I’m not sure I assign much weight to someone’s opinion based on their place of birth. I can see a reason to assign extra value to those of people who choose to become a citizen, though.
Given the cyclical nature of politics, moving around to always live in a country where I always agreed with the policies of the government of the day would be a royal pain in the arse, too.
Yegads, that’s asinine. “Go back to $COUNTRY, you dirty fur’ner.” When did “if you don’t like it, fix it” stop being an acceptable – and, in my view, more valuable – position?
I come from a family of immigrants. I’ve always believed in the if you don’t like it, fix it…don’t just complain about it…while taking the money and enabling the people you don’t like to do what they are doing. My family became citizens before they complained about it.
Go figure, another essentially party line vote. Do the republican rank-and-file even support this?
So just because your family felt there was nothing they could do to fix it before they became citizens, it must be true for everyone everywhere for all time?
That’d be high math, to figure out what wouldn’t get fixed for the lack of complaining. I couldn’t do it.
As for expression, governments, societies at large, social mores, lots of things govern it, so it’s better to think of it in the terms of it being a human right. You can’t assign it based on citizenship(s) or for your mention of money, as something reserved for taxpayers. keyword human As @daneel said in that first paragraph of that post up above such things = value, as in the eyes of the beholder, excepting your navel.
There are all sorts of programs, some pioneered in the states too, that are aimed at getting people who aren’t citizens or even legal residents to complain i.e. join society writ large. Because it improves things for everyone. Give why that works some thought & wonder if you would prefer to be denied some benefit & deny it to other citizens in service to an unachievable ideal or maybe instead do otherwise?
ikr? I doubt it. It’s all in the phrasing.
Ask any red-blooded flag waver "Do you think the NSA should continue to spy on people in service to our proud nation? & the answer is whooping noises, fist pumps and “Murica” as well as a chorus of rational people behind the vocaliest.
Ask any red-blooded flag waver the actual question they should demand their representatives answer for them with their vote “Do you think the NSA should continue to spy on YOU?” and you get the same noises but of the “Nay” version*.
*excepting those “if you got nuthin ta hide” folk
Unlike Australia, the UK etc there is no equivalent to party discipline in the US, members can cross the floor with impunity; the Dems and Repubs both have whips, but it’s more of a cajoling role than a disciplining role.
It’s simple:
cause 'merica
XXXAre we talking about keystone or surveillance?XXX
Ah, surveillance reform.
Except America is always proud to blow its own FreedomHorn™ about the constitution’s protection of its citizens from unreasonable scrutiny by the government. Its elected representatives, who notionally serve to protect those freedoms, then vote to keep with business-as-usual (i.e. fuck your constitutional rights). It’s a clear as day demonstration of the hypocrisy of the American lie.
As already pointed out by @CarlMud you don’t have to be a citizen of a country to apply dictionary definitions to a situation.
I love reading stories in international media about how my country is breaking its obligations under the UNHCR. When I say love I really mean hate (because I’d rather we treat people as humans) but I’m happy for the world to publicly call this government out for its shit politicians and their inhuman policies. This situation is no different.
Simple as that. Black and white. Except, the US also has a lot of progressive law that someone who disagrees with this one might agree with strongly. So how should they balance up their level of agreement with the complete body of law in the USA to determine their level of hypocrisy working there?
Of course, you’re not really interested in that. You are just being insular and struggling to justify it.
if you don’t like it, fix it…don’t just complain about it.
then
My family became citizens before they complained about it.
Did you miss the point about ‘just’. My family is a family of union members (being of Italian origin, I wouldn’t expect otherwise…kinda goes along with our other ‘hobbies’). Very political. Very much involved with local politics. However, the one thing they did not do was simply complain.
Why is it that I’m the token liberal anywhere but here? Its almost like when I read this site, I feel like the guy wearing a klan hood and voting for the Koch Bros??? Anywhere else, I’m accused of pushing my liber’ gay agenda on everyone.
I guess you just bumbled into a thread about US politics with a lot of global interest from people posting, and told us all to fuck off.
I didn’t miss that bit, your original comment didn’t explain that your family did anything to fix anything.
I don’t know why that happens, but stop making comments that ammount to “If you don’t like it, leave” - something that happened here a couple weeks ago and led to woolworths pulling this shirt from its shelves (being modelled by the characteristic racist bogan type that wears this shit).
Anywhere else, I’m accused of pushing my liber’ gay agenda on everyone.
Maybe stop going to sites like that? They’re most certainly a waste of your time.
If it’s blue like the sky…
Gotta love Woollies for putting that shit on the shelves in the first place. Australia, where the racism is so casual its casual wear!
For many if not most of the people on the planet, of course, this isn’t even an option to consider. For a bunch more, it may technically be within the realm of possibility but there are other important considerations that prevent it.
No, you can’t, really–at least not at the federal level. You can vote for a person who you hope will act to change the policies, but in the current climate she probably won’t. And even if she does try, she probably won’t succeed. Unfortunately, that person probably also has a number of other policy preferences that may or may not actually be in line with yours. Voting’s important at a macro level, but it’s pretty much the least effective possible way of communicating your specific policy preferences with the government.
Again, you say this like it’s an option anybody can choose. It never was, and it’s even less of one now than it used to be. Perhaps you’ve heard the words “comprehensive immigration reform” recently. The immigration system wouldn’t need comprehensive reform if it were working.
