Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (2284)	10/12/2001 11:02:04 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Respond to of 14610

LOL!!

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (2284)	10/12/2001 11:57:33 AM
From: HG	Respond to of 14610

LOL! Probably the first time I've used the word in pubic without the moderating %age sign ! A Citizen is defined as follows : citizen SYLLABICATION: cit·i·zen PRONUNCIATION: st-zn NOUN: 1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation. 2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there. 3. A civilian. 4. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: “We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community” (Franklin D. Roosevelt). ---- I have often wondered what the real meaning of being a citizen of a country, is, especially in the context of disintegrating global barriers of the current world, and wondered whether the first and even the second no longer should hold. Is there is a need to redefine this definition of the word in this age and time of global unity ? Is the word citizenship really what it has been implying so long. Hasn't pure economics robbed it of its real meaning ? Most, and I'd say a lot but not all, most so called non native 'citizens' of America sought the passport because being an American promises first of all, financial well being and secondly, freedom. Freedom of every kind, including the freedom from the immigration related hassles during international travel. No passport checks on immigration. DOn't laugh. I have seen this to be the MOST common reason for getting an American passport. To prevent their nationals escaping totally, some countries provide dual citizenship. I have never been abe to figure out what the purpose of this policy is. Is it to capture the tax dollars these guys are making ? Is it to make their life easier when <if> they choose to return ? Is it to prevent them from making a choice, a choice which in all probability could go against the homeland ? Whatever it is, it leads to this kind of stupidity, yes, bullshit which Gloop pointed out. IMO, I think it is extremely hard for a person to entirely forget the place where they grew up. Its the essence of human nature, to love that which brought them into the world and to love that which THEY bring into this world. Outright shifting of alliances and allegiances is not human. The people who do insist on it may be being hypocritical and pc or they could be outrightly lying. Another valid reason may be that they may have no sustained sense of loyalty, having the ability to bail out of any form of allegiance for personal gain, given the opportunity. Mind you, I'm not saying people who have dual passports are that way. Simply saying that people who say their country of birth does not matter to them, well, I frankly find that hard to believe. Given all the above, my opinion is that since dual citizenships create these issues of personal loyalties, why support something taht creates ethical dilemmas ? When America ALLOWS dual citizenship, it should always take that bit of human psychology into consideration. Of course the other, simpler way would be to just revamp the meaning of the word citizenship. Or maybe coin another phrase which defines the status of non native Americans, or maybe the Americans born overseas, in a more appropriate way. Like the Australians for example, they called all foreigners "Wongs". <g> The issue of divided loyalties goes away over the next generation, if and only if the parents allow it to go away. A lot of people encourage their children to remain attached to their homeland, believing in the same old stuff which they and their fathers and grandfathers believed in. Nothing wrong with that, for they view it as propagation of their culture and values thru generations, except that the dilemma continues to haunt the next generation more than it haunted their parents. The kids neither belong here, nor there, they live their entire lives in limboland. Their loyalty is always suspect. A much better action to take would be to take the kids back to their homeland and bring them up so that they can develop the desired values in a more conducive environment.