sphyrapicus

That was a good one! You made me laugh As a former Quebecer who fled when Levesque and the separatists moved in, I can relate.

Rete

I'm glad you didn't take offense ;-)

Jim, having spent 36 years in the RCAF and having been on loan many times in his military career to the armed forces of the US, spent much time in Salt Lake City and in California. During one of his sojourns there with Litton (did I spell the name correctly?) designing and implementing aviation computers, he and a few buddies were at a bar one evening. In walked the then Secretary of State of California who had just finished up a conference and they all got together for a night of drinks and talk. During the evening, after imbiding more than a few, the SoS and Jim and his cohorts drew up a legal (?) document succeeding California to Canada and the Province of Quebec to the US. It was duly executed and notarized and somewhere in Jim's vast collection of papers is this said document. He often wonders if it would hold up in court.

Imagine Canada would have it very own province for the snowbirds to go to so they can still spend their money in Canada and we would have to expand the State of Louisiana.

Rete ;-)

sibsie

I don't know about holding up in court but you'd probably make a small fortune on Ebay.

sphyrapicus

It would be great if you could find that document and scan it in so we can all see it. You two should get it framed and put it on the wall. I'm not sure what country would come out ahead in that deal? Would that make Arnold a premiere then? It sure would be interesting for Folinsky, Udall, and the CSC -- all being in Canada!

Matthew Udall

What are you talking aboot, eh?

sphyrapicus

Better start brushing up on your hockey.

Andrew Defaria

sphyrapicus wrote:

    > I guess another reason would be if an LPR gets in trouble with the
    > law, they could be deported.

I've heard within the first 5 years. After that I'm not so sure (but I'm
sure I'll be corrected)

    > Yes, one might argue that they should be deported. But, from an LPR
    > point of view, getting citizenship would offer more protection.

Why then are their so many LPRs who never naturalize? As an example, a
boss of mine from England has been here some 20 years. When asked he
said he saw little need or benefit with becoming a citizen.

--
Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.

sibsie

A Swedish friend of mine has been in the US since her college days. She's now in her 40's and was going to go the Citizenship route but in the end couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork and couldn't see any real advantage for her.

Rete

I have a gf as well from the UK who has been a LPR since the 60's. She just never got around to it as she says.

Rete

sphyrapicus

Nope. You can be deported for crimes (including DWI) committed for the duration of LPR status.

It beats me. Another reason to seek citizenship would be to avoid losing status when leaving the country for extended periods of time. If one wanted to take a temporary position in some other country (e.g. go on sabbatical) or travel for more than a year without a re-entry permit (max 2 years) then one would have been deemed to abandon residency.

To me there are just too many reasons not to take advantage of citizenship. What are the down sides -- besides the hassle and expense?

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Although your point is extremley well taken, the law of abandonment of LPR is a lot more complicated that you describe. A small, but appreciable part of my practice involves abandoment and I've developed some expertise in it.

I've had people out six years and got them back. But I had one person who was deemed to have abandoned after just one day.

These cases are quite fact specific.

I have one case going now where, unfortuatnely, I have the TA from Hell -- so its a war. But my client had been coming steadily and frequently to the US for over 20 years since she was a small child on NON-immigrant visas -- as a B-2 as a kid, then F-1 followed by OPT followed by H-1. At the last entry, they determined the H-1 was no longer valid due to change of employers and they grilled her incessently at the airport and extracted all kinds of concessions and admissions about she had every intent of actually living, working and residing in the US as long as she possibly could. She was honest and freely admitted that.

When they finished the interview, the decided to generously allow to withdraw her application for admission and return to her home country. When making the computer entry for this course of events -- a little fact popped up -- her very FIRST admission to the US at age FOUR had been as an IMMGRANT. My client had no idea she had had a green card!

The facts developed by the former INS show clearly and unequivocally that my client had no intent whatsoever to abandon her green card. How could she have such an intent when she had no idea she even the bloody card! Of course, she had no intent to keep it either.

So the expedited removal was replaced with a noticed removal proceeding before the Immigraiton Judge. Although she is an "arriving alien" and the Act places the burden of proof on her, the Supremes has said twice, in 1954 and 1984, the burden in on the government. And the Courts of Appeals and the Board of Immigration Appeals have followed the Supremes.

I'm actually having fun with this particular case. I have a feeling it might end up as a published appellate decision one day.

supernav

>When asked he said he saw little need or benefit with becoming >a citizen.

True. I'm a native american, and i'm under no obligation to even "recognize" a United States of America. When i cross the border, i just flash my tribal passport and get waived right through.

-= nav =-

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Are you an "American Indian Born In Canda"??

They do get special dispensation going back to the 1789 Jay Treaty.

sphyrapicus

Yes, you definitely know a hell of a lot more about this than I do! You won't get any argument from me there. I was merely trying to illustrate my point that there are many reasons for seeking citizenship - the issue of residency abandonment is yet another relevant motivating factor that needs to be considered.

Andrew Defaria

sphyrapicus wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> I've heard within the first 5 years. After that I'm not so sure (but
    >> I'm sure I'll be corrected)
    > Nope. You can be deported for crimes (including DWI) committed for the
    > duration of LPR status.

I knew I'd be corrected. I wonder, however, how many LPRs are deported
for DWI (BTW: I assume that DWI is Driving While Intoxicated. I wonder
if DUI (Driving Under the Influence), which I think covers under the
influence of all thinks like drugs too, also applies).

--
Why do croutons come in airtight packages? It's just stale bread to
begin with.