Hyphenated Canadians(dual citizenship)
Unsound @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:15 am
I'm sure this has been discussed in one context or another, but it's been a while. And my situation has the potential for change so I thought I'd bring it up again to see what the fine folks of CKA think.
As far as the informal or self-identifying part of things go, I am firmly Danish-Canadian. I know there are those who see that kind of self-identification as disloyal, or perhaps as an attempt to cling to the past, or even as a sad attempt to take credit of some kind for the actions of your ancestors. But to me, it's more just an acknowledgment of of who I am. The foods I grew up with and still love, the language I speak at home(sometimes), my sense of humour, the way we celebrate christmas, the things like viking history and mythology that interest me, etc. I'm still firmly Canadian, what with loving hockey and complaining about the weather, but my heritage is a big part of me. I don't see alot of room for debate here, but go aead if you want.
The thing that I'm puzzling over right now is the legal aspect of citizenship. Denmark recently changed their laws to allow dual citizenship and I'm pretty sure I qualify. Used to be that they made you choose when you were 21, and at that time I simply stopped renewing my danish passport. I never actually officially renounced my citizenship and I still remember my personnummer(SIN). I'm considering doing it but there are a couple questions in my mind.
1) Is it worth the effort? What use do I have for it? Unless I can convince the wife that we should move the family to Denmark for a year or so I don't really have much use for it, other than being able to say I have it.
2) Is there a moral argument against? Woud I somehow be taking advantage? I have no plans to claim a pension or anything silly like that. And I don't ever see a situation like with all the lebanese-canadians that we paid to evacuate some years ago, but I do worry thart some might see it that way.
3) The one situation where I might be taking an unfair advantage... my kids. I'm fairly certain that if I'm a citizen, they can be too. That would certainly make it easier if they decide later in life to do like I did and move over there to work for a while and experience it. They might even be eligible to go to school there if they wanted. For free. I don't see this is a very likely thing, but it is a possibility.
Anyone else face similiar situatiions? Brenda perhaps?
andyt @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:41 am
I don't see a downside to it - Denmark is a pretty nice country, always nice to have multiple passports. And if you move to Denmark because Canada has gone in the crapper, how is that any different with a passport than just being an immigrant the way so man people are immigrating here?
You speak English, you have adopted our core values, so you're not the kind of hyphenated Canadian that doesn't let go of the old country or only has our passport for convenience.
As far as loyalty to Canada goes - If we go to war over Hans Island, who would you cheer for, and who's army would you join if it came to that?
Brenda @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:06 am
Just because you are Canadian and have a Canadian passport doesn't mean you cannot be loyal to your heritage. Loyalty to one does not mean disloyalty to everything else, and everyone who says it does, is not really Canadian 
I would never denounce my Dutch citizenship. Not if I would be able to become a dual citizen and not now I can't. I lived there for 36 years, my family still lives there, and practically, all it does for Canada if I become a citizen, is that I can vote. That is no big deal to me because I do not understand the Canadian system. I do not vote in the Dutch elections either anymore, because I lost understanding and don't even know who's who anymore.
That said, if you keep your Danish citizenship, you keep European citizenship, which might be important for your children. They might want to go to University in Europe, and I would think that that would be a bit easier when they are dual citizens as well. You might want to dig into Danish law there. I'm not sure whether they automatically became Danish citizens by birth, but I would assume so.
Jabberwalker @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:08 am
I don't know ... those Danes and their cartoons ...
And then there's Han's Island. What's your stand on Han's island? Our whole Canadian identity revolves around that question (just like the Argentinians and the Malvinas). Are you for us or are you with those godless hordes from Mark?
martin14 @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:12 am
Unsound Unsound:
I'm sure this has been discussed in one context or another, but it's been a while. And my situation has the potential for change so I thought I'd bring it up again to see what the fine folks of CKA think.
As far as the informal or self-identifying part of things go, I am firmly Danish-Canadian. I know there are those who see that kind of self-identification as disloyal, or perhaps as an attempt to cling to the past, or even as a sad attempt to take credit of some kind for the actions of your ancestors. But to me, it's more just an acknowledgment of of who I am. The foods I grew up with and still love, the language I speak at home(sometimes), my sense of humour, the way we celebrate christmas, the things like viking history and mythology that interest me, etc. I'm still firmly Canadian, what with loving hockey and complaining about the weather, but my heritage is a big part of me. I don't see alot of room for debate here, but go aead if you want.
