PDA

View Full Version : A Bittersweet Milestone, and a dream fulfilled



antimony
22 Oct 16,, 04:26
A bittersweet milestone for me.

Sweet: because I am finally part of the American story; bitter: because I have to give up my Indian identity, legally if not by spirit.

Only a few more years before I can run for office...

42379

TopHatter
22 Oct 16,, 04:57
Welcome aboard ☺

Stitch
22 Oct 16,, 06:09
Hey, I'll vote for you! Welcome to the American Dream . . .

DOR
22 Oct 16,, 10:46
Congratulations, and thank you for your faith in America.

GVChamp
22 Oct 16,, 14:00
Congrats! Welcome to the party. Ketchup, Apple Pie, and Bud Light on the way.

You have to root for one of the following teams now:
-Dallas Cowboys
-Detroit Redwings
-New York Yankees
-Boston Celtics
-Chicago Bulls

Gun Grape
22 Oct 16,, 17:00
Congrats.

antimony
22 Oct 16,, 19:52
Congrats! Welcome to the party. Ketchup, Apple Pie, and Bud Light on the way.

You have to root for one of the following teams now:
-Dallas Cowboys
-Detroit Redwings
-New York Yankees
-Boston Celtics
-Chicago Bulls


Why? I already have the Sehakws, Mariners and Sounders. Wait, what do these teams play again?

Parihaka
22 Oct 16,, 22:12
Congratulations, that's fabulous.

Albany Rifles
23 Oct 16,, 05:08
A sincere welcome. That you voluntarily chose to take this step makes me glad! Congratulations.

Seahawks suck!!!!

cataphract
23 Oct 16,, 14:15
Congratulations. I wish govt of India would allow dual citizenship already.

YellowFever
23 Oct 16,, 18:07
Congrats, dude!

But to me, you (and Albany Rifles) are not a true American as your favorite teams in football and hockey demonstrates lack of good judgement on your part. LoL :P

Are you really going to run for office? And if so, which office?



Congratulations. I wish govt of India would allow dual citizenship already.

If I have my info correct, it still wouldn't apply to antimony as American law forbids you from retaining duel citizenship unless you were a citizen from birth or childhood, who becomes a citizen of another country after becoming a US citizen and were not asked to renouce their previous citizenship. If antimony have children, they can become duel citizens if India allows it.

cataphract
23 Oct 16,, 23:52
Congrats, dude!

If I have my info correct, it still wouldn't apply to antimony as American law forbids you from retaining duel citizenship unless you were a citizen from birth or childhood, who becomes a citizen of another country after becoming a US citizen and were not asked to renouce their previous citizenship. If antimony have children, they can become duel citizens if India allows it.

Damn, I'm not aware of citizenship laws in the US beyond the fact that they are unbelievably complex. Up here in Canada, dual citizenship is perfectly legal.

antimony
24 Oct 16,, 00:53
Congrats, dude!

But to me, you (and Albany Rifles) are not a true American as your favorite teams in football and hockey demonstrates lack of good judgement on your part. LoL :P


Thanks, I hate sports though, except for the shooting sports.



Are you really going to run for office? And if so, which office?


Whatever it takes to drain the swamp and make American great again :)

Come one man, I just got naturalized, haven't really thought about it much except that I want to be politically involved.



If I have my info correct, it still wouldn't apply to antimony as American law forbids you from retaining duel citizenship unless you were a citizen from birth or childhood, who becomes a citizen of another country after becoming a US citizen and were not asked to renouce their previous citizenship. If antimony have children, they can become duel citizens if India allows it.

THe problem is not s much with American law, but with India laws. Indian citizenship laws do not allow dual citizenship and I would be renouncing my Indian citizenship (hence the bittersweet comment) as soon as I get my US passport . After that I can apply for an Indian OCI (overseas citizen) status

antimony
24 Oct 16,, 00:55
Congratulations. I wish govt of India would allow dual citizenship already.

No, I am strongly against it. India's political class is amongst the worst in the world. I do not want an Altaf Hussein emerging out of India and taking undue advantage of a dual citizenship status.

cataphract
24 Oct 16,, 01:30
No, I am strongly against it. India's political class is amongst the worst in the world. I do not want an Altaf Hussein emerging out of India and taking undue advantage of a dual citizenship status.

