I have a question to ask ,since United States was colonized by Britian ,Why United States not part of Commomwealth nation like other Britian white colony like Canada ,Australia and New Zealand ?Will USA become World Superpower if they part of or join Commonwealth ?Please give opinion .

Thanks .

Since the American Revolution, the United States has had independence as a high priority. The split with Britain was rather decisive. I don't know about Australia or New Zealand, but I believe Canada didn't full separate itself from British influence until 1982.

Now there is talk of a North American Union between Canada, U.S., and Mexico. The President of Mexico has said he wants this. In the U.S. the NAU is talked about mostly with conspiracy theories. I can't speak for all Americans, but one of the primary ideals of America is its independence; therefore, joining other nations in some kind of confederacy would be a hard sell to Americans. There is the United Nations, but the U.S. pretty much does what it wants regardless of what the U.N. says, which is evidence of the importance in the American mind, of independence.

USA is probably also just too big and powerful, I think, it would imbalance the Commonwealth. All the other countries there are mostly small, like little islands, and Australia doesn't have much people. I don't know, is India in the Commonwealth? It has lots of people, of course, but not the economic and military might of America.
also, doesn;t being in the commonwealth mean you have to have Queen Elizabeth as head of state? I can't imagine the USA doing that. and on a more practical note, what benefit would being in the Commonwealth give the USA anyway? The European Union, that is a meaningful union with benefits for the members, but the Commonwealth seems a lot symbolic, a bit like the CIS here in Russia, something set up at first straight after the colonial-type period ends to give a feeling that you still have ties to the former colonies, but then everyone gradually drifts their own way. I think Britain is more committed to the EU than to its former colonies.

partly joking, but...
because the British hates us. and we fought 2 wars against each other.
and becasue they have a monarchy.
and they taxed us without representation, and hasn't paid us back yet.
for that we hate them, we bow to no monarchs or tyrants.

more seriously...
they formed the commonwealth because they needed security after the great war, kinda like a premature NATO.

and on top of that, the United States reached its first peak of "superpowership" around the time CON was formed. and has yet to see a major decline since then, even the 1929 crash didn't stop us.

the question to ask is,
Why would we degrade ourselves to join them? We were making refrigerators while they were still digging through rubbles.
Americans at the time were very arrogant.

The Commonwealth of Nations was formed after the end of the British Empire from those countries which had been part of it during or just prior to the 20th century. It is founded on the acceptance of the Westminster parliamentary system of democracy, and shared values. The United States is very much a good friend to many Commonwealth nations, but they value the organisation as a forum for sharing dialogue, as well as for strengthening the principles of parliamentary democracy in the member countries. For example, the Commonwealth provides election monitors for elections in Africa and elsewhere, as well aas training for Parliamentary officers.

These nations would balk at US membership of the organisation.

Most of us like the United States very much, but they probably wouldn't fit in the "club".

To be accurate, the United States was not colonized by Britain, it was (eastern) North America that was colonized by Britain, which formed a number of separate colonies.

The United States was formed when 13 of these colonies broke away to form the United States of America. And after the US came into existence, it had not been colonised by any other country.

The Commonwealth of Nations only came into existence in 1926 (Balfour Declaration), one and half century after the US was established in 1776. By then, there was long no colonial or political ties whatsoever with UK. All past and present members of the Commonwealth of Nations were former British colonies or Dominions at the time of the founding of the Commonwealth when there were still political links to Britain.

One of the criteria for membership was accepting the monarch of the Commonwealth Realms as Head of the Commonwealth, a condition which US had no use for since the time the Commonwealth was established. Back in 1926, the US had already established itself as a major power in its own right, as demonstrated by it tilting the balance during World War 1.

Snowybeagle is correct in acceptance of the then King and now the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. Before there are screams of protest, this does not presently require the country to have the Queen as Head of State, although some countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand do. Other countries in the Commonwealth are republics, like India, but their historical and political links make membership a meaningful proposition for them.

