Originally posted by scacchipazzoDo you think seemliness, form and overt gratitude should somehow be part of the approval process? Should it continue to be a requirement hanging over 'new' citizens? If so, for how long? How many generations? You always steer this thread towards your own apparent need for affirmation and to brandish your likes and dislikes. And yet the topic is actually quite linear: When does a person become of one country? The answer to this cannot simply be a statement of what you don't like. When do you think that "whining" among immigrant Americans is completely acceptable - i.e. to the same degree, as your silence seems to indicate, that Sam The Sham's, whodey's, utherpendragon's "whining" is acceptable? The question here is "When"? Not: "Would you like to air your partiality and tendentiousness?"
I agree with you that whining about where one lives is unseemly, bad form and indicative of deep ingratitude.
Originally posted by FMFThe reason I don't respond to you much these days is your insistence on making this about me. The reality is that you do not break into somone's home and complain about the pickings somehow not being up to par. I certainly would feel doubly violated, first by their willfully breaking the law, second by their whining and expecting me to like it. This is a two way street, but you seem unable to understand this at all. If only the immigrant has a right to whine we have had out own rights doubly usurped. Why is this so difficult? It is very, very simple. These same people howl with indignation at the very suggestion that they are here in the first place because their country of origin is a hellhole with rampant violence in the streets, gangland free for alls, beheadings, mass executions, deep corruption in the military and police, little or no education(I am not talking about the middle class, but the lower classes, typically the ones in the USA illegally), infant mortality worse than other third world countries, a GNP lower than Haiti. How is any of this linear?
Do you think seemliness, form and overt gratitude should somehow be part of the approval process? Should it continue to be a requirement hanging over 'new' citizens? If so, for how long? How many generations? You always steer this thread towards your own apparent need for affirmation and to brandish your likes and dislikes. And yet the topic is actually quite li ...[text shortened]... here is "When"? Not: "Would you like to air your partiality and tendentiousness?"
Originally posted by scacchipazzoOn the contrary, it is you who has insisted on making your contributions to this thread about you. Who is "breaking into somone's home"? What kind of analogy for legal immigration is that? That's about you and your prejudices - or arguably your self-esteem - not about real life immigrants. Are you trying to smear them all as criminals? You would "feel [...] violated" by their whining? Violated? Are you being serious? The language you choose makes your comments and 'analysis' more about you than the topic in hand. "...we have had our own rights doubly usurped". Usurped? It's like you've consciously decided to contribute to this topic by laying yourself down on a psychiatrist's couch. Stop making this thread about you and answer the OP question: When does a person become of one country?
The reason I don't respond to you much these days is your insistence on making this about me. The reality is that you do not break into somone's home and complain about the pickings somehow not being up to par. I certainly would feel doubly violated, first by their willfully breaking the law, second by their whining and expecting me to like it. This is ...[text shortened]... ity worse than other third world countries, a GNP lower than Haiti. How is any of this linear?
Originally posted by FMFThis is to be out last communication ever for I refuse to deal with your profound obtuseneess. WE Amercians feel violated when people enter our homes illegally be it our land or our personal dwelling. Quie simple. The laws in our books forbid entry without a visa or voerstay past the expiration of said visa. By definition a person failing to abide by such laws has comitted a crime. Prejudice does not figure into the equation for this law is applicable irrrespective of race, color, ethnicity, nationality. Plain and simple. Once you violate a law you are a criminal. This is irrespective of any pending disposition. While under legal interdict you are not considered a lawful resident of the country you are residing in in violation of their immigration laws. Also simple. Criticizing said country is still a right of said illegal immigrant as it is my right and the right of any American to find this dislikeable and countering such statements with our own is within our Constitutionally protected rights. I care not one iota what you think about me nor about your misplaced, erroneous, unqualified psychiatric diagnoses of me or any other posters. It is unethical to offer a diagnosis without testing or meeting the patient/client face to face. Please cease and desist in offering your unsolicited and outlandish quasidiagnostic tripe.
On the contrary, it is you who has insisted on making your contributions to this thread about you. Who is "breaking into somone's home"? What kind of analogy for legal immigration is that? That's about you and your prejudices - or arguably your self-esteem - not about real life immigrants. Are you trying to smear them all as criminals? You would "feel [. ...[text shortened]... ead about you and answer the OP question: When does a person become of one country?
Any analogies I have made obviously seem to go over your head. They make no sense toyou for you seem impervious to argument or true debate. Stick to topic just like I have and leave me alone. You also seem obesses with utherpendragon, whodey and others. In your nuanced world of "inclusiveness" only your opinion counts and all others are not only wrong but deranged. Therefore, lease do not talk to me ever again. I shall not respond.