Dual nationality can be introduced while disbarring dual nationals from holding prominent political office. Just like the President of the US has to be born on US soil. The positive effect would be to allow Indians diaspora to vote. Far too long have we been viewed as just cash cows without a political voice.

antimony
24 Oct 16,, 02:18
Dual nationality can be introduced while disbarring dual nationals from holding prominent political office. Just like the President of the US has to be born on US soil. The positive effect would be to allow Indians diaspora to vote. Far too long have we been viewed as just cash cows without a political voice.

Cat, would respectfully disagree with you there.
The Indian diaspora should not be allowed to vote. If anyone wants t be able to vote, they should go back and become Indian citizens. People living in a different country as residents/ citizens of that country should not be able to decide what goes on in India.

cataphract
24 Oct 16,, 03:42
Cat, would respectfully disagree with you there.
The Indian diaspora should not be allowed to vote. If anyone wants t be able to vote, they should go back and become Indian citizens. People living in a different country as residents/ citizens of that country should not be able to decide what goes on in India.

I believe the momentum is gathering towards voting rights for the diaspora. Indian citizens abroad (NRIs) have recently been granted the right to vote. The BJP as a party, I expect, favours diaspora voters since they largely lean towards the BJP, since they hail overwhelmingly from middle class urban backgrounds in India.

The diaspora are already a large source of financial support for Indian political parties. It's only fair that if their money is being used in Indian politics that they have a right to vote.

DarthSiddius
24 Oct 16,, 16:16
Congrats Sb!! Do disagree with you on the dual citizenship argument though. I will be facing this decision in a couple of years and in this collision of practicality and perhaps misplaced sentiments I'm not sure what I'd do.

antimony
24 Oct 16,, 18:40
I believe the momentum is gathering towards voting rights for the diaspora. Indian citizens abroad (NRIs) have recently been granted the right to vote. The BJP as a party, I expect, favours diaspora voters since they largely lean towards the BJP, since they hail overwhelmingly from middle class urban backgrounds in India.

The diaspora are already a large source of financial support for Indian political parties. It's only fair that if their money is being used in Indian politics that they have a right to vote.

Let's examine this further. How comfortable are you with votes and campaign funds pouring in from "diaspora" in Saudi Arabia and Dubai? you know where I am going with this.

cataphract
25 Oct 16,, 02:33
Let's examine this further. How comfortable are you with votes and campaign funds pouring in from "diaspora" in Saudi Arabia and Dubai? you know where I am going with this.

Very comfortable since the middle east diaspora are all citizens of India. Gulf monarchies do not grant citizenship to their expatriate residents. I do know what you're hinting at - funding for extremists. That funding does not stop, regardless of citizenship status. It is up to the GOI to counter it and it has done so relatively well.

antimony
25 Oct 16,, 04:18
Very comfortable since the middle east diaspora are all citizens of India. Gulf monarchies do not grant citizenship to their expatriate residents. I do know what you're hinting at - funding for extremists. That funding does not stop, regardless of citizenship status. It is up to the GOI to counter it and it has done so relatively well.

Cat,
It is not just the middle east. It is the ability to hide behind another country's citizenship rights and take advantage of India. Look at what has happened to Pakistan with Altaf Hussein and his shenanigans in Karachi.

At any event I believe if someone wants to partake in the electoral process they should reside and pay taxes within the jurisdiction they want to exercise their rights for. Else it is representation without taxation and that is unfair to the actual residents.

JAD_333
25 Oct 16,, 06:27
Congratulations. Nice to see someone doing it the right way.

cataphract
26 Oct 16,, 03:21
Cat,
It is not just the middle east. It is the ability to hide behind another country's citizenship rights and take advantage of India. Look at what has happened to Pakistan with Altaf Hussein and his shenanigans in Karachi.

I've already addressed this point of yours earlier.


At any event I believe if someone wants to partake in the electoral process they should reside and pay taxes within the jurisdiction they want to exercise their rights for. Else it is representation without taxation and that is unfair to the actual residents.

