son_ov_hades wrote:

Quote :

@ Geoff: Why should people adapt? A heterogeneous society is just that much harder to manage and if you are willing to take the opportunities and privileges a country offers you, you must also be willing to adapt to its rules and customs. Again, I'm not saying people should give up their heritage completely but by not even learning their language you're unnecessarily complicating things for them and for yourself. I truly believe a level of conformity in necessary for a successful society. If you don't want to adapt, you must not go to a place where it will be required of you to do so.

I agree that a heterogeneous society is easier to manage, note that I said in all practicality at least some adaptation is logical. The issue comes from people being forced to adapt, which by it's very nature is going to dictate how people are allowed to live their lives. This is inherently wrong imo.

Yeah, but I think it goes further than being "practical and logical" to adapt. I think it's not just necessary for the individual, but for the entire society that these people adapt. A functional society needs participating members and how can you participate if you can't speak the majority of the population's language? How can you be productive if you continuously clash with the majority of society, like what happens with many immigrant societies in Europe. If they refuse to, they continue to cause conflict and confusion, but expect to get all the benefits of a fully productive citizen. I'm in no way trying to protect the decision of the Swiss populace, which I still think is an atrocious disregard for the right of freedom to worship, but we must not be rash and condemn them for being bigoted too easily. It was an extreme step to take, but we must keep in mind that it is a reaction on an extreme problem.

People are clearly not understanding my point. Any logical immigrant would want to adapt to local culture, obviously. I'm saying that it becomes a serious problem when people try to force adaptation. Forcing someone to adopt local language, customs, religion etc. is dangerous because it then defines explicitly who is and isn't part of the nation. This leaves it up to whoever is in power to exclude certain peoples, like my example that in the past the only people who could become American citizens were English speaking, White Christians.

The best demonstration of my point is the process to become and American citizen, one must be a permanent resident of the country, swear to defend it when need be, and swear allegiance to it above all other countries. There is a reason why no mention of language, culture, religion, etc. is made.

son_ov_hades wrote:

People are clearly not understanding my point. Any logical immigrant would want to adapt to local culture, obviously. I'm saying that it becomes a serious problem when people try to force adaptation. Forcing someone to adopt local language, customs, religion etc. is dangerous because it then defines explicitly who is and isn't part of the nation. This leaves it up to whoever is in power to exclude certain peoples, like my example that in the past the only people who could become American citizens were English speaking, White Christians.

The best demonstration of my point is the process to become and American citizen, one must be a permanent resident of the country, swear to defend it when need be, and swear allegiance to it above all other countries. There is a reason why no mention of language, culture, religion, etc. is made.

Well adaptation has been left to those who enter. How has that worked so far? Living in L.A. I can tell not so good. When you decide that your country of origin is no longer a place you want to live and you choose to move to a new one. Then change is in order and your country of origin is now second to the one you have decided to join. You say the test has no mention of language. What language is the test in? Most likely English, though it is VERY possible that it is in 6 or more languages. I just think, as Thomas has said. Learning the language and becoming one with where you reside should be something that all who reside in a country not of their origin should do. Those who do not I feel are being disrespectful and may be some one who can not be trusted to defend the nation they live in.

We are one the few countries that seem to cater to those who don't wish to learn the language(tough I may be wrong here). A cohesive country this does not make. This can divide and segregate just as much as this country once was up until the late 60's. While English may not be the National Language. I think it is safe to say that it what the majority speaks. There are many other countries that have different dialects of the same language, and for those people to be able to pass through those parts it is needed to learn all those languages and they do. Here in American the language overwhelmingly used is English. So why should I lose out on a job because I don't speak Spanish? They should lose out for not speaking English. Same as if I was to try and get a job in Mexico. The reality is America caters to them because they are cheap labor and will do the jobs, that people say, other will not do for the wage they get. So in some ways we have brought it upon ourselves.