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseIn the current context of the conversation, that argument doesn't make sense. If the complaint is about illegal immigrants, then previous or subsequent generations are irrelevant because the law says those born here (in the US) are citizens. It also presupposes that every square inch of what is now called North America was in the hands or considered the territory of an indigenous nation. Thus there are plenty of people here who are not on land previously held by original inhabitants and thus aren't squatters or invaders or conquistadores or anything else.
O.k., so why don't you go from where your family came from?
[b]Unless you are the grandson of Sitting Bull, you should really be
careful with this subject.[/b]
I understand the concept of being born someplace, disliking it, and being vocal about that and wanting to change it. I understand the concept of being dragged someplace as a child, disliking it, and being vocal about that and wanting to change it. I don't understand the concept of being an adult, going someplace, and expecting them to change to suit you. I went someplace I hated and left. I didn't expect them to change anything to suit me because that's a bizarre, spoiled-brat sort of notion -- I will move to a new place and then expect you to conform to the ways of the place that I hated enough to leave. We live in a mobile enough society that one can shop around. Pick the place you like, and live there. If you like the Cubs and the Sears Tower and dead people voting Democrat, don't move to Seattle or Beijing or Nogales and expect them to start a baseball team, name them the Cubs, build a replica of the Sears Tower and allow dead people to vote. If you want to live in an English-only state, don't move to a bilingual state and then expect them to change to suit you. If your complaint is something that a reasonable person would have known before moving and you moved there anyway, then you accepted that it was part of the package before you got there. It'd be pretty cheeky of me to move to China and expect to have access to the entire internet, freedom of religious assembly, and really good carne seca tamales. I do have the basic human right to whine about such things, but I also can expect to look like an idiot.
edit: To answer the original question, I believe that for adults citizenship or initiating the legal process to become a citizen with the intent to become a citizen makes one a part of that country. The person has decided to cast their lot with the rest of the citizens as one.
2 edits
Originally posted by scacchipazzoThat's one explanation. Another one would be that you three, specifically, are a bunch of hysterical misanthropes who are an ignorant blight on these threads and who call people you disagree with - even moderates, centrists and social democrats- paedophiles and Stalinists.
You also seem obesses with utherpendragon, whodey and others. In your nuanced world of "inclusiveness" only your opinion counts and all others are not only wrong but deranged.
I also oppose illegal immigration and I think that certain factions of the 'right' in the U.S. have been juggling appropriate solutions during the last decade - only to knocked back by grotty chest-beating loons and soundbite driven nastiness.
The language you use to address this issue is disgraceful. You discredit and disrupt more balanced and realistic attempts to tackle the issue. You, with your verge-of-hatespeech rants, and - along with the likes of utherpendragon and whodey, your tendency to speak on behalf of "ALL Americans" - are a barrier to solving these problems in an intelligent or decent way.
By all means talk amongst yourselves - if that's what your self-esteem needs. I can't see that it's getting any boost from you imagining that your dyspeptic diatribes are for-real-debating.
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI long ago decided that FMF just cannot help being obtuse and it is therefore a complete waste of one's time to bother with him.
This is to be out last communication ever for I refuse to deal with your profound obtuseneess. WE Amercians feel violated when people enter our homes illegally be it our land or our personal dwelling. Quie simple. The laws in our books forbid entry without a visa or voerstay past the expiration of said visa. By definition a person failing to abide by su t only wrong but deranged. Therefore, lease do not talk to me ever again. I shall not respond.
Originally posted by torch71Yes, but that doesn't mean the argument makes any sense.
But they also have a right to tell you to go back where you came from if you don't like it.
Not going back to one's home country is very similar to putting up with a job you don't like but have to do out of necessity. They do it for the money and their bosses pay them for their work, not out of charity.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThat is true, but in that case what does one do, be quiet, make what you can out of it, and enjoy a better life.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the argument makes any sense.
Not going back to one's home country is very similar to putting up with a job you don't like but have to do out of necessity. They do it for the money and their bosses pay them for their work, not out of charity.
Originally posted by Seitsewhy should he do that?
O.k., so why don't you go from where your family came from?
[b]Unless you are the grandson of Sitting Bull, you should really be
careful with this subject.[/b]
if he was born in the US then he has every right to live there, regardless of where his family originally came from.
2 edits
Originally posted by generalissimoYou're missing the point. I actually believe that nobody in the U.S. deserves
why should he do that?
if he was born in the US then he has every right to live there, regardless of where his family originally came from.
to be said "love it or leave it".
I suggest you check the logical origin of my question to him, aimed mainly
at showing the absurdity of his invitation to people to leave from where they
came from if they don't bow and say everything is perfect with the U.S.
All Americans* come from an immigrant, legal or illegal. They're all, in a
way, anchor babies themselves. Hence, they have no moral right to call any
immigrant undesirable or lacking the right to be there and speak his/her mind
about he/she pleases, be it praise or criticism.
* Except from the natives.