NRIs and OCIs pay taxes in India too.

antimony
26 Oct 16,, 05:25
I've already addressed this point of yours earlier.



NRIs and OCIs pay taxes in India too.

How? They pay may some earned interest taxes and some property taxes (if any own property). Many do not own property or have interest earning assets. None of them pay any income or sales tax, which is the man source of tax revenue. More importantly, they do not live in the geography they would be voting for. Please note that NRIs, who are Indian citizens, are actually tied to their "permanent address" to vote, so they are tied to a constituency. There is no address or constituency that an OCI can be tied to. Which constituency would they be voting for? Under what grounds if they do not live there?

Stitch
26 Oct 16,, 06:43
I gotta say, guys, I LOVE watching this tennis match; I've learned more about India and Indian culture/government/politics just listening to you guys on this forum, than in the previous 45 years of general reading. You two obviously disagree about the dual citizenship thing, but it's VERY interesting listening (reading?) to you two arguing your case. Keep up the dialog!

antimony
26 Oct 16,, 16:19
I gotta say, guys, I LOVE watching this tennis match; I've learned more about India and Indian culture/government/politics just listening to you guys on this forum, than in the previous 45 years of general reading. You two obviously disagree about the dual citizenship thing, but it's VERY interesting listening (reading?) to you two arguing your case. Keep up the dialog!

Don't be shy, just ask us what you ant to know :)

DarthSiddius
26 Oct 16,, 19:35
How? They pay may some earned interest taxes and some property taxes (if any own property). Many do not own property or have interest earning assets. None of them pay any income or sales tax, which is the man source of tax revenue. More importantly, they do not live in the geography they would be voting for. Please note that NRIs, who are Indian citizens, are actually tied to their "permanent address" to vote, so they are tied to a constituency. There is no address or constituency that an OCI can be tied to. Which constituency would they be voting for? Under what grounds if they do not live there?

Not sure why paying taxes is suddenly a precursor to being allowed to vote. Most of India's citizens do not pay income taxes but are allowed to vote, while NRI's in general are a good source of FDI and play an active part in India's economy.

antimony
26 Oct 16,, 20:28
Not sure why paying taxes is suddenly a precursor to being allowed to vote. Most of India's citizens do not pay income taxes but are allowed to vote, while NRI's in general are a good source of FDI and play an active part in India's economy.

Remember "Taxation without representation"? This is the opposite of that.

My major point is not just taxation but the ability to control or influence issues relating to India, without actually being affected by the implications of that control. I understand that you may want to vote and all that, but picture this: my daughters, both of whom were born as US citizens, would soon hold OCI cards. should they be allowed to vote on Indian politics, without having absolutely anything to do with India other than a cultural heritage?

DarthSiddius
26 Oct 16,, 21:02
Remember "Taxation without representation"? This is the opposite of that.

My major point is not just taxation but the ability to control or influence issues relating to India, without actually being affected by the implications of that control. I understand that you may want to vote and all that, but picture this: my daughters, both of whom were born as US citizens, would soon hold OCI cards. should they be allowed to vote on Indian politics, without having absolutely anything to do with India other than a cultural heritage?

They should be as they would be Indian Citizens if dual citizenship was allowed and they chose to have an Indian Citizenship. Why should they be deprived of a right every other citizen of the country has? After all they would be an Indian citizen too right?

DarthSiddius
26 Oct 16,, 21:03
And cultural heritage is a thing not to be taken lightly, countries have formed and dissipated over far less.

cataphract
27 Oct 16,, 01:31
How? They pay may some earned interest taxes and some property taxes (if any own property). Many do not own property or have interest earning assets. None of them pay any income or sales tax, which is the man source of tax revenue.

How many OCIs without property in India would be interested in voting anyway? Perhaps property ownership in India could be made a prerequisite for OCIs to vote. Btw 90% of Indians do not pay any income tax and still vote. A lot of those 90% are too poor to own property as well, and get subsidized food from the govt.


More importantly, they do not live in the geography they would be voting for. Please note that NRIs, who are Indian citizens, are actually tied to their "permanent address" to vote, so they are tied to a constituency. There is no address or constituency that an OCI can be tied to. Which constituency would they be voting for? Under what grounds if they do not live there?

