When does a person become of one country?

Originally posted by Seitse
You're missing the point. I actually believe that nobody in the U.S. deserves
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* mind
about he/she pleases, be it praise or criticism.

* Except from the natives.

Ok I believe you are letting your emotions on the subject get the best of you.

Where in this thread did I directly say...... "to people to leave from where they
came from if they don't bow and say everything is perfect with the U.S."

I stated "you have a right to do or say what you wish."

And the line you took out of context "But they also have a right to tell you to go back where you came from if you don't like it."

Please check your emotions at the thread door.

Originally posted by Seitse
You're missing the point. I actually believe that nobody in the U.S. deserves
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* mind
about he/she pleases, be it praise or criticism.

* Except from the natives.

==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. ==

You really don't think that the US government has the right to say that an illegal immigrant is "lacking the right to be there"? Really? Does that mean you believe that no government on Earth has the right to make or enforce any immigration rules whatsoever?

By the way, to answer your OP:

==When does a person become of one country?==

The answer is... when one is there legally as a resident (as opposed to a tourist).

Originally posted by sh76
[b
You really don't think that the US government has the right to say that an illegal immigrant is "lacking the right to be there"? Really? Does that mean you believe that no government on Earth has the right to make or enforce any immigration rules whatsoever?[/b]

Well, there is obviously a difference between, say, Norway and the US in this respect.
Norway has had an indigionous population (if that's how you spell indiginious... God only knows), for... oh... thousands of years. Mainly because alcohol's too expensive up there and nobody wants to go.
The US, on the other hand, murdered the indiginious population 150 years ago, and is therefore rather hypocritical when refusing immigrants. And as I've stated, there is no such thing as an illegal person in reality. Or do birds have more rights than humans?

So, suggesting that what goes for the US automatically goes for all States, isn't a correct correlation.

However, I do not think ANY government has the right to enforce immigration rules. ESPECIALLY if they're harping on at me about "globalisation".

Originally posted by torch71
Please check your emotions at the thread door.

May I remind you that I was not the one getting touchy-feely by the "civic values of
a toaster" expression?

😉

Pot meets kettle.

Originally posted by sh76
==Hence, they have no moral right to call any immigrant undesirable [b]or lacking the right to be there and speak his/her mind about he/she pleases, be it praise or criticism. ==

You really don't think that the US government has the right to say that an illegal immigrant is "lacking the right to be there"? Really? Does that mean you believe that no gover ...[text shortened]... try?==

The answer is... when one is there legally as a resident (as opposed to a tourist).[/b]

As I told scaccipazzo: the legalistic argument is a valid stance.
That's not the point, and I am actually a big fan in many ways
of legalistic approaches because they are clear and predictable.

I am speaking about the moral backbone necessary to say who
has and who hasn't the right to criticize a country, as well as the
moral authority to invite people to "love it or leave it".

Different stuff, dude.

Originally posted by Seitse
May I remind you that I was not the one getting touchy-feely by the "civic values of
a toaster" expression?

😉

Pot meets kettle.

There were no emotions tied there at all. Simply stating to have conversation you must try to be civil and get your point across and maybe one will see it maybe not. But throwing cheap little remarks out there only make one less willing to listen and it becomes a remark throwing contest which never solves anything.🙂

Originally posted by torch71
There were no emotions tied there at all. Simply stating to have conversation you must try to be civil and get your point across and maybe one will see it maybe not. But throwing cheap little remarks out there only make one less willing to listen and it becomes a remark throwing contest which never solves anything.🙂

Oh dude, I do recognize that I lost my patience after I asked you 3 times,
to no avail, to back up your argument that there was a lawless state of affairs
when English arrived to the U.S., implying that, as a consequence, it was
fair game to exterminate people and steal their land.

But I only lost my patience. No emotions involved.

My apologies. Me bad.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well, there is obviously a difference between, say, Norway and the US in this respect.
Norway has had an indigionous population (if that's how you spell indiginious... God only knows), for... oh... thousands of years. Mainly because alcohol's too expensive up there and nobody wants to go.
The US, on the other hand, murdered the indiginious population 150 ...[text shortened]... enforce immigration rules. ESPECIALLY if they're harping on at me about "globalisation".

I understand your general stance that there should be no borders and no one should be restricted from going anywhere. I don't agree with you; but that's your philosophy and, fine, I respect it.

But differentiating Norway from the US doesn't work. You can't go back 150 years to determine the rights of the people today. It's irrelevant. You wouldn't want to be held responsible for things your great grandfather did. Things are what they are and how one's grandparents brought them about is irrelevant today. If immigration rules are necessary and important in protecting the interests of one's country, as I believe they are, the Us has just as much a moral right to enforce them as does Norway.

Originally posted by Seitse
You're missing the point. I actually believe that nobody in the U.S. deserves
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* ...[text shortened]... mind
about he/she pleases, be it praise or criticism.

* Except from the natives.

Yes, I understand that, I have been following the debate.

I believe that immigrants have just as much a right to speak their mind as any citizen, however, if they dislike the country so much it does raise the question "if it is so bad why did you come here in the first place?", if you don't like a place it would be pointless to go there and spend the whole time whining. Im not saying this is the case with most immigrants, but it does happen.

Also, Im not sure there was a criticism of legal immigration, as far as Im aware the criticism was of illegal immigration, not legal.