The thing that I'm puzzling over right now is the legal aspect of citizenship. Denmark recently changed their laws to allow dual citizenship and I'm pretty sure I qualify. Used to be that they made you choose when you were 21, and at that time I simply stopped renewing my danish passport. I never actually officially renounced my citizenship and I still remember my personnummer(SIN). I'm considering doing it but there are a couple questions in my mind.
1) Is it worth the effort? What use do I have for it? Unless I can convince the wife that we should move the family to Denmark for a year or so I don't really have much use for it, other than being able to say I have it.
2) Is there a moral argument against? Woud I somehow be taking advantage? I have no plans to claim a pension or anything silly like that. And I don't ever see a situation like with all the lebanese-canadians that we paid to evacuate some years ago, but I do worry thart some might see it that way.
3) The one situation where I might be taking an unfair advantage... my kids. I'm fairly certain that if I'm a citizen, they can be too. That would certainly make it easier if they decide later in life to do like I did and move over there to work for a while and experience it. They might even be eligible to go to school there if they wanted. For free. I don't see this is a very likely thing, but it is a possibility.
Anyone else face similiar situatiions? Brenda perhaps?
As far as the informal or self-identifying part of things go, I am firmly Danish-Canadian. I know there are those who see that kind of self-identification as disloyal, or perhaps as an attempt to cling to the past, or even as a sad attempt to take credit of some kind for the actions of your ancestors. But to me, it's more just an acknowledgment of of who I am. The foods I grew up with and still love, the language I speak at home(sometimes), my sense of humour, the way we celebrate christmas, the things like viking history and mythology that interest me, etc. I'm still firmly Canadian, what with loving hockey and complaining about the weather, but my heritage is a big part of me. I don't see alot of room for debate here, but go aead if you want.
The thing that I'm puzzling over right now is the legal aspect of citizenship. Denmark recently changed their laws to allow dual citizenship and I'm pretty sure I qualify. Used to be that they made you choose when you were 21, and at that time I simply stopped renewing my danish passport. I never actually officially renounced my citizenship and I still remember my personnummer(SIN). I'm considering doing it but there are a couple questions in my mind.
1) Is it worth the effort? What use do I have for it? Unless I can convince the wife that we should move the family to Denmark for a year or so I don't really have much use for it, other than being able to say I have it.
2) Is there a moral argument against? Woud I somehow be taking advantage? I have no plans to claim a pension or anything silly like that. And I don't ever see a situation like with all the lebanese-canadians that we paid to evacuate some years ago, but I do worry thart some might see it that way.
3) The one situation where I might be taking an unfair advantage... my kids. I'm fairly certain that if I'm a citizen, they can be too. That would certainly make it easier if they decide later in life to do like I did and move over there to work for a while and experience it. They might even be eligible to go to school there if they wanted. For free. I don't see this is a very likely thing, but it is a possibility.
Anyone else face similiar situatiions? Brenda perhaps?
1) It will be just paperwork. A Danish passport will give you a free ticket to work or study anywhere in Europe.
2) No, you won't qualify for a pension or anything like that.
You or the kids might get called up though, so think about that one.
It was one of the reasons my parents moved to Canada over the U.S., they still had selective service and Vietnam was on at that time.
There is for me a moral argument against;
I could have a passport and citizenship from several different countries, and have always categorically refused. Personally, I don't believe in dual passports, but that's just me.
It isn't just oranges in the stocking, Chocolate on Dec. 6, smelly fish, Genever and aquavit.
I am Canadian, end of story.
Brenda will probably feel the same way about staying Dutch, no matter how long she lives
in Canada.
3) My parents were in such a hurry to become Canadian, they never really sat down to think I might go on the road. It might be a good deal for your kids.
But again, it is really up to you to define yourself and your family.
andyt andyt:
how is that any different with a passport than just being an immigrant the way so man people are immigrating here?
so you're not the kind of hyphenated Canadian that doesn't let go of the old country or only has our passport for convenience.
so you're not the kind of hyphenated Canadian that doesn't let go of the old country or only has our passport for convenience.