I can use Canada as an example because I know this system the best. There is no property ownership requirement to be eligible to vote from abroad. Your constituency can be the last address you resided in Canada before emigrating or your immediate family that still lives in Canada. Of course, voters abroad are only eligible to vote in federal elections, not municipal or provincial.

cataphract
27 Oct 16,, 01:34
I gotta say, guys, I LOVE watching this tennis match; I've learned more about India and Indian culture/government/politics just listening to you guys on this forum, than in the previous 45 years of general reading. You two obviously disagree about the dual citizenship thing, but it's VERY interesting listening (reading?) to you two arguing your case. Keep up the dialog!

WAB is awesome because I can disagree with people and yet debate with them civily. Most other forums are a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters.

YellowFever
27 Oct 16,, 02:03
Wow, this has turned into a very interesting thread.

So let me go here:

My personal opinion is that duel citizenship shouldn't be allowed as a person can only give their ultimate loyalty to one country.

This is antimony's thread so let's take his example and say there is a person from India (or Korea to use my example) who became an American citizen.

Now let's say the US and India gets into, first a political confrontation and ultimately into some sort of armed conflict.

A little far fetched as far as scenarios go...but for Russians that became American citizens, for example, it's a very likely scenario.

Who has their ultimate loyalty?

I believe a person is better off staying as the citizen of the country that has their loyality. A person that wants to switch citizenship should think long and hard before they decide to change. Simply switching for financial reasons (I live better here) or other reasons not borne of true love they have for their adopted country, I think, is wrong.

Also, I believe a person, even if they are a citizen of a certain country should not be allowed to vote in the country they hold citizenship's election from overseas.

I would only allow such a thing if they are paying taxes into their country of citizenship, even from foreign land and or if their residency in the foreign country is temporary and are planning on returning home (4 years top).

My thought above applies to any citizen of any country and not just the U.S.

DarthSiddius
27 Oct 16,, 03:47
Who has their ultimate loyalty?

Preferably for whichever country the citizen thinks is justified, ultimately it's the individual's decision. As long as the person does not act out in an antinational way I don't think it is anybody's business. Why even seek the ultimate loyalty? Normal loyalty not good enough :P?

antimony
27 Oct 16,, 20:22
How many OCIs without property in India would be interested in voting anyway? Perhaps property ownership in India could be made a prerequisite for OCIs to vote.

Quite a few that I know of, from the BJP camp. Look up the Republican Hindu Coalition. Do NOT blame me for what you see



I can use Canada as an example because I know this system the best. There is no property ownership requirement to be eligible to vote from abroad. Your constituency can be the last address you resided in Canada before emigrating or your immediate family that still lives in Canada. Of course, voters abroad are only eligible to vote in federal elections, not municipal or provincial.

But that is certainly not accurate. I may want to see a certain party in power but my address would be tied to somewhere in Calcutta, where as your's may be tied to something else. Based on how electoral politics work in India, that one vote in one constituency will probably be lost in the muddle. The only way this can make sense is if they designate certain Parliamentary seats for receiving all NRI/ OCI votes

antimony
27 Oct 16,, 20:26
Preferably for whichever country the citizen thinks is justified, ultimately it's the individual's decision. As long as the person does not act out in an antinational way I don't think it is anybody's business. Why even seek the ultimate loyalty? Normal loyalty not good enough :P?

As a new American citizen I have taken the oath of defending my new country and taking up arms against anyone else.
Yeah, the US and India will never come to blows and if they do then the US has better people then me to fight, but technically, if I am true to the oath, then that forces my ultimate loyalty.

antimony
27 Oct 16,, 20:27
Wow, this has turned into a very interesting thread.

So let me go here:

My personal opinion is that duel citizenship shouldn't be allowed as a person can only give their ultimate loyalty to one country.

This is antimony's thread so let's take his example and say there is a person from India (or Korea to use my example) who became an American citizen.

Now let's say the US and India gets into, first a political confrontation and ultimately into some sort of armed conflict.

