wrote on 28 jun 2013 in soc.genealogy.britain: > I think you must not have read my last post. Why do you think that? Does it matter here? > In 1917, when Charlie > Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective > Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted > only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - > it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had > not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According > to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen > who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his > Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. Dear Mat, this only proves my point that, having or not having a foreign nationality has nothing to do with US-conscription for us-residents, but only that having or not having US-citizanship somtimes had, and at other times not. I stated having seen examples from WWII, you do here from WWI. Why would the distance from the US-Canadian border matter? Prior to 1983 the concept of British citizenship did not exist, btw. British nationality was defined by being a British subject. > It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his > conscription. Meaning him to be an exception? -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

On Friday, June 28, 2013 10:25:46 PM UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote: > > > I think you must not have read my last post. > > Why do you think that? Does it matter here? > > > In 1917, when Charlie > > Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective > > Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted > > only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - > > it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had > > not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According > > to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen > > who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his > > Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. > > Dear Mat, this only proves my point that, having or not having a foreign > nationality has nothing to do with US-conscription for us-residents, > but only that having or not having US-citizanship somtimes had, and at > other times not. I stated having seen examples from WWII, you do here from > WWI. > > Why would the distance from the US-Canadian border matter? > > Prior to 1983 the concept of British citizenship did not exist, btw. > British nationality was defined by being a British subject. > > > It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his > > conscription. > > Meaning him to be an exception? > > Evertjan. I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make. We are discussing Charlie Henry's conscription in 1917. The law in force in America at that time was quite clear - only American citizens or residents who had filed their papers to start the process of becoming American citizens could be conscripted. It is quite irrelevant what the law may have been at other times and I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. Whether British law in 1917 called Charlie Henry a British citizen or subject is a semantic irrelevancy - the point is that he wasn't an American citizen. The significance of Charlie Henry living just across the border from his Canadian birthplace is as follows. In the 20th century most developed nations applied conscription only to their own citizens (alright, citizens and/or subjects - but from now on to avoid tedious repetition of the phrase I will use citizen to mean both). However in 1917 America faced a slightly unusual difficulty - the massive immigration of the previous decades had meant that a large proportion of its population were not American citizens. It might be argued that this was just a technicality - that most of these migrants had no intention of ever returning to their home countries and had made an irrevocable emotional commitment to America, even if not a legal one - and some of the more extreme nationalists did campaign for all residents to be conscripted, whether or not they were foreign citizens. These arguments had much less force along the Canadian border. The teeming millions of European immigrants further south might have had no intention of returning to their home country, but like all land borders, especially between countries with a common language, the US-Canadian border saw a great deal of temporary movement back and forth. The moral basis for conscripting a Canadian living just south of the border would have been much weaker than for conscripting, say, a Norwegian farmer in Nebraska or a Lithuanian factory worker in Pittsburgh. For that reason it would be interesting to know more about Charlie Henry. Had he moved south from New Brunswick many years previously, or had he only been in Portland a short time before his conscription? Did he voluntarily accept his conscription, or was he coerced to it? Did he stay in America after his discharge, or return to Canada? Matt Tompkins

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 23:25:46 +0200, "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote: > wrote on 28 jun 2013 in soc.genealogy.britain: > >> I think you must not have read my last post. > >Why do you think that? Does it matter here? > >> In 1917, when Charlie >> Henry was drafted, the law in force in America was the Selective >> Service Act of 1917. This permitted non-US citizens to be conscripted >> only if they had started the process of applying for US citizenship - >> it specifically exempted non-US citizens from conscription if they had >> not begun the process (ie if they were 'non-declarants'). According >> to his draft card Charlie Henry was a non-declarant British citizen >> who in 1917 was living just a short way across the border from his >> Canadian birthplace, yet was conscripted into the American army. > >Dear Mat, this only proves my point that, having or not having a foreign >nationality has nothing to do with US-conscription for us-residents, >but only that having or not having US-citizanship somtimes had, and at >other times not. I stated having seen examples from WWII, you do here from >WWI. > >Why would the distance from the US-Canadian border matter? > >Prior to 1983 the concept of British citizenship did not exist, btw. > Yes it did, see :- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/ which refers to e.g. "a British subject without citizenship" before 1983. The Immigration Act 1971 refers to "citizenship" which would self-evidently be British (or UK-ish) in appropriate cases. As citizenship is a matter long dealt with in international law then the concept will consequently have existed long before those statutes. What started in 1983 was a more limited availability of citizenship, cutting out various people who previously qualified under UK laws but weren't necessarily entitled to it under international law. >British nationality was defined by being a British subject. > ITYF it wasn't that simple, in particular under the old rules when a foreigner married a British subject. >> It would be interesting to know more about the circumstances of his >> conscription. > >Meaning him to be an exception?