But, by that definition, Unsound would be a hyphenated Danish citizen of convenience.
How is that any different ?
Brenda @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:19 am
$1:
Brenda will probably feel the same way about staying Dutch, no matter how long she lives in Canada.
Absolutely. And that has nothing to do with Canada, which is the country I choose to live in, pay taxes to, speak the language of, celebrate the traditions of.
I just don't vote
2Cdo @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:27 am
Brenda Brenda:
$1:
Brenda will probably feel the same way about staying Dutch, no matter how long she lives in Canada.
Absolutely. And that has nothing to do with Canada, which is the country I choose to live in, pay taxes to, speak the language of, celebrate the traditions of.
I just don't vote
Neither do a lot of citizens.
N_Fiddledog @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:49 am
"Dual citizenship: our very own Trojan horse
by Klaus Rohrich
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
In 1977, the Liberal Government of Canada headed by none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau enacted a law that redefined the meaning of Canadian citizenship. The act, passed on Feb 15, 1977 made it possible for individuals to be citizens of Canada as well as one or more other countries simultaneously. According to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada web site "A person may have several citizenships at the same time. For example, a person who was born in a country other than Canada, who applies for citizenship and is naturalized in Canada, and then naturalized in a third country may be a citizen of all three countries."
Like most of the ideas emanating from the brain of Trudeau, the redefinition of Canadian citizenship had some foreseeable and potentially costly consequences. The reality of this law is that individuals coming to Canada may live here for three years and then become naturalized Canadians, while retaining their status of citizen of the country from which he or she originated. It precludes making any commitment to Canada while it confers all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.
As George Jonas pointed out in Saturday's National Post, that's how some 40,000 "Canadians" wound up being trapped in Lebanon, while the U.S., whose population is 10 times that of Canada only had some 20,000 of its citizens trapped in the war zone. Jonas called them "paper citizens", meaning that many have a collection of passports, which are usable, according to which citizenship might happen to be more advantageous at any given time.
Many of these "paper citizens" are the same ones who complained so bitterly that Prime Minister Harper's government didn't act quickly enough, and that the accommodations of the evacuation vessels left something to be desired and there should have been more food, more water, softer beds, ad nauseum.
I can't find fault with individuals taking advantage of a legal perk. However, that's not to say that I can't find fault with a government that makes these legal perks available to individuals who have no vested interest in Canada, other than to have access to the benefits of citizenship, should it become convenient.
Dual citizenship has become Canada's Trojan horse. Since Mr. Trudeau and his koom-by-ya choir enacted this legislation, the world has seen some drastic changes. The emergence of fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are committed to the reestablishment of the Caliphate and the destruction of our way of life is one such change, among many others. There are numerous instances where holders of Canadian passports engaged in terrorist activities only to return to the security of Canada when their position abroad became untenable. The Khadr family is a good example. Ahmed Said Khadr and his wife Maha Ensamnah are perhaps the most classic example of how terrorists use Canadian laws to further their aims.
When Khadr was charged with attempting to bomb the Egyptian embassy in Karachi, Pakistan in 1995, it was the prime minister of Canada (Jean Chretien) who personally arranged to Khadr's extraction back to Canada. The Khadrs hated everything that Canada stood for, but did not hesitate to use the benefits of Canadian citizenship to evade a jail sentence in Pakistan. Maha Ensamnah expressed concerns about her sons attending public school in Canada because she feared there were too many homosexuals in the schools.
After a relatively short stay in Canada, the Khadrs returned to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border where the elder Khadr plus one of his sons were eventually killed in a gunfight with Pakistani troops. The youngest son, Abdul Karim Khadr was injured as well and is now confined to a wheelchair. In order to gain the best medical care for the injured boy, Maha Ensamnah returned him to Canada, homosexuals notwithstanding.
One other member of the Khadr family is currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Omar Khadr, who was 16 years old when he participated in a prisoner uprising in Afghanistan, is charged with killing two American soldiers. He is currently awaiting trial.