A little far fetched as far as scenarios go...but for Russians that became American citizens, for example, it's a very likely scenario.

Who has their ultimate loyalty?

I believe a person is better off staying as the citizen of the country that has their loyality. A person that wants to switch citizenship should think long and hard before they decide to change. Simply switching for financial reasons (I live better here) or other reasons not borne of true love they have for their adopted country, I think, is wrong.

Also, I believe a person, even if they are a citizen of a certain country should not be allowed to vote in the country they hold citizenship's election from overseas.

I would only allow such a thing if they are paying taxes into their country of citizenship, even from foreign land and or if their residency in the foreign country is temporary and are planning on returning home (4 years top).

My thought above applies to any citizen of any country and not just the U.S.

Yellow,

My thoughts exactly. which is why it took us so long to cross this bridge

antimony
27 Oct 16,, 20:36
WAB is awesome because I can disagree with people and yet debate with them civily. Most other forums are a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters.

For the next couple of weeks, don't stray into the swamp of the 2016 Presidential Election thread :)

antimony
27 Oct 16,, 20:41
They should be as they would be Indian Citizens if dual citizenship was allowed and they chose to have an Indian Citizenship. Why should they be deprived of a right every other citizen of the country has? After all they would be an Indian citizen too right?

Yes, they would be, but I think it is highly unfair to the home country when a "citizen" not connecting to the soil gets to take a decision on key matters. So, for example, my daughters get to have a say in whether GST should be implemented or not, without it affecting them in the slightest. Or someone somewhere can influence the decision on whether repealing Article 370 or Triple Talaqs are good ideas, without being affected in the slightest.

One should be affected by one's decisions. By allowing NRIs/ OCIs to vote, you are allowing people take decision on your behalf, which they would not be affected by.

DarthSiddius
28 Oct 16,, 17:41
As a new American citizen I have taken the oath of defending my new country and taking up arms against anyone else.
Yeah, the US and India will never come to blows and if they do then the US has better people then me to fight, but technically, if I am true to the oath, then that forces my ultimate loyalty.

You think a piece of paper and an oath define a person's ultimate loyalty? If India and America trade blows what makes you think an Indian naturalized immigrant will stay loyal to America?

DarthSiddius
28 Oct 16,, 17:50
Yes, they would be, but I think it is highly unfair to the home country when a "citizen" not connecting to the soil gets to take a decision on key matters. So, for example, my daughters get to have a say in whether GST should be implemented or not, without it affecting them in the slightest. Or someone somewhere can influence the decision on whether repealing Article 370 or Triple Talaqs are good ideas, without being affected in the slightest.

If they want to be a citizen of India (which applying for a dual citizenship implies) then all of that does matter to the individual and they have every right to voice there views on matters pertaining to Indian citizens. It's a democracy after all, their vote is one of many. For example, being an Indian citizen I have every right to support and vote for a government that promises to remove AFSPA from J&K and Manipur even though I don't live in J&K myself and am not directly affected by AFSPA.



One should be affected by one's decisions. By allowing NRIs/ OCIs to vote, you are allowing people take decision on your behalf, which they would not be affected by.

You are not allowing people to take decisions on your behalf you are merely including them in the decision making process. Very different things.

antimony
28 Oct 16,, 17:51
You think a piece of paper and an oath define a person's ultimate loyalty? If India and America trade blows what makes you think an Indian naturalized immigrant will stay loyal to America?

I think if one is not serious about keeping an oath then one should not be taking one. Period.

DarthSiddius
28 Oct 16,, 17:55
I think if one is not serious about keeping an oath then one should not be taking one. Period.

True but sadly that's not how the world works...

antimony
28 Oct 16,, 18:02
If they want to be a citizen of India (which applying for a dual citizenship implies) then all of that does matter to the individual and they have every right to voice there views on matters pertaining to Indian citizens. It's a democracy after all, their vote is one of many. For example, being an Indian citizen I have every right to support and vote for a government that promises to remove AFSPA from J&K and Manipur even though I don't live in J&K myself and am not directly affected by AFSPA.

You are not allowing people to take decisions on your behalf you are merely including them in the decision making process. Very different things.

