and hit some bars. If you’re real lucky I’ll take you south of the border where we’ll destroy a government, set up our own puppet rulers, and steal their resources in the name of the almighty dollars.
I know its quite a distance from here to there but just think about it. It’ll be a hoot.