The Khadr family is an extreme example of how the laws of dual-citizenship have demonstrated that they are not to our own benefit. To be sure there are others. The pitfalls of this law are that individuals could easily work against the best interests of Canada while abroad but return if the need arose.
What needs to be done now is to change Canada's citizenship laws in such a way as to force those seeking Canadian citizenship to invest in their adopted country not only monetarily through taxes, but also emotionally by committing to become a vibrant member of the family of Canadians and forsaking the citizenship of the country from which they originated."
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/klaus072506.htm
Jabberwalker @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:09 pm
One of my sets of grandparents immigrated from the U.K.. I believe that, because they were British citizens, I would be eligible for British citizenship myself. It is either still law or it was until recently. I cannot, however, think of any reason why I should do so. There is no advantage in British citizenship that Canadian citizenship doesn't provide and then some. I don't think that you can do better than be a citizen of Canada. Why do you need to identify with anywhere else?
andyt @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:29 pm
martin14 martin14:
andyt andyt:
how is that any different with a passport than just being an immigrant the way so man people are immigrating here?
so you're not the kind of hyphenated Canadian that doesn't let go of the old country or only has our passport for convenience.
so you're not the kind of hyphenated Canadian that doesn't let go of the old country or only has our passport for convenience.
But, by that definition, Unsound would be a hyphenated Danish citizen of convenience.
How is that any different ?
Good point. I've never thought about it from the perspective of another country. Guess I'm biased. I see Europeans as our allies, and a close cultural connection (one that would be closer if I had my way). So I don't think of either passport as just something to use as a refuge if things go wonky in your home country, expect to be bailed out and then go right back once things calm down. Or fuck up your home country with skeezy business dealings, then run to Canada if things go wonky.
Things would have to change drastically before I saw having dual citizenship with Denmark as a conflict of interests, but then things do seem to be changing drastically right now. As I said, bottom line to me is who's team would you fight for if it came to that - that would be the time to hold only one passport.
I don't know what Unsound does for a living, but imagine working for a company that has business in both countries and how much easier it would be to have both passports - nothing wrong with that, seems to me.
Also, the Danish passport would be good insurance if Harper runs rampant and destroys our medical system and uni becomes unaffordable here for Unsound's kids.
Yogi @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:52 pm
You are a Canadian by choice. Therefore you are a Canadian of Danish heritage.
Yogi @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:57 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
"Dual citizenship: our very own Trojan horse
by Klaus Rohrich
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
In 1977, the Liberal Government of Canada headed by none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau enacted a law that redefined the meaning of Canadian citizenship. The act, passed on Feb 15, 1977 made it possible for individuals to be citizens of Canada as well as one or more other countries simultaneously. According to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada web site "A person may have several citizenships at the same time. For example, a person who was born in a country other than Canada, who applies for citizenship and is naturalized in Canada, and then naturalized in a third country may be a citizen of all three countries."
Like most of the ideas emanating from the brain of Trudeau, the redefinition of Canadian citizenship had some foreseeable and potentially costly consequences. The reality of this law is that individuals coming to Canada may live here for three years and then become naturalized Canadians, while retaining their status of citizen of the country from which he or she originated. It precludes making any commitment to Canada while it confers all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.
As George Jonas pointed out in Saturday's National Post, that's how some 40,000 "Canadians" wound up being trapped in Lebanon, while the U.S., whose population is 10 times that of Canada only had some 20,000 of its citizens trapped in the war zone. Jonas called them "paper citizens", meaning that many have a collection of passports, which are usable, according to which citizenship might happen to be more advantageous at any given time.
Many of these "paper citizens" are the same ones who complained so bitterly that Prime Minister Harper's government didn't act quickly enough, and that the accommodations of the evacuation vessels left something to be desired and there should have been more food, more water, softer beds, ad nauseum.
I can't find fault with individuals taking advantage of a legal perk. However, that's not to say that I can't find fault with a government that makes these legal perks available to individuals who have no vested interest in Canada, other than to have access to the benefits of citizenship, should it become convenient.
