Why am I here?

If you (like afaik, Sivers) surrender the US citizenship, is there any basis for children taking US citizenship?

> In short, expats can totally avoid having that reality hit them. Expats tend to live in a totally different world than the natives of the countries in which they settle.

I think that's what bothers me, but I am also somewhat at a loss why: it is just for a country to allow an expatriate class that never takes citizenship, but which others contributes (indeed, that is a positive). It is legitimate for individuals to choose to forego the benefits of citizenship in order to avoid the associated responsibilities, yet I can't help by somehow sneer at a group of people who are in a country quasi-permanently (i.e., not a short-term business trip) by choice (they aren't fleeing famine or oppression -- which would be a different matter) by choose not to become its citizen.

I also don't think Singapore is a bad place. Quite frankly their immigration policies are far better than a large chunk of the world. They certainly put a far larger expectation on their citizens, but nothing really out of bounds of a Rawlsian "decent country" -- basic civil rights are respected. On the other hand US is guilty of a crime of omission -- there are many potential immigrants coming from unstable, dangerous, and poor places that are denied the right to settle in US, but would be able to settle in Singapore.

I guess if I had to pin it down, what bugs me is the way many Westernerns move and settle in countries without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns.

And what do you think of clans of Indians who move to the U.S. for purely material and practical concerns, live cocooned in communities (especially in the South Bay) ?

EDIT: I realize I conflated "people moving to Singapore" with "majority of US expats moving to Singapore." Thanks for catching that, my bad.

--

I guess I'm curious about your use of the term "narrowly selfish". What do you really mean by that?

You also say that it would be more "principled and selfless" to refuse to compromise one's ideals, but... I can't help but feel that's a really context-dependent thing.

For instance, can you think of examples where a person's refusal to compromise leads to the suffering of others. You said you wouldn't endorse it in Derek's case, because he'd be forgoing love (and encountering misery). There are many worse cases- think about gay kids growing up in a homophobic family, for example. And worse.

So I feel like there's some unnecessary complexity in what you've expressed- I think what you describe as "principled and selfless" behaviour is a luxury that some people (if not most people, especially those who are poor, handicapped, oppressed, etc) can't afford.

You said that you can't imagine that you'd physically survive in a situation wherein you'd have to compromise your values. Yet you also acknowledge that there are people who live in such situations. So are these people "narrowly selfish?" Is Derek being narrowly selfish? What's the utility in calling a person narrowly selfish?

Thanks for engaging me,

visa

2) The delta in material situation between India and US is far higher than the delta between US and and Singapore. Westerners moving to Singapore aren't escaping grinding poverty.

3) There's a large Indian community in Singapore (indeed the very name of the country is in an Indian language) and if you're going to compare Indians moving to the US to another group moving to Singapore (well, perhaps not moving -- they've been there for a long time), this is probably the right comparison to make. I don't see a problem with multi-ethnic states, as long as everyone lives by the same basic laws. I'd still think I would find it acceptable even if the cultures were completely isolated from rest of the country, e.g., Amish in the US, as long as -- again -- they lived by the same laws.

4) I did state elsewhere that I think in terms of immigration policies, Singapore may be "superior" to the US. I strongly believe in immigration as primary human right: everyone should have the right to move wherever they please (with only exception being due to basic economic condition -- a mostly theoretical concern, as usually countries with greatest population densities and largest immigrant population tend to be more prosperous), whether this is the right choice for others is a personal matter (something I can speak out against, but have no right to deny).