Comment by strlen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by strlen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> As for military conscription, that only applies to citizens, so if your children take US citizenship instead of Singaporean citizenship (US practices Jus Sanguinis, so I think this is possible), they wouldn't have to worry about military service (I'm not Singaporean or an immigration lawyer, so don't take my word on that).

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.

> 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) ?

1) I don't think they live "cocooned". I've lived in South Bay myself for 18 years and honestly haven't seen this. Quite frankly your statement struck me as odd (I earlier wrote racist, but on a second read, I don't think this qualifies) and reactionary ("clans"?). Maintaining ethnic stores, restauraunts, and community events is very different from being "cocooned". They obey US laws (assuming all burdens and responsibilities of citizenship), they don't live in compounds unreachable to outsiders, etc...

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).

1) > I've lived in South Bay myself for 18 years and honestly haven't seen this.

Right, this might just be a matter of personal opinion. I spent a few months in Mountain View, I found it oppressively close to being similar to living in India. It was personally a negative thing because I felt like I (being ethnically of Indian origin but not really culturally one) was expected to behave similar to norms in India. Hell, I had a co-worker accuse (tease?) me of being gay because I was wearing fucking Happy Socks [1]. Now, I must emphasize that I am not saying that everyone who is culturally Indian is conservative or homophobic or whatever. However, the norms in that society of what is acceptable behavior are distinctly different from the norms in this society. A huge cluster of people living together just makes it easier for them to bring their societal norms.

[1] http://www.happysocks.com/us/

> but on a second read, I don't think this qualifies) and reactionary ("clans"?).

The word "clan" was used in the sense of people of a certain kinship living together. This may not be immediately apparent to an outsider but I have lived in India and people from different states are drastically different. This self congregation is apparent in neighborhoods there. At least to me.

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.

Sorry. Most of the new Indians that you see are not escaping grinding poverty. If you have enough money to pay for a Master's degree and then work on an H1B, you are clearly not part of the teeming masses of the poor people, you are ultimately an expat.

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.

Actually, I think Singapore is a drastically different case when it comes to Indian immigration. For one, immigration laws are diverse enough that you get both classes of Indians, the white collar professionals and the people escaping soul crushing poverty.

for a guy who has lived in India the use of word "Clan" to describe South Bay residing Indians is ..mm.. weird..

Do Indians like to be around other Indians? Yes. Do Indians like be be around people from their state/linguistic background? YES! But that doesn't make them "clans".

A South Bay residing Indian is more likely to be a college-educated, white collar worker. There is no need for them to "ghetto" themselves.

> "Clan" to describe South Bay residing Indians is ..mm.. weird..

The word clan was not used in a pejorative way. I merely meant a group of people.

> A South Bay residing Indian is more likely to be a college-educated, white collar worker. There is no need for them to "ghetto" themselves.

Not sure how this relates to my point at all. The OP had an issue with westerners moving and settling in a country "without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns." I asked him/her what their thoughts were on other minorities doing that? My only intention is to figure out if there is some sort of differing racial standard being applied here.

Oh, I didn't realize he had given up US citizenship. So is he a Singaporean citizen now? New Zealand citizen? I ask because it is generally easier for US passport holders to get Visas than citizens of most other countries, and Sivers seems to travel a lot.

No idea, actually. I am guessing Singaporean? It's possible to have a non-citizen US passport, though. I'd also imagine SG passport is still quite great for travel in East Asia, SE-Asia, and Oceania.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com