If you are within the territory of India then you are affected by AFSPA, if not directly then indirectly through legal precedence. In fact you are affected by each and every vote that you cast, whether it is remove AFSPA, endorse OROP (even if you are not connected to the military) or support GST. Your actions have consequences if you live within the territory.

I would argue that Resident non-citizens have a stronger case for participation and should probably be given limited voting options, such as local municipal elections. Some European countries do allow that, I think.

DarthSiddius
28 Oct 16,, 18:04
Honestly, I really can't understand an argument against dual citizenship. There are a lot of people/expats who choose to stay as permanent residents, temp workers, green card holders, etc. due to restrictions on citizenship laws. Electing to do so they face more hurdles in getting assimilated in the host society/culture and are not accorded all the rights and protections accorded to citizens. Allowing dual citizenship is a nod from the state towards their multicultural identity. An immigrant will always be a creature of two worlds and facilitating their lives by laws that accept this reality will only help and aid in their success.

DarthSiddius
28 Oct 16,, 18:07
If you are within the territory of India then you are affected by AFSPA, if not directly then indirectly through legal precedence. In fact you are affected by each and every vote that you cast, whether it is remove AFSPA, endorse OROP (even if you are not connected to the military) or support GST. Your actions have consequences if you live within the territory.

I would argue that Resident non-citizens have a stronger case for participation and should probably be given limited voting options, such as local municipal elections. Some European countries do allow that, I think.

How is a person living in Chandigarh, affected by AFSPA? Another example would be Triple talak, how's a Hindu affected by a law concerning Muslims?

antimony
28 Oct 16,, 18:25
How is a person living in Chandigarh, affected by AFSPA? Another example would be Triple talak, how's a Hindu affected by a law concerning Muslims?

How is a Hindu affected by Triple Talak? As a citizen, do I want my fellow brothers and sisters to have equality before law or not? Triple talaq is a travesty because it harms the rights of our Muslim sisters and reduces them to objects ripe for abuse. Muslim married women can be divorced without a proper right to alimony because we are a "secular country" with respect for "religious norms" (remember Shah Bano?). Pedophilic animals from the middle east and elsewhere use these norms and Muslim marriage laws to sexually exploit Muslim minor girls, and then throw them away by the roadside. Are you saying that as an Indian (Hindu or not), that should not make my blood boil???

antimony
28 Oct 16,, 18:26
True but sadly that's not how the world works...

I do not intend to lower my standards just because the world acts in a certain way...

DarthSiddius
28 Oct 16,, 18:52
How is a Hindu affected by Triple Talak? As a citizen, do I want my fellow brothers and sisters to have equality before law or not? Triple talaq is a travesty because it harms the rights of our Muslim sisters and reduces them to objects ripe for abuse. Muslim married women can be divorced without a proper right to alimony because we are a "secular country" with respect for "religious norms" (remember Shah Bano?). Pedophilic animals from the middle east and elsewhere use these norms and Muslim marriage laws to sexually exploit Muslim minor girls, and then throw them away by the roadside. Are you saying that as an Indian (Hindu or not), that should not make my blood boil???
All correct but how is geography relevant here? An Indian national should be free to voice their position on these issues irrespective of their location. As far as citizenship is concerned you are paying a disproportionate value to a person's geographical location while neglecting their cultural identity. I have been living abroad for 10 years now, but I'm still an Indian citizen and I am allowed to vote. If I decide to opt for Canadian citizenship in the future, why does my current location suddenly become so important in this debate?


I do not intend to lower my standards just because the world acts in a certain way...
Don't get me wrong as I am saying this with utmost respect - Your standards have no bearing on the matter at hand. An oath can not guarantee loyalty.

antimony
28 Oct 16,, 19:54
All correct but how is geography relevant here? An Indian national should be free voice their position on these issues irrespective of their location. As far as citizenship is concerned you are paying a disproportionate value to a person's geographical location while neglecting their cultural identity. I have been living abroad for 10 years now, but I'm still an Indian citizen and I am allowed to vote. If I decide to opt for Canadian citizenship in the future, why does my current location suddenly become so important in this debate?