AarO)))n wrote:

son_ov_hades wrote:

People are clearly not understanding my point. Any logical immigrant would want to adapt to local culture, obviously. I'm saying that it becomes a serious problem when people try to force adaptation. Forcing someone to adopt local language, customs, religion etc. is dangerous because it then defines explicitly who is and isn't part of the nation. This leaves it up to whoever is in power to exclude certain peoples, like my example that in the past the only people who could become American citizens were English speaking, White Christians.

The best demonstration of my point is the process to become and American citizen, one must be a permanent resident of the country, swear to defend it when need be, and swear allegiance to it above all other countries. There is a reason why no mention of language, culture, religion, etc. is made.

Well adaptation has been left to those who enter. How has that worked so far? Living in L.A. I can tell not so good. When you decide that your country of origin is no longer a place you want to live and you choose to move to a new one. Then change is in order and your country of origin is now second to the one you have decided to join. You say the test has no mention of language. What language is the test in? Most likely English, though it is VERY possible that it is in 6 or more languages. I just think, as Thomas has said. Learning the language and becoming one with where you reside should be something that all who reside in a country not of their origin should do. Those who do not I feel are being disrespectful and may be some one who can not be trusted to defend the nation they live in.

We are one the few countries that seem to cater to those who don't wish to learn the language(tough I may be wrong here). A cohesive country this does not make. This can divide and segregate just as much as this country once was up until the late 60's. While English may not be the National Language. I think it is safe to say that it what the majority speaks. There are many other countries that have different dialects of the same language, and for those people to be able to pass through those parts it is needed to learn all those languages and they do. Here in American the language overwhelmingly used is English. So why should I lose out on a job because I don't speak Spanish? They should lose out for not speaking English. Same as if I was to try and get a job in Mexico. The reality is America caters to them because they are cheap labor and will do the jobs, that people say, other will not do for the wage they get. So in some ways we have brought it upon ourselves.

Well you're getting into an entirely different argument here. I don't want to debate immigration from Mexico.

@ Aaron: I disagree. Why the hell would I put my country second just because I moved to the states ? And you make it sound like a dream land. America is a country like any other with it's ups and downs, the reason for one moving in may not be because it "has what no other country can provide" also, I dont have to defend the USA just because I live there, my allegiance lies with my home country, and it alone, it doesnt sway whenever I reside somewhere.

Mostafa wrote:

@ Aaron: I disagree. Why the hell would I put my country second just because I moved to the states ? And you make it sound like a dream land. America is a country like any other with it's ups and downs, the reason for one moving in may not be because it "has what no other country can provide" also, I dont have to defend the USA just because I live there, my allegiance lies with my home country, and it alone, it doesnt sway whenever I reside somewhere.

Big fucking THIS! When I talked about defending the country I only meant citizens, and if you want to be a citizen of the country then clearly you must put your allegiance with it above all. Living in a country as a non-citizen is totally different.

Then lets leave language out of this:

One foreign man arrives, he is thus given little option but to learn the local language so as to function independantly as a part of that society.

Ten foreign men arrive (all from the same location), they are able to help each other in regards to language and customs barriers so that they can all function in that society.

10,000 foreign men arrive (all from the same location), but now their numbers are great enough that they don't need to learn anything or adapt. They segregate themselves off and form a small district within that country that caters for them and others like them.

These 10,000 men expand into 100,000 and we're now looking at a city that caters for them. The streets are littered with people who only speak that language, people who were born there are no longer able to find work because they don't speak this new language that has entered. They now find themselves subject to new customs, suffering criticisms if they refuse to follow, perhaps eventually even a vigilante style law as a result. They are left little option but to either adapt to the will of those who have entered their country or leave.

The question is where do we make the cut off point. Language is only a small part of it; it is that critical difference between integration and segregation that is the crux of the argument. I've seen the effect of segregation on the small scale (at uni, 90% of all the Indian students talked to nobody except other Indian students. The Chinese students were the same - of both ethnicities I only really new half a dozen or so - and so formed their own small groups, separate from everyone else) and I know (think?) you're a history student, so tell me example of when racial segregation has ever worked.

