Entering Canada via US land border with Expired Canadian passport

[screech339]

Are you as ardent in your support of the laws that deprive the Rohingya of the protection of the Myanmar government? After all, the same law that provides for naturalizing as a Myanmar citizen also deprives the Rohingya of Myanmar citizenship, rendering them stateless and vulnerable to racial cleansing.

Is the OP a Myanmar citizen? Probably not. Your example is just an extreme example to make an extreme point. Your example is not related to my point of following country's laws.

Your response is not surprising considering that you have advocated that laws don't apply so long as you don't get caught. So not surprising that you support OP in breaking the law.

 

[Natan]

Is the OP a Myanmar citizen? Probably not. Your example is just an extreme example to make an extreme point. Your example is not related to my point of following country's laws.

It is precisely related, and considering the state of things in the world, probably not as extreme as you may think. The point is, you don't know anything about this individual's situation, but you have already publicly judged them.

Your response is not surprising considering that you have advocated that laws don't apply so long as you don't get caught.

Are your positions so weak that you have to resort to outright lies and ad hominem attacks?

I have never advocated for breaking laws. I have never stated that laws don't apply so long as one doesn't get caught. In fact, YOU are the one who said these things about me to bait me into arguing with you. And I have never stated whether I support this individual's actions or not, simply that it was not my place to judge them.

 

[screech339]

It is precisely related, and considering the state of things in the world, probably not as extreme as you may think. The point is, you don't know anything about this individual's situation, but you have already publicly judged them.


Are your positions so weak that you have to resort to outright lies and ad hominem attacks?

I have never advocated for breaking laws. I have never stated that laws don't apply so long as one doesn't get caught. In fact, YOU are the one who said these things about me to bait me into arguing with you. And I have never stated whether I support this individual's actions or not, simply that it was not my place to judge them.

Your refusal to answer my yes / no question regarding following Canada's PR rules in another thread illustrated my point. You talked about people putting words in your mouth and yet you refuse to answer my direct simple question.

 

[Natan]

Your refusal to answer my yes / no question regarding following Canada's PR rules in another thread illustrated my point. You talked about people putting words in your mouth and yet you refuse to answer my direct simple question.

My failure to answer your questions gives you no right to answer them on my behalf. If I ignore your questions, that means I have chosen not to answer them, you may not attribute to me answers I have not made.

 

[screech339]

My failure to answer your questions gives you no right to answer them on my behalf. If I ignore your questions, that means I have chosen not to answer them, you may not attribute to me answers I have not made.

Your refusal to answer questions goes to show that you don't want to reveal the hypocrisy of your arguments as shown in the link.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/refugee-could-lose-pr-and-refugee-status-after-returning-to-home-country.511424/page-4

 

[Natan]

Yeah, I know. I was asking what Canadian policy is? Does Canada rat on its citizens to foreign governments, potentially putting them in harm's way? I doubt it or at the very least sincerely hope not. Canada should be treating its citizens as its citizens and its citizens only and not informing on them to foreign governments when they renew their Canadian travel documents. But has the OP even verified what official Canadian policy is in whatever country they are in or are they going on some local myth of what it is?

It is not inconceivable that a Canadian mission may inform the host country whenever one of its citizens applies to renew a Canadian passport (conforming to the old Bancroft treaties and their equivalents). The enforcement of these outdated policies may be the result of inertia (we've always done it this way) -- perhaps no one in authority has reviewed these practices at this particular mission.

 

[screech339]

I have never advocated for breaking laws.

Since you never advocated for breaking the law, then by logic, you must agree that PR refugee must never return to their home countries as per current refugee PR rules and regulations? Is that correct? Yes or No.

 

[screech339]

It is not inconceivable that a Canadian mission may inform the host country whenever one of its citizens applies to renew a Canadian passport (conforming to the old Bancroft treaties and their equivalents). The enforcement of these outdated policies may be the result of inertia (we've always done it this way) -- perhaps no one in authority has reviewed these practices at this particular mission.

If foreign embassies do not want to follow host country rules and regulations, the host country can force them to close and force them out. So it is possible that Canadian Embassy may be forced to share their information. No difference from US forcing Canada to release who has American citizenship in Canada.

 

[Natan]

Since you never advocated for breaking the law, then by logic, you must agree that PR refugee must never return to their home countries as per current refugee PR rules and regulations? Is that correct? Yes or No.

Your statement is a text book example of what a lack of logic and critical thinking skills looks like. Please review the following example of logic:

1. Natan has made no statements advocating the breaking of laws.
2. Natan has made no statements advocating the obeying of laws.
3. Natan has stated that s/he has made no statements advocating the breaking of laws.
4. Natan has ignored questions that would determine his/her advocacy of obeying or breaking laws.

Conclusion: Natan's advocacy regarding breaking or obeying laws is unknown and cannot be determined by his/her statements.

 

[screech339]

Your statement is a text book example of what a lack of logic and critical thinking skills looks like. Please review the following example of logic:

1. Natan has made no statements advocating the breaking of laws.
2. Natan has made no statements advocating the obeying of laws.
3. Natan has stated that s/he has made no statements advocating the breaking of laws.
4. Natan has ignored questions that would determine his/her advocacy of obeying or breaking laws.

Conclusion: Natan's advocacy regarding breaking or obeying laws is and cannot be determined by his/her statements.

You are nothing but a hypocrite. You claim that you don't want people putting words in your mouth and yet as soon as you are asked directly what your statement is, you refuse to give it. As long as you refuse to give any statement, I can put words in your mouth until you state otherwise.

Conclusion: Natan's advocacy regarding breaking or obeying laws is and cannot be determined by his/her statements.

That's the funniest statement I have heard from you.

- You want refugee PR to keep PR / citizenship after they knowingly break the law returning to their home country.

- You want OP to keep dual citizenship in a country that don't allow dual by law.

Both statement above both require the person to break the laws to achieve their goals. Not once have you never condone their actions.

"Sometimes Silence is the Loudest Statement."

 

[Natan]

You are nothing but a hypocrite.

An ad hominem attack.

As long as you refuse to give any statement, I can put words in your mouth until you state otherwise.

A threat.

You want refugee PR to keep PR / citizenship after they knowingly break the law returning to their home country.

I never wrote that.

You want OP to keep dual citizenship in a country that don't allow dual by law.

I never wrote that.

"Sometimes Silence is the Loudest Statement."

And sometimes the loudest screeches are but empty noises.

 

[screech339]

And sometimes the loudest screeches are but empty noises.

At least I'm heard.

BTW: How can I be loud if I don't use capital letters anywhere.

 

[screech339]

Speaking of Myanmar crisis, you are no difference form Aung San Suu Kyi's silence on the crisis. She could have publicly make an statement of condemning the actions of her government. Her silence is just as deafening as your silence.

 

[Natan]

...you are no difference form Aung San Suu Kyi...

I am gratified that you think me no different than a Noble Peace Prize recipient. While I am truly flattered by your compliment, I must demure, as I have committed no acts worthy of such an august honour, nor am I likely to in the foreseeable future. But thank you for thinking so highly of me.

 

[screech339]

I am gratified that you think me no different than a Noble Peace Prize recipient. While I am truly flattered by your compliment, I must demure, as I have committed no acts worthy of such an august honour, nor am I likely to in the foreseeable future. But thank you for thinking so highly of me.

So you do think she deserve to keep Noble Peace after her silence? Public opinion says otherwise. LMAO. Sure! Whatever keep yourself happy in your little world.

BTW: Would you be complimented if I compared you to Nobel Peace winner Arafat as well?