Unhappy Democrats Need to Wait to Get Into Canada

Who seriously would pack up and leave based on a presidential election?  Especially when another election is less than 4 years away.

Unhappy Democrats Need to Wait to Get Into Canada

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.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3CMLRU54INTXICRBAEOCFFA?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292&pageNumber=1

Mass emigration from Europe to the new world - 1800-1900.
Mass immigration to Europe from the new world - 2000?

Sorry, we need that extra space to build mosques, we are being overtaken, remember?

That you are!  Isn\'t there a negative birth rate in most of Europe?  You all might need some new blood to return home.

Meh... I wouldn\'t go and move... but things are pretty depressing and demoralizing for the far-left right now, wether you agree with us or not....

Especially with the GOP controlling the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court....

Sheesh....

[Living-In-Clip]

I can see why. If I could get a decent job in Canada, I would probably move also. I personally disagree with every thing Bush stands for and I hate the direction in which this country is going. It\'s all personal opinion, if someone hates the way the country is and wants to move - then so be it.

I wouldn\'t move to Canada, but I would go up there to smoke a doobie if they legalized it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/09/04/canada.pot/index.html

The reason I don\'t think it is a rational choice is:

1.  finding a new job

2.  lower wages most likely

3.  new election in less than 3 years.  What is the point of moving in that by the time you get settled it will be an election year.

Originally posted by Coredweller
I wouldn\'t move to Canada, but I would go up there to smoke a doobie if they legalized it.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/09/04/canada.pot/index.html

Didn\'t they vote on that in Alaska?

People who think with that sort of mentality are better off in another country. If anything, I don\'t think I\'d miss them liberals.

What is it? Everyone is saying that voters have put in a new mandate towards the government. The problem with this is that no one can agree on what put Bush over the top. So basically the republican party can really do whatever they want with little to no opposition.

It really is a good time to be a Republican politician.

Don\'t see what your point is.  Democrats sometimes win and Republicans sometimes win.  It\'s gonna be this way for a long time.

No the fact that Republicans won so resoundingly. 51% of the popular vote and total control of Congress and the House is leading many republican politicians/pundits to say that the people have put in a new mandate. Meaning the American people have clearly stated that they want the government to do something but no one knows for sure what that something is.

Some people are saying that Bush won because of terrorism. Do the people support the war on terror and want the government to continue on the same path? Some people say that BUsh won the morality vote. Do the people want the government to enforce more morality? And there are still other reasons given for the widespread republican victory.

Basically since there is no clear cut answer the republicans can interprete that mandate as they see fit.

[Evi]

*diarrhea*

I suppose one could move down south of the border instesd of north.
I hear there are parts of the border where you don\'t even have to show any papers, much less explain why you are coming down.

I really don\'t understand why people would move.....90% of the decisions the gorvernment makes won\'t even effect you. My way of life/daily routine has not changed the slightest bit since Bush took over in 2000.