I honestly don't know if this is the right place to draw the line, but nonetheless this is where they've drawn it.

Mostafa: If you want to live in a land that follows all the customs of your homeland, why leave? If you move for work, then its surely because theres none available where you currently reside, or surely you'd stay there? If you move for war, then surely the country you're moving to is offering you sanctuary? Whatever way you spin it, if you're moving to another country then it had surely be offering you something you can't find where you currently reside. This isn't a pick 'n' mix we're talking about here, you take everything or you take nothing. Im not asking you to remove your interest or affiliation with your homeland nor change your religion, I'm asking you to not intentionally become a problem for the country kind enough to allow you the same benefits it bestows upon those born there. I honestly don't think that's really much to ask.

Rosalind wrote:

The question is where do we make the cut off point. Language is only a small part of it; it is that critical difference between integration and segregation that is the crux of the argument. I've seen the effect of segregation on the small scale (at uni, 90% of all the Indian students talked to nobody except other Indian students. The Chinese students were the same - of both ethnicities I only really new half a dozen or so - and so formed their own small groups, separate from everyone else) and I know (think?) you're a history student, so tell me example of when racial segregation has ever worked.

I see this at the uni where I go, too. Hell, my roommate last year was from China and only hung out with other Chinese.

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

The question is where do we make the cut off point. Language is only a small part of it; it is that critical difference between integration and segregation that is the crux of the argument. I've seen the effect of segregation on the small scale (at uni, 90% of all the Indian students talked to nobody except other Indian students. The Chinese students were the same - of both ethnicities I only really new half a dozen or so - and so formed their own small groups, separate from everyone else) and I know (think?) you're a history student, so tell me example of when racial segregation has ever worked.

I see this at the uni where I go, too. Hell, my roommate last year was from China and only hung out with other Chinese.

I don't have a specific issue with it myself (actually, at one point I ended up being the only white guy amidst a sea of women from singapore, half of which seemed to love my accent ) but on a large scale, from a political point of view, this becomes a major issue. As in, splitting a country into two kind of major. This (I think) one of the major reason for a slow integration, only allowing a few in at a time. They adapt as needed, then more arrive preventing this mass influx tendency to flock together.

Quote :

Mostafa: If you want to live in a land that follows all the customs of your homeland, why leave? If you move for work, then its surely because theres none available where you currently reside, or surely you'd stay there? If you move for war, then surely the country you're moving to is offering you sanctuary? Whatever way you spin it, if you're moving to another country then it had surely be offering you something you can't find where you currently reside. This isn't a pick 'n' mix we're talking about here, you take everything or you take nothing. Im not asking you to remove your interest or affiliation with your homeland nor change your religion, I'm asking you to not intentionally become a problem for the country kind enough to allow you the same benefits it bestows upon those born there. I honestly don't think that's really much to ask.

How about wanting to experience a new life in a new place ? wanting to retire in an off land country ? the reason for moving doesnt have to be material wise. I never argued against that point as I've said earlier, agreed on not becoming a problem and such. But honestly Bawden, if you think that Europe or America provides the same benefits for any of the middle east it provides to it's own born there, you're wrong..

Mostafa wrote:

@ Aaron: I disagree. Why the hell would I put my country second just because I moved to the states ? And you make it sound like a dream land. America is a country like any other with it's ups and downs, the reason for one moving in may not be because it "has what no other country can provide" also, I dont have to defend the USA just because I live there, my allegiance lies with my home country, and it alone, it doesnt sway whenever I reside somewhere.

Oh here we go. Time to shit on America right. I see America is such a shit hole despite the fact that to this day people are literally risking their lives to get here(and not all of them are here to blow up buildings). And why. Because their shit hole of a country does not afford them the opportunities that free cultures such as America and Europe offer. Other wise if their country was sooo great why leave? If you do happen to move to America and become a citizen and America does go to war with Egypt. Let me tell you this. If you are asked to fight and defend America but refuse because your loyalties lie with a country you abandoned. I will be the first to put a bullet through your head, and I would expect the same if I were to become a citizen of Egypt and made the same choice. If your loyalties still lie with a country you left. Then I suggest you stay there.

