frambuesas

Fair point. I just wanted to know about people's own experiences, rather than just factual advantages. Some people find it quite a personal choice, others entirely practical. I'm interested in the differences and how people made their decision.

frambuesas

Yeah, my husband gets infuriated by voter apathy here.

frambuesas

That makes sense - presumably they wouldn't deport a person awaiting trial!

ian-mstm

There's probably no statistics on it, but I'm willing to bet that voter turnout is higher in the immigrant population than the non-immigrant population.

Ian

London1947

Steve, you pay for your medicare through your FICA contributions which is deducted from your paycheck, the only time you have to pay is if you elect
( part A and or part B ) Part ( A ) is to supplement medicare which costs $100 per month. Yes, of course there is a waiting period, but the folks on here are a long way of before retirement. Ps Green card holders permanent resident do qualify for medicare when the time comes. My Daughter has lived here for the past 30 years and never became a citizen, still UK, when the time comes she will get social security and medicare. As for myself i have duel citizenship and travel with both passports.

John

RICH

Lack of good options? Which emphasizes another benefit, being able to stand/hold public office. (Maybe UK could take back USA this way )

frambuesas

I think you might be on to something there. But we'd need an US-born American citizen to be President. I reckon my husband would help us out with that though.

MarylandNed

You just have to be a "natural born" USC to be eligible to become President. You do NOT necessarily have to be born in the US itself - you just have to be born a USC. John McCain ran for President and he was born in Panama.

frambuesas

Oh well, I still don't count.

Maybe our kids could...

MarylandNed

Well this study (albeit from 1999) found the exact opposite to be true:

http://www.census.gov/population/www.../twps0028.html

Voting research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s demonstrated that those who are more established in society are the most likely to register and vote. Our research using November 1996 Current Population Survey data shows that this trend continues in the 1990s. The major findings based on multivariate models are that citizens with more education and income, employed individuals, those who own their homes, those who have a longer length of time at current residence, professionals, women, older individuals, married individuals, and Blacks are more likely to register and vote.

Another major conclusion from our research is that voting behavior between naturalized and native-born citizens differs. Overall, naturalized citizens are less likely to register and vote than native-born citizens. Citizens born abroad in Europe and in Asia are 30 to 40 percent less likely to vote than those born in the U.S. While socioeconomic factors are prominent determinants of voting behavior among the native-born population, these factors are less important among the naturalized population. Among naturalized citizens, those with more education, a longer length of time at current residence, and a longer length of time in the U.S. are more likely to register and vote. The length of time spent in the U.S. is a prominent factor associated with both registration and voting among naturalized citizens.

ian-mstm

Whale oil beef hooked!

Ian

Steve_

That's what I said, 10 years of contributions.

The point I was making is that if you DON'T have ten years of contributions you have to pay premiums, i.e. there is no advantage to having US citizenship in that regard, other than you qualify for medicare, but you have to pay for it.

$550 actually per month if you have to pay part A and B. Part B alone is $100, but you would be paying part A without medicare contributions.

My point was if you became a citizen of Canada tomorrow and then moved to Canada, you qualify for healthcare straight off the bat with zero payments, ditto for most developed countries.

In the US, even if you are a citizen, you are merely entitled (required actually) to pay for it.

Wow.

Also if I understand this new medicare tax on unearned income under the ACA correctly, you could be in a situation where you are eligible for medicare (being over 65), but living abroad (thus unable to claim it) but required to pay US taxes (as a US citizen with income from certain types of investments and a total income in excess of $200,000) and thus be paying medicare taxes on something you cannot use.

Steve_

He was born in the canal zone which was a US territory at the time. But yes, you have to be a US citizen at birth, i.e. "natural born". At the time there were a lot of Indians in unorganized US territories, they wanted to exclude them.

Steve_

I think it's true, I read a similar analysis in the paper here of naturalized Canadians. Just aren't as tuned in to the topic.

fatbrit

Goldwater was also born in a territory at that time......Arizona!