2 responses to “Live TV Online Canada”

• 

  buzak komolabert February 24th, 2012 at 01:59

  Leo,

  The Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) nationality did not take effect unitil 1948. At that time Obama Sr. was 12 years old..already born a British Subject. His was in the British Colony and Protectorate also known as Kenya Colony. Durring the time of 1948 there were 4 ways to acquire CUKC status.

  [ed. Irrelevant. This issue the same as deciding if one is a nbc of the US which only confers at the time of All we are concerned with is whether Obama Sr. was a UKC "citizen" at the time of Obama in 1961. OBama Sr. citizenship, regardless of what it might have been when he was born 12 years earlier, became - in 1948 - a "UKC Citizen".]

  1. at the time of the enactment of the BNA
  2. Registration
  3. Naturalization
  4. Declaration order
  Obama Sr. at age 14 was too young to naturalize in 1948 and too old to register. When Colony and Protectorate Kenya gained independence in 1963, those persons that acquired CUKC status did not lose that status:
  Secretary of State for the Home
  4. “It is usual, when Independence is granted to a colony or
  protectorate, for Parliament to take away citizenship of the United
  Kingdom and Colonies from all who automatically become citizens of the
  new country at Independence unless the person, or his father or father’s
  father, was born, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom or a remaining colony.
  In no case has citizenship been taken away from anyone not acquiring
  the new citizenship, for that would have made the person stateless.”

  So if Obama Sr. was a CUKC he would not have lost that citizenship by the independence of Kenya as stated in factcheck.org (automaically recieved Kenyan citizenship via subsection..) He would have remained a CUKC.

• 

  mccarts March 20th, 2012 at 09:59

  Songspirit, I would indeed like England to be a self-governing nation: nation, not of or Do you really think ridiculous for a nation of 50 million people (more than the population of Spain) to be self-governing? More, say, than a country (not a nation) of 60 million: the UK? I see your logic at all.

  My own preferred solution would be a federal UK, the outlines of which I discussed in a previous post. Currently, what we have is a disunited kingdom, with Scotland, Wales and Ireland free to set their own democratic priorities in social policy while England is denied that choice and is governed as the UK, with the of MPs not elected in England and therefore democratically unaccountable to the people of England. So, at the very least, I would like some of democratic fairness and consistency: if going to let the other nations of the UK govern themselves in the devolved areas, why deny that choice to England?

  I checked out those links you sent, and I notice they seem to have disappeared from your comment: not my doing. Could you send them again, and I can look at them. aware that devolution is not the same as full autonomy: that the devolved powers can be taken back to the UK parliament at any time, and that bills passed in Wales need the approval of the Wales Office, or whichever government it is. But the UK government is unlikely to recall the devolved powers now other than in a dire national crisis such as a war. I have minded had things remained the way they were pre-devolution, with a unitary system of governance for the whole of the UK – even though it would still have needed reform, such as PR and a more relevant and democratic second house. But that what we have now: in practice, as opposed to theory. In order to return to a situation in which we all “stand together as the United Kingdom”, would you advocate abolishing the devolved parliaments and governments? Good luck to you!