During WW2 people of many different national origins fought side by side against the Axis Powers. Despite where they may have been born or what their heritage was they fought to defend America. This includes black, and if there was any group of people that should have been allowed to say tough shit to America it was blacks. None of these people were drafted. They volunteered to defend the nation they loved and the nation that had given them rights and opportunities other countries did not. Including black that had less rights then German POW's.

Joining a new country, which ever it may be. Has certain obligations that go with it. Learning the language and defending against all other are the first two that come to my mind.

son_ov_hades wrote:

Well you're getting into an entirely different argument here. I don't want to debate immigration from Mexico.

I am not talking immigration. I am talking about a group of people coming into another country and not assimilating. There is nothing put in place to give them any reason to do it. In fact there are things put in place to discourage and help, such as making DMV test in multiple languages or allowing illegal immigrants to vote. It is not just limited to Mexicans. Asians are doing the same thing. There are entire communities set up to just cater to Asians. There are entire streets I drive down that have no english signs in any of there stores. Now how is that welcoming to someone that does not speak the language? Not to mention if you do try and go in you are met with people who simply do understand you at all because they too don't speak English. Is that any different from making me drink from a separate drinking fountain or entering the dinner through the back? I love that they bring there food and culture and religions with them. All I ask is that they speak enough English to communicate with all who reside here. To do other wise I think is disrespectful.

Rosalind wrote:

Then lets leave language out of this:

One foreign man arrives, he is thus given little option but to learn the local language so as to function independantly as a part of that society.

Ten foreign men arrive (all from the same location), they are able to help each other in regards to language and customs barriers so that they can all function in that society.

10,000 foreign men arrive (all from the same location), but now their numbers are great enough that they don't need to learn anything or adapt. They segregate themselves off and form a small district within that country that caters for them and others like them.

These 10,000 men expand into 100,000 and we're now looking at a city that caters for them. The streets are littered with people who only speak that language, people who were born there are no longer able to find work because they don't speak this new language that has entered. They now find themselves subject to new customs, suffering criticisms if they refuse to follow, perhaps eventually even a vigilante style law as a result. They are left little option but to either adapt to the will of those who have entered their country or leave.

The question is where do we make the cut off point. Language is only a small part of it; it is that critical difference between integration and segregation that is the crux of the argument. I've seen the effect of segregation on the small scale (at uni, 90% of all the Indian students talked to nobody except other Indian students. The Chinese students were the same - of both ethnicities I only really new half a dozen or so - and so formed their own small groups, separate from everyone else) and I know (think?) you're a history student, so tell me example of when racial segregation has ever worked.

I honestly don't know if this is the right place to draw the line, but nonetheless this is where they've drawn it.

Mostafa: If you want to live in a land that follows all the customs of your homeland, why leave? If you move for work, then its surely because theres none available where you currently reside, or surely you'd stay there? If you move for war, then surely the country you're moving to is offering you sanctuary? Whatever way you spin it, if you're moving to another country then it had surely be offering you something you can't find where you currently reside. This isn't a pick 'n' mix we're talking about here, you take everything or you take nothing. Im not asking you to remove your interest or affiliation with your homeland nor change your religion, I'm asking you to not intentionally become a problem for the country kind enough to allow you the same benefits it bestows upon those born there. I honestly don't think that's really much to ask.

All excellent points Thomas.

@ Aaron: what kind of bull is that ? so If I'am not to give my loyalties to the country I move to, then I shouldnt've come ? Instead of coming up with a reply to that, bring me one immigrant or someone working in a country that's not his that would do so, I dare you. I dont have to defent that country against shit. I live there as a non citizen, so taking an oath to defend that country doesnt apply to me nor to anyone who's only working, having a long vacation, retiring, or whatever the hell, there. /discussion

One question though, if you were forced out of America for whatever reason, you'd fight for the country you live in currently ? If so, then you never had loyalty towards the country in the first place..

