Advantage and Disadvantage of US Citizen vs Green Card

ania said:
OK, I wrote: "mostly", "recently", etc. The rules in that agency are not absolute. There is also Henry Kissinger who still has bad English. Madeline Olbrait - from Hungaria. Zbignev Brzerzinsky. All were Secretaries of State. You just have to be the right person.
Click to expand...
now you are saying like , the naturalization is ok , but you just have to be the right person. That right there contradict your first post about the naturalized citizens can not be in high positions like that! If i were you, i won't try to argue more, i would apologize for the false information and keep going. And by the way, Madeline Ulbright is not from Hungary, she is from Chickoslovakia, when it was one country!
Thanks for participating though :)
 
Czechoslovakia was long a part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, so it is all pretty much same people.
OK, Madeline Albright was born in Czechoslovakia. You are right. But that still does not make her neither Czech nor Slovak.
She is a Jew. Therefore, she would not count Czechoslovakia as her motherland. Just as Kissinger and Brzezinski would not count Germany and Poland as their Motherlands.
Her we go: born in one country, motherland in second country, Secretary of State in the third country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK,
Motherland is the Land which gave Birth to your People and You. Motherland is Your Mother. Motherland is the Land for which People are ready to die fighting.
For Indians it is Bharat. For Jews it is Israel. Etc.
US does not have a notion of Motherland, i.e. it was a colony of Spain, France, England to begin with. Therefore there is a notion of Homeland (where you live). US is Homeland. Bharat is Motherland. This land here is definetely a motherland for Cheroki, Navaho, etc. "indians" or "native americans". So they fought and died.
Agressors, though, attack someone else's land, therefore they need to hire all kins of criminals and adventurists to do the job for them, as the general population does not have motivation as nobody attacked them.
So here we come: naturalized citizens are rightfully counted as second-class citizens, because they change statehoods like gloves. I would not trust them a minute.
They come for something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, culture is changeable in time, but Land is not (let's not get into Plate Tectonics and First Human Migrations 50000 years ago).
Culture (homeland) is where you grow up, motherland is where most of your genetic brothers live. For many Jews motherland is in Israel.
 
American Worldview: Websters Dictionary:

One entry found for mother country.
Main Entry: mother country
Function: noun
1 : the country from which the people of a colony or former colony derive their origin
2 : the country of one's parents or ancestors; also : FATHERLAND
 
ania said:
American Worldview: Websters Dictionary:

One entry found for mother country.
Main Entry: mother country
Function: noun
1 : the country from which the people of a colony or former colony derive their origin
2 : the country of one's parents or ancestors; also : FATHERLAND
Click to expand...
Hmm... Ania, what are you trying to prove now? What does your concept of the Motherland/Fatherland have to do with your alleged US policy of having two classes of citizens?
 
I am answering to Mr. JoeF.
People who run from nation to nation are like traitors and using words like motherland and homeland in the new country is not justified. It was not used by Americans themselves before 2001 and still not used anyone except in the government. They say "back in the States" instead of "back home" or "in my homeland" or "in motherland". The Homeland Security Dept gives them associations with only one thing: Standartenfuhrer. Ask them.
That is why America or Israel like nations of immigrants have problem with "nation states" and UN. They think that association of ethnicity with land is wrong.
 
Second-class citizenship does exist and is justified, because those who came couple centuries earlier are more allied with the place then the new immigrants. You need to live here 200 years and have your people in the govt to be accepted.
 
ania said:
Second-class citizenship does exist and is justified, because those who came couple centuries earlier are more allied with the place then the new immigrants. You need to live here 200 years and have your people in the govt to be accepted.
Click to expand...
Ania,
with all due respect, the more you post and talk , the more erroneous you get and the deeper in the hole you fall. Please drop the subject as I see the JoeF, thankfully has powerfully and evidently defeated all your allegations.
thank for the discussion though.
 
ania said:
Motherland is the Land which gave Birth to your People and You. Motherland is Your Mother. Motherland is the Land for which People are ready to die fighting. For Indians it is Bharat. For Jews it is Israel. Etc.
Click to expand...

I am a Roman Catholic Canadian living in the US whose parents were born in Czechoslovakia (a country that did not exist 15 years before their birth, and no longer exists today).

What is my Motherland? Vatican City? :D
 
I am sorry for people who do not have motherland and lost connection with their people, ethnicity. It is like plant without a root, which was cut and placed into a vase. Or that plant "baby's breath" which rolls and rolls. Culture of people is based on their history, mithology, literature, language, ancestral spirit. People without motherland and without connection to their people are forced to adopt foreign culture.
 
Conditions for loss of citizenship

sony55 said:
Ania's information is deviated from the right thing. The point is if you leave the US within your first year of naturalization for more than a year then you could be subject to get your citizenship revoked.
Click to expand...

I just checked with my lawyer and that's no longer true. This applies now only to GC holders, who stay out for more than a year and risk losing residency status. American citizens can leave and live out of the country as long as they want, but there are conditions for removal as stated in the following web-site

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
 
ania said:
Wrong audience. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Exactly. People here are trying to become citizens of another country, and you highly disapprove of that. You obviously got sharply criticized, how could you expect anything else?
 
tinkerbell said:
I just checked with my lawyer and that's no longer true. This applies now only to GC holders, who stay out for more than a year and risk losing residency status. American citizens can leave and live out of the country as long as they want, but there are conditions for removal as stated in the following web-site

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
Click to expand...
thank you tinkerbell, but JoeF just posted the same information you are posting about 2 days ago in the same thread. I realized then that this information is no longer valid.
but thanks anyway :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top