Dual citizenship has become Canada's Trojan horse. Since Mr. Trudeau and his koom-by-ya choir enacted this legislation, the world has seen some drastic changes. The emergence of fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are committed to the reestablishment of the Caliphate and the destruction of our way of life is one such change, among many others. There are numerous instances where holders of Canadian passports engaged in terrorist activities only to return to the security of Canada when their position abroad became untenable. The Khadr family is a good example. Ahmed Said Khadr and his wife Maha Ensamnah are perhaps the most classic example of how terrorists use Canadian laws to further their aims.
When Khadr was charged with attempting to bomb the Egyptian embassy in Karachi, Pakistan in 1995, it was the prime minister of Canada (Jean Chretien) who personally arranged to Khadr's extraction back to Canada. The Khadrs hated everything that Canada stood for, but did not hesitate to use the benefits of Canadian citizenship to evade a jail sentence in Pakistan. Maha Ensamnah expressed concerns about her sons attending public school in Canada because she feared there were too many homosexuals in the schools.
After a relatively short stay in Canada, the Khadrs returned to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border where the elder Khadr plus one of his sons were eventually killed in a gunfight with Pakistani troops. The youngest son, Abdul Karim Khadr was injured as well and is now confined to a wheelchair. In order to gain the best medical care for the injured boy, Maha Ensamnah returned him to Canada, homosexuals notwithstanding.
One other member of the Khadr family is currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Omar Khadr, who was 16 years old when he participated in a prisoner uprising in Afghanistan, is charged with killing two American soldiers. He is currently awaiting trial.
The Khadr family is an extreme example of how the laws of dual-citizenship have demonstrated that they are not to our own benefit. To be sure there are others. The pitfalls of this law are that individuals could easily work against the best interests of Canada while abroad but return if the need arose.
What needs to be done now is to change Canada's citizenship laws in such a way as to force those seeking Canadian citizenship to invest in their adopted country not only monetarily through taxes, but also emotionally by committing to become a vibrant member of the family of Canadians and forsaking the citizenship of the country from which they originated."
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/klaus072506.htm
by Klaus Rohrich
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
In 1977, the Liberal Government of Canada headed by none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau enacted a law that redefined the meaning of Canadian citizenship. The act, passed on Feb 15, 1977 made it possible for individuals to be citizens of Canada as well as one or more other countries simultaneously. According to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada web site "A person may have several citizenships at the same time. For example, a person who was born in a country other than Canada, who applies for citizenship and is naturalized in Canada, and then naturalized in a third country may be a citizen of all three countries."
Like most of the ideas emanating from the brain of Trudeau, the redefinition of Canadian citizenship had some foreseeable and potentially costly consequences. The reality of this law is that individuals coming to Canada may live here for three years and then become naturalized Canadians, while retaining their status of citizen of the country from which he or she originated. It precludes making any commitment to Canada while it confers all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.
As George Jonas pointed out in Saturday's National Post, that's how some 40,000 "Canadians" wound up being trapped in Lebanon, while the U.S., whose population is 10 times that of Canada only had some 20,000 of its citizens trapped in the war zone. Jonas called them "paper citizens", meaning that many have a collection of passports, which are usable, according to which citizenship might happen to be more advantageous at any given time.
Many of these "paper citizens" are the same ones who complained so bitterly that Prime Minister Harper's government didn't act quickly enough, and that the accommodations of the evacuation vessels left something to be desired and there should have been more food, more water, softer beds, ad nauseum.
I can't find fault with individuals taking advantage of a legal perk. However, that's not to say that I can't find fault with a government that makes these legal perks available to individuals who have no vested interest in Canada, other than to have access to the benefits of citizenship, should it become convenient.
Dual citizenship has become Canada's Trojan horse. Since Mr. Trudeau and his koom-by-ya choir enacted this legislation, the world has seen some drastic changes. The emergence of fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are committed to the reestablishment of the Caliphate and the destruction of our way of life is one such change, among many others. There are numerous instances where holders of Canadian passports engaged in terrorist activities only to return to the security of Canada when their position abroad became untenable. The Khadr family is a good example. Ahmed Said Khadr and his wife Maha Ensamnah are perhaps the most classic example of how terrorists use Canadian laws to further their aims.