Mostafa wrote:

@ Aaron: what kind of bull is that ? so If I'am not to give my loyalties to the country I move to, then I shouldnt've come ? Instead of coming up with a reply to that, bring me one immigrant or someone working in a country that's not his that would do so, I dare you. I dont have to defent that country against shit. I live there as a non citizen, so taking an oath to defend that country doesnt apply to me nor to anyone who's only working, having a long vacation, retiring, or whatever the hell, there. /discussion

One question though, if you were forced out of America for whatever reason, you'd fight for the country you live in currently ? If so, then you never had loyalty towards the country in the first place..

What don't you get? I am talking about CITIZENS. Why the fuck would I expect some one visiting here on vacation to defend America? If you move to America and become a CITIZEN, you better damn well defend it in a war or get the fuck out.

These people you speak of that were forced out of their country. Who are they? If that country forced them out, why would they defend it? If I were forced out of America would I still defend it? It would depend on why I was forced out. Because as cheesy as it may sound. America is not just a country it is an idea. An idea that can be done anywhere having very little to do with the actual land. So if invaders from Mexico suddenly pushed myself and other American into Canada. I would still be loyal to America and would do my best to reclaim it from who ever took it over. Now if it was some sort of genocide that I got out before I was caught in then no. But not because I don't love America. But because I don't love what it became. But if I were able to defeat those who imposed the genocide and America was back to what it is now. Then my loyalty would return. Talk to the Armenian's that escaped or survived their own genocide that fled to America and other places. Do you think they are still loyal? Of course not. But they didn't lose their culture either, and despite America not recognizing it as a genocide, many are still loyal and loving American who have helped defend this nation or the years. How about America's founders? If they had all been loyal to England I would be talking with the same funny accent that Thomas and Carl are afflicted with(JOKING). Now I am giving you examples that come to my mind since you have provided such an open ended question with to many varibles to consider. It really is situational.

AarO)))n wrote:

Talk to the Armenian's that escaped or survived their own genocide that fled to America and other places. Do you think they are still loyal? Of course not. But they didn't lose their culture either, and despite America not recognizing it as a genocide, many are still loyal and loving American who have helped defend this nation or the years.

From the way you write, it sounds like the Armenian government perpetrated the genocide. Hoever, the Armenian genocide wasn't perpetrated by the Armenian government, but by the Turks (who ruled Armenia at the time under the Ottoman Empire). There is still considerable enmity between the two nationalities/ethnicities as a result--just read some of the discussions on the 'Recognize the Armenian Genocide' FB group.

Ziegenbartami wrote:

AarO)))n wrote:

Talk to the Armenian's that escaped or survived their own genocide that fled to America and other places. Do you think they are still loyal? Of course not. But they didn't lose their culture either, and despite America not recognizing it as a genocide, many are still loyal and loving American who have helped defend this nation or the years.

The Armenian genocide wasn't perpetrated by the Armenian government, but by the Turks (who ruled Armenia at the time under the Ottoman Empire). There is still considerable enmity between the two nationalities/ethnicities as a result--just read some of the discussions on the 'Recognize the Armenian Genocide' FB group.

"enmity" ?
I think we are on the same page here. Those who fled are not still loyal to that country, but to the one they have been forced to adopt as their country since they were forced out was my point. Also, I knew who caused the genocide. I listen to System of a Down

AarO)))n wrote:

Ziegenbartami wrote:

AarO)))n wrote:

Talk to the Armenian's that escaped or survived their own genocide that fled to America and other places. Do you think they are still loyal? Of course not. But they didn't lose their culture either, and despite America not recognizing it as a genocide, many are still loyal and loving American who have helped defend this nation or the years.