Everyone should be able to voice their opinions about anything but if one actually makes a decision one should be affected by it. Let's take Triple talaq. If you vote for a party that is going to push for abolition of that abomination you should also face the social and political turmoil the country will go through. By staying away from the geography you are not paying the price for your actions. By being far removed and yet having a voice you are insulated from that.

There is another reason. India (as represented by the Citizenship Act) correctly determines that by taking on
another country's citizenship your loyalties are divided. Who do you shed yours and your families blood for? Who are you prepared to kill for? Look at the US Citizenship oath. It very specifically lays down the terms that you should value the US flag and constitution above anything else and should be prepared to shed blood for that flag. Whether you intend to keep the oath or not, the US demands that you submit completely, even if you have another passport. India does the same by denying you the ability to hold another passport.



Don't get me wrong as I am saying this with utmost respect

You are fine, we are just debating civilly (unlike our two leading candidates here, I might add).



Your standards have no bearing on the matter at hand. An oath can not guarantee loyalty.

You are right; an oath does not guarantee loyalty, it is up to the persons taking them. Our soldiers (Indian and US) take an oath to shed their blood to protect the country and the constitution and they keep their bargain. No reason for us to hold ourselves to a lower standard.

DarthSiddius
28 Oct 16,, 20:19
Everyone should be able to voice their opinions about anything but if one actually makes a decision one should be affected by it. Let's take Triple talaq. If you vote for a party that is going to push for abolition of that abomination you should also face the social and political turmoil the country will go through. By staying away from the geography you are not paying the price for your actions. By being far removed and yet having a voice you are insulated from that.


This is the contention, isn't it? I, being an Indian from a Hindu family, am not affected by a change in the triple talak law as this law is exclusive to Muslims in India, yet I am allowed to vote (rightfully so at that) for a government that can change this law. Therefore, I am allowed to voice my opinion (through my vote) on a matter that doesn't directly affect me!

Another thing I would like to add- What makes you think that Indian politics, events and laws do not affect me (or other dual nationality seekers) here in Canada. I still have a shit tonne of family back home, I visit every year and I derive a major share of my cultural identity from Indian culture. An immigrant has the fortune and misfortune of being exposed to and belonging to multiple cultures. Come to think of it, after moving to Canada I changed a lot as a person which is contrasted whenever I go back home and visit friends and family, concurrently, I am different from my Canadian brethren as well due to my Indian-ness. Where do I belong then?



There is another reason. India (as represented by the Citizenship Act) correctly determines that by taking on
another country's citizenship your loyalties are divided. Who do you shed yours and your families blood for? Who are you prepared to kill for? Look at the US Citizenship oath. It very specifically lays down the terms that you should value the US flag and constitution above anything else and should be prepared to shed blood for that flag. Whether you intend to keep the oath or not, the US demands that you submit completely, even if you have another passport. India does the same by denying you the ability to hold another passport.


What's the problem with divided loyalties when an Indian (only) citizen can have the same. After-all not every baby born in India is pre-programmed or brainwashed to be loyal to India. Again I don't understand this dick measuring in loyalty... Why should dual nationals be subjected to this "super dooper ultimate megastar" loyalty test?



You are fine, we are just debating civilly (unlike our two leading candidates here, I might add).


Just wanted to make sure, that's all! I haven't butted heads with anyone in this forum for a while and today is a slow Friday at work. Also the fact that I am visiting India next week and thus, my Indian quotient is off the charts currently LOL!



You are right; an oath does not guarantee loyalty, it is up to the persons taking them. Our soldiers (Indian and US) take an oath to shed their blood to protect the country and the constitution and they keep their bargain. No reason for us to hold ourselves to a lower standard.

Yes it is up to the person taking the oath; why then enforce this loyalty card on dual nationals? It is up to each dual national as is it for every other citizen.

antimony
29 Oct 16,, 08:38
This is the contention, isn't it? I, being an Indian from a Hindu family, am not affected by a change in the triple talak law as this law is exclusive to Muslims in India, yet I am allowed to vote (rightfully so at that) for a government that can change this law. Therefore, I am allowed to voice my opinion (through my vote) on a matter that doesn't directly affect me!