Apart from being a place for dialogue and sending election monitors, what does the Commonwealth actually do? What does it offer its members? I know the European Union lets citizens of EU countries move freely within the union, and go and work in each other's countries, for example, but as far as I understand, the Commonwealth does not offer these kinds of benefits, at least not Britain. If you are Indian or Australian or whatever, you can't just go and work in Britain, can you? Are there aid programmes, economic, cultural and so on programmes and exchanges like in the EU? Do Commonwealth countries feel some kind of ties between themselves? They are so diverse, I mean like Caribean islands and Australia, or India and Canada.

Those are excellent questions.

I don't know much about the Commonwealth, but in general, I'm against anything that brings the United States closer to being anything that inspired us to leave Europe.

Check out http://www.commonwealth-of-nations.org/art...mp;subsection=2


Yes for Australians, no for Indians.
Australia is a member of the Commonwealth Realms, India is not.

Actually, Australians do not have an automatic right to work in the UK. There is a working holiday scheme in place for people under 26, which works both ways.

"The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states ... consulting and cooperating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace."

If this is true, and they adhere strictly to this goal of considerate pacifism, it sounds like a good organization. We need countries to not be greedy or war minded for profit, but rather think of their people and the issues that affect all of us. That surely brings benevolence.

Galvatron, your question seems to suggest that you do not believe the U.S. is a World Superpower, is that right? Just curious as to why you think that.

As for my opinion, the U.S. has always wanted to be as independent as possible. For example, we have refused at times to pay dues to the U.N., attacked Iraq without international approval, and failed to sign the Kyoto Accords. And, as others are already saying, American membership in the CON is not in the best interest of the U.S. or the member nations.

You're probably right. Not sure if it was because things had changed though.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/ukreside...ingdomancestry/
Those from the Commonwealth and has UK ancestry (grandparent born in UK/Ireland before 31 March 1932) do have a special avenue available to UK residency though.

The right to which you refer is called a certificate of patriality. If you had a parent who was born in the UK, you could apply for citizenship even if you were born abroad. If you had a grandparent born in the UK, you are not entitled to citizenship, ut rather than give you no rights of entry at all, they allow you a certificate of patriality in your foreign passport which gives you a right of entry, but not the same rights as a citizen. It is a sort of half-way house.

I understand that many EU nations do the same thing, so Britain may as well do it, since anyone with a right of entry into the EU effectively has a right of entry into Britain.

How is right of entry different to what the passport of a commonwealth country entitles you to anyway? I mean, as far as I understand it, if your passport is from a commonwealth country, like say Australia, New Zealand, Canada, you can travel as a tourist to Britain or the EU anyway and stay whatever it is, 90 days in the EU, I think. So, if you have this certificate, what does it give you? Not the right to work, but then what, the right to be inside the country for longer maybe? In this sense, woldn't Americans have the same rights too anyway, because an American passport is also enough to enter Britain or EU without a visa.
I really support everything that gives people greater freedom of movement and freedom to choose where to reside and work, anywhere in the world. And not just based on where their ancestry is. I think anyone who has been an immigrant (especially in the rich countries) would agree.

I think you have misunderstood.

A certificate of patriality gives the holder the right to enter, live and work in the United Kingodm, and so is different from a 90 day tourist visa. The holder does not have the right of citizenship. What does that mean? That means the holder may not be entitled to receive social security, nor to enjoy other rights guaranteed to citizens. I am not sure about the UK, but some countries, including now Australia, have provisions which alow the deportation of non-citizens who are convicted of certain offences.

Ummm, we kind of are THE world superpower. Have been since the fall of the USSR. Will be till either we self-destruct (possible but not likely) or are superceded economically by China (more likely, but still not all that probable).
The raw Consumerism and rabid clinging to our rights and our guns are things that no other nations has ever had and certainly seem like things no other nation ever will have. At least no one else seems to Want to have them.

We didn't join the CON because of 2 things:
1 We didn't fit the requirements. Others have already gone over what those were.
2 We were undergoing a period of rather extreme isolationism at the time the CON was formed. NO alliance was going to include the USA at the time because the USA would have rejected any part of it. We had absolutely no interest whatsoever in the "outside world." Fat lot of good that did us 12 years later...

A pretty good answer from an American point of view.