The Armenian genocide wasn't perpetrated by the Armenian government, but by the Turks (who ruled Armenia at the time under the Ottoman Empire). There is still considerable enmity between the two nationalities/ethnicities as a result--just read some of the discussions on the 'Recognize the Armenian Genocide' FB group.

"enmity" ?
I think we are on the same page here. Those who fled are not still loyal to that country, but to the one they have been forced to adopt as their country since they were forced out was my point. Also, I knew who caused the genocide. I listen to System of a Down

Enmity: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enmity
One of my high school friends originally came from Armenia, and although I'm not sure to which country his loyalties lie, he sure does despise Turks.

Ziegenbartami wrote:

Enmity: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enmity
One of my high school friends originally came from Armenia, and although I'm not sure to which country his loyalties lie, he sure does despise Turks.

I have never heard that word before. You learn something new every day.

As for your friend. I hope it lies with America considering he lives here and I assume enjoys all that comes with it. I don't think that is too much to ask if he is a citizen or plans on becoming one.

"How about wanting to experience a new life in a new place ? wanting to retire in an off land country ?"

Why would you do that unless you wanted to live in that new country? Why move unless its offering you something you don't get where you currently reside? How are you really experiencing life in a new place if you refuse to accept the local customs? You're saying you want to move there for the hell of it and follow only the bits you feel like following?

If you're moving to another country then it had surely be offering you something that you don't get at your current residence. Perhaps its a quaint little Italian town whose cobbled streets you fell in love with. Maybe its the historical gothic tone to Paris, or the quirkiness of Japan. Nobody would move to another country without a reason.

"so If I'am not to give my loyalties to the country I move to, then I shouldnt've come ?"

Absolutely not. If you're gonna move to another country, accept citizenship and then piss all over it because it conflicts with your own ideals you shouldn't have come. I wouldn't move to Egypt, walk around nude all day with a bottle of whisky and a joint in my hand because it would disrespectful and rude. Its not a game of give and take, you cant choose what aspects to follow. You accept the citizenship and everything that comes with it or you don't.

What have we learned from all this: Conformity = good

Kidding, but conformity is logical, nay, mandatory if you want to function successfully in any society. But I do think you can live in one country but still be loyal to another. But if you don't even have the decency to do the effort of learning the language, you might as well have stayed at home. Seriously.

Christoff Odendaal wrote:

What have we learned from all this: Conformity = good

Kidding, but conformity is logical, nay, mandatory if you want to function successfully in any society. But I do think you can live in one country but still be loyal to another. But if you don't even have the decency to do the effort of learning the language, you might as well have stayed at home. Seriously.

You can stay loyal to one country whilst respecting another.

AarO)))n wrote:

Mostafa wrote:

@ Aaron: what kind of bull is that ? so If I'am not to give my loyalties to the country I move to, then I shouldnt've come ? Instead of coming up with a reply to that, bring me one immigrant or someone working in a country that's not his that would do so, I dare you. I dont have to defent that country against shit. I live there as a non citizen, so taking an oath to defend that country doesnt apply to me nor to anyone who's only working, having a long vacation, retiring, or whatever the hell, there. /discussion

One question though, if you were forced out of America for whatever reason, you'd fight for the country you live in currently ? If so, then you never had loyalty towards the country in the first place..

What don't you get? I am talking about CITIZENS. Why the fuck would I expect some one visiting here on vacation to defend America? If you move to America and become a CITIZEN, you better damn well defend it in a war or get the fuck out.