When Khadr was charged with attempting to bomb the Egyptian embassy in Karachi, Pakistan in 1995, it was the prime minister of Canada (Jean Chretien) who personally arranged to Khadr's extraction back to Canada. The Khadrs hated everything that Canada stood for, but did not hesitate to use the benefits of Canadian citizenship to evade a jail sentence in Pakistan. Maha Ensamnah expressed concerns about her sons attending public school in Canada because she feared there were too many homosexuals in the schools.
After a relatively short stay in Canada, the Khadrs returned to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border where the elder Khadr plus one of his sons were eventually killed in a gunfight with Pakistani troops. The youngest son, Abdul Karim Khadr was injured as well and is now confined to a wheelchair. In order to gain the best medical care for the injured boy, Maha Ensamnah returned him to Canada, homosexuals notwithstanding.
One other member of the Khadr family is currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Omar Khadr, who was 16 years old when he participated in a prisoner uprising in Afghanistan, is charged with killing two American soldiers. He is currently awaiting trial.
The Khadr family is an extreme example of how the laws of dual-citizenship have demonstrated that they are not to our own benefit. To be sure there are others. The pitfalls of this law are that individuals could easily work against the best interests of Canada while abroad but return if the need arose.
What needs to be done now is to change Canada's citizenship laws in such a way as to force those seeking Canadian citizenship to invest in their adopted country not only monetarily through taxes, but also emotionally by committing to become a vibrant member of the family of Canadians and forsaking the citizenship of the country from which they originated."
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/klaus072506.htm
We’re all hyphenated
Multiculturalism was not created by the Liberals “to integrate new immigrants into Canadian society” (Hyphenation’s Outdated Insult – March 11). It arose in the 1960s because the Pearson government wanted to respond to the growing threat of separatism.
The government struck the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which, as its name implies, was supposed to define Canadian society as bilingual and bicultural (English and French). The commissioners soon discovered that most ethnic groups (other than English and French) supported bilingualism, but not biculturalism. The one-third of Canadians who were not of either heritage wished to preserve their own cultures, as best as they could. They did not wish to be assimilated (different from integrated) into either English or French cultures. Faced with this reality, the Trudeau government adopted our official policy of multiculturalism in 1971.
We are all hyphenates, whether we are aboriginal Canadians, anglo Canadians, French Canadians, Greek Canadians or Slovak Canadians. We are all integrating into Canadian society, but not assimilating into one indistinguishable “melting pot.” We have learned to live with our differences without forcing anyone to become what he/she is not. That is the unique character of Canada and I am proud of it.
M. Mark Stolarik, professor of history, University of Ottawa
andyt @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:10 pm
I'm Canadian-Canadian. Sure, I have a European heritage as many people do, but I don't think of myself as hyphenated, but just Canadian, and get offended when somebody wants to thrust that hyphen at me (vs thrusting that hymen at me).
Unsound @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:24 pm
Battery in the mouse is dead and I refuse to try qouting using the touch pad, so I'll just respond in a general way to some points.
The idea of Denmark and Canada going to war, over Hans island or anything else, is so far fetched that I've never really thought deeply on who I would choose. In sports I generally cheer for whichever is the underdog in any particular contest. Based on Canada's history I would probably end up in an interment camp before I had a chance to choose anyways
In all honesty, it really is the idea that anyone would think I was trying to take advantage the same way some so-called Canadians of convenience have that really makes me stop and consider the morality of this situation.
It really is only on the off chance that I ever wanted/needed to go workk there again, or for the sake of making it easier for my children to experience their heritage the way I did. I'm not sure if sending them there would constitute taking advantage or not. Even if they took advantage of the free schooling I could comfort myself with the idea that my rich childless uncle probably paid enough taxes to cover their tuition
Being called up, myself or the kids, isn't particularily likely. As I understand it, they generally have more volunteers than they actually need so mandatory service has fallen a little by the wayside. And if not... might be good for us.
In the end though, we are Canadian. A danish passport would be more about providing opportunities than anything else.
Maybe I'll ask a few cousins ow they would feel about it. Certainly none of them has a problem when I came over there to work. Of course, maybe they were thinking I'd meet a nice girl and stay
Jabberwalker @ Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:45 pm
The idea of Denmark and Canada going to war, over Hans island or anything else, is so far fetched that I've never really thought deeply on who I would choose.
I you did so, I would worry about your general sanity.