Posted on: 12-02-04 20:59:26
Why do you think its wrong?
You call them "hypocrites" I call them "opportunistics" and I have no complaints, because they figured out how to get something they want instead of just complaining.
Do you know, the Indian guy (forgot name?) who founded Sycamore Network, lives in Boston is Canadian Citizen even though he has been in US for long time? I think he showed up on Top 100 or so richest Canadian list by Canadian Business Magazine few years ago.
Quote:
Orginally posted by jake3d
So its a matter of convenience. Not that its very wrong but I still consider people who stay behind only for passports hypocrites. I guess they have to recover the money they spent somehow.
Different strokes for different folks!
..I like you Anil...You always question everything. Just like me.
Here is *my* reason to *think* that it is wrong:
These people are ready to take an oath saying that they pledge their allegiance to Canada inorder to get a passport when the next thing that they will do is get out of here...and they know it (I value a mans word quite a bit)
Very different from a person who, say, got his citizenship but moved out because he got a better job.
Just like telling a lady that you love her to get her into bed when you know you are not going to be there the next morning. However falling in love and then separating after some time...a different story.
One persons hypocricy is anothers opportunism...In all of the above cases the persons can be defined as hypocrites or opportunists, depending on your *personal* convictions. I call the first set of people in my examples... hypocrites.
About personal convictions...its a fine line...but all of us have to walk it..and cast our lot with one view or the other. Life is not often black and white...theres always shades of grey...thats where we humans have to make a decision about what we consider right and wrong. That is why *I think* it is wrong. (note the emphasis on *I think*)
btw: what did the rich guy from Boston have to do with any of this? Though its nice to know that the guy is economically successful, being rich has nothing to do with being a man of convictions. Was it not Joeseph Kennedy(jfk's dad) who had bootlegging ties with the Samuel Bronfman(Seagrams).
Another tidbit while I am on the subject
"On June 28, 1934, President Roosevelt finally rewarded Kennedy for his work in the 1932 election campaign. Countering all objections with the words "it takes a thief to catch a thief," he appointed Joeseph P. Kennedy the first chairman of a new regulatory agency to tidy up the nation's stock market: the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. To the consternation of all, the notorious stock-market swindler Joeseph P. Kennedy would become stock-market reformer."
Just making a point that its possible to be economically/politically/socially successful and ethically bankrupt...depending on how you look at things...Shades of grey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Would you call him "hypocrites" because he lives and works in US but still keeping Canadian passport? Would you call him "hypocrites" because he lives and works in US but not taking US passport?
I am not for/against people who want to take the citizenship of any country and then get out of the country. I just simply see it as a "tool" for something which is difficult to do without it. And I don't see how it compromises pledge and allegiance to the country. Also, just giving up Indian citizenship doesn't mean you gave up allegiance to India. You still care about that country as much as you do for your new country.
Quote:
Orginally posted by jake3d
btw: what did the rich guy from Boston have to do with any of this? Though its nice to know that the guy is economically successful, being rich has nothing to do with being a man of convictions.
Anil,
I dont call that guy anything cause I dont know if he planned to take his citizenship and then run to the US. Or that he was a citizen of Canada and the course of events led to him working in the US. I thought this would be clear from my above post
If he works in the US...and plans to be there and benefit from the system I would argue that he *should* take up US citizenship(or dual in the least). He should not be scared about travelling on that American passport to Iran. That again is my *personal* view. The thing is that Capitalism taken to extreme where everything is just a 'Tool' to something else, reduces everything to a commodity, destroying the essence of being human. Where would you draw the line? A balance is thus needed and that means drawing the line somewhere. You know where I have chosen to draw my line. Your thinking and experiences may lead you to another conclussion.
What does it mean to be a citizen of a country? What would you call a Pakistani/Iraqi who has American citizenship and has to fight against his own countrymen in the borders of Pak/afghanistan OR Iraq? I would call them Americans. Willing to partake in the bounty as well as the sacrifice. Willing to make a decision and stand by it. Some others would call them traitors. The question is where would you personally draw the line? Everything is not and should not be about convenience. There is always a point when one has to draw the line. You have to decide where you draw that line.
If I loved my country that much I would have stayed back and tried to make it there against all odds. Like the IITian(i forgot his name) who was killed recently... because took a stand against corruption. I did not have the strength or courage to do that and I chose the easier route...coming here...to a place had a system that I needed to succeed and did not have to build from ground up. I know I contribute to the economy of India when I send money back there...however, the difference is the same as between paying child support and actually being there to raise a child. I hope this answers one of your other questions.
In a perfect world we would all realise that we should dismantle the notion of countries and manmade borders. John Lennon was onto something there. We are not there yet. A lot of work to do before we get there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Coming back to the original topic: AGE
Besides the reasons of easier adaptability for self and family,
one good reason that I see for migrating at 24-25 is that you have to struggle only once.
If you migrate at say 40, and then begin your struggle, then, your first struggle in your native country goes waste to a large extent. Also, you will remain 15 years behind a guy of your age, who landed at 25!
Seniors, please correct me if my assessment is not right.
Regards
Vishal Grover