These people you speak of that were forced out of their country. Who are they? If that country forced them out, why would they defend it? If I were forced out of America would I still defend it? It would depend on why I was forced out. Because as cheesy as it may sound. America is not just a country it is an idea. An idea that can be done anywhere having very little to do with the actual land. So if invaders from Mexico suddenly pushed myself and other American into Canada. I would still be loyal to America and would do my best to reclaim it from who ever took it over. Now if it was some sort of genocide that I got out before I was caught in then no. But not because I don't love America. But because I don't love what it became. But if I were able to defeat those who imposed the genocide and America was back to what it is now. Then my loyalty would return. Talk to the Armenian's that escaped or survived their own genocide that fled to America and other places. Do you think they are still loyal? Of course not. But they didn't lose their culture either, and despite America not recognizing it as a genocide, many are still loyal and loving American who have helped defend this nation or the years. How about America's founders? If they had all been loyal to England I would be talking with the same funny accent that Thomas and Carl are afflicted with(JOKING). Now I am giving you examples that come to my mind since you have provided such an open ended question with to many varibles to consider. It really is situational.

I'am not only talking about people in vaccation. Also people who just happen to work in America to make a decent buck and then return to their home country. Are those supposed to switch lolyalty to America on moving, then to their own country on moving back :/ ? And I assume becoming a citizen means getting the nationality and giving loyalty to the American flag, If a person (READ: CHOOSES) to do so then it's his own will, but no outsider to the country is forced to do so.

Palestians, Afghans, Iraqee people or whoever maybe forced for some reason what so ever.

"America is not just a country it is an idea. An idea that can be done anywhere having very little to do with the actual land. So if invaders from Mexico suddenly pushed myself and other American into Canada. I would still be loyal to America and would do my best to reclaim it from who ever took it over. Now if it was some sort of genocide that I got out before I was caught in then no"
This my friend is where we will disagree strongly. Here, a country isnt only an idea, it's the very own soil you were raised in, the people of your own country, the water, the food, the very own air ( You were talking about cheesy, eh XD) not just some idea I can take with me and start anywhere, one's country can only be one place and one place only.

"Then my loyalty would return."
Loyalties dont come and return..

Rosalind wrote:

"How about wanting to experience a new life in a new place ? wanting to retire in an off land country ?"

Why would you do that unless you wanted to live in that new country? Why move unless its offering you something you don't get where you currently reside? How are you really experiencing life in a new place if you refuse to accept the local customs? You're saying you want to move there for the hell of it and follow only the bits you feel like following?

If you're moving to another country then it had surely be offering you something that you don't get at your current residence. Perhaps its a quaint little Italian town whose cobbled streets you fell in love with. Maybe its the historical gothic tone to Paris, or the quirkiness of Japan. Nobody would move to another country without a reason.

"so If I'am not to give my loyalties to the country I move to, then I shouldnt've come ?"

Absolutely not. If you're gonna move to another country, accept citizenship and then piss all over it because it conflicts with your own ideals you shouldn't have come. I wouldn't move to Egypt, walk around nude all day with a bottle of whisky and a joint in my hand because it would disrespectful and rude. Its not a game of give and take, you cant choose what aspects to follow. You accept the citizenship and everything that comes with it or you don't.

So retiring somewhere else than where I currently reside means that my country cant provide me the same ? when you go on holiday, I assume you dont go in your own town, usually people go to the sea or something. And just because I moved doesnt mean I fell in love with that country ! surely no one moves without a reason, but as you've said, every country has it's own merits, wanting to see the merits of a different country doesnt mean I no longer wish to live in mine..

Sighs, we've been through that point Thomas, you're talking about customs . I'am talking about loyalties. I dont have to defend England just because I currently live there, nor do I have to have any sort of loyalties to it nor it's people. Respect to it's customs and abiding by those of which that dont conflict with mine ( I dont have to be a nude biker just because many people do it, dont have to buy drugs off shops just because they're sold like in Holland, dont have to go to Sunday church because most of the country's citizens are christians, dont have to celebrate christian, jewish holidays, etcc )

Rosalind wrote:

Christoff Odendaal wrote:

What have we learned from all this: Conformity = good

Kidding, but conformity is logical, nay, mandatory if you want to function successfully in any society. But I do think you can live in one country but still be loyal to another. But if you don't even have the decency to do the effort of learning the language, you might as well have stayed at home. Seriously.

You can stay loyal to one country whilst respecting another.

This !!