The existing state of affairs may not affect you (apart from your conscience) but the process of changes certainly does, as it generates social and political turmoil and can take dark and unknown turns. What if the Constitution's Freedom of Religion clauses and articles need to be amended for this? Imagine the huge social upheaval from that. If you choose to endorse that, should you not be affected by that upheaval (and by that I do not necessarily mean violence).



Another thing I would like to add- What makes you think that Indian politics, events and laws do not affect me (or other dual nationality seekers) here in Canada. I still have a shit tonne of family back home, I visit every year and I derive a major share of my cultural identity from Indian culture. An immigrant has the fortune and misfortune of being exposed to and belonging to multiple cultures.


Regarding your question about Indian laws affecting you; sure they do. But your home country has the right to reject your national identity if you have divided your loyalties. Which is what you have done once you have accepted the nationality of a different country.



Come to think of it, after moving to Canada I changed a lot as a person which is contrasted whenever I go back home and visit friends and family, concurrently, I am different from my Canadian brethren as well due to my Indian-ness. Where do I belong then?


Very good question - this is why, if I have move , I prefer moving to immigrant friendly countries like the US, Canada, or ANZ. One can move to Sweden, but one cannot become part of the Swedish society and culture, regardless of how nice and accepting they might be. On the other hand, you can retain your individual cultural identities and be part of a greater society in countries like India or Canada. My daughters grow up with exposure to both. I expect them to be patriotic Americans and take pride in their 6000 year old Indian heritage. I expect them to make them to enrich the melting pot of American culture with their Indianness. I see absolutely no conflict between the two.



What's the problem with divided loyalties when an Indian (only) citizen can have the same. After-all not every baby born in India is pre-programmed or brainwashed to be loyal to India. Again I don't understand this dick measuring in loyalty... Why should dual nationals be subjected to this "super dooper ultimate megastar" loyalty test?


Democracies, especially liberal democracies do not get to choose the characters and loyalties of whoever is born as citizens, nor do they get to check their behavior. They only time they can do that is when someone is at the door. Acceptance of citizenship is one such door. At that juncture nations get to ask their citizen - who are you loyal to?



Just wanted to make sure, that's all! I haven't butted heads with anyone in this forum for a while and today is a slow Friday at work. Also the fact that I am visiting India next week and thus, my Indian quotient is off the charts currently LOL!


Have fun, have not been home for a long time now (by that I mean 2 years)



Yes it is up to the person taking the oath; why then enforce this loyalty card on dual nationals? It is up to each dual national as is it for every other citizen.

from a personal POV, it is up to the person taking the oath. From the entity administering that oath, it is not.

cataphract
01 Nov 16,, 05:55
I'll return to this thread tomorrow. Meanwhile, a belated Happy Diwali to all ::))

cataphract
04 Nov 16,, 04:16
As a new American citizen I have taken the oath of defending my new country and taking up arms against anyone else.
Yeah, the US and India will never come to blows and if they do then the US has better people then me to fight, but technically, if I am true to the oath, then that forces my ultimate loyalty.

You had also taken the Indian national pledge if you studied in an Indian school, remember?

If it does come to war, I don't believe oaths and pledges taken in peacetime really matter. After all, non-citizens fight in the US army and US citizens actively fight against it (Anwar Al-Awlaki). An individual's loyalty cannot be determined by a piece of paper or oaths taken under duress.

cataphract
04 Nov 16,, 04:20
Quite a few that I know of, from the BJP camp. Look up the Republican Hindu Coalition. Do NOT blame me for what you see

I refuse to believe none of those people maintain property in India. Their children won't, but then again their children won't be interested in Indian politics either.




But that is certainly not accurate. I may want to see a certain party in power but my address would be tied to somewhere in Calcutta, where as your's may be tied to something else. Based on how electoral politics work in India, that one vote in one constituency will probably be lost in the muddle. The only way this can make sense is if they designate certain Parliamentary seats for receiving all NRI/ OCI votes

This is way too much detail for a hypothetical, but one vote in one constituency is all anyone gets in any democracy. It doesn't make the vote worthless. A separate NRI/OCI constituency is a good idea though, it will get the netas to pander to our whims too ::D