# Do you think foreigners should get involved in problems of another country?



## Miguelillo 87

Well I mean, do oyu think persons should get involved in social problems of a country when they weren't born there, or they don't live there?

I mean for example here in México sometimes we have social problems as bad salaries for the teachers, and all of a sudden oyu noticed taht inj the demonstrations are French and american people!!!!!!!!!!!
i MEAN THEY don't live in our country, they don't know the problems, Why do they do that? Do oyu agree? In oyur country happens?

NOTE.- I'm not talking about invasions as US is doing in Irak, I mean I'm talking of indiciduals or small groups, not the governament of a country.

Also institutions as groups of The ONU or the UNESCO, that's right form me.


----------



## Chipolata

Well you know Miguelillo, in Mexico we can be deported for doing this. It is illegal to manifest our political opinion in Mexico when we are foreigner. This upset me a little bit. I know I was not born here but I do live here, I have been studying it for the last four years and I care for this country a lot. 
You can also see things like this: I am not a mexican, you are: you are allowed to vote and to participate in the manifestations, I am not. However, we both are humans and we care for the human kind. So, if there is an injustice going on in Oaxaca, why couldn't I say what I think about it?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Chipolata, I aldo think that oyu deserve to participate 'cause you live here, so oyu're affected by the good and the bad things. But some persons come directly form France or Spain or whatever country, and in fiev minurtes they believe they know the problem of the country just for having see it on the TV, 
Yoou'r case is difeerent, I'm with oyu.
Why don't you get the "naturalización"


----------



## Chipolata

Then I'll go again with my second idea: those french or americain people surely just care about what is going on in Mexico. Maybe they don't get the whole problem but they do feel that there is an injustice. They want to show their support to people they think are oppressed. 

I am actually thinking about the mexican citizenship. Maybe next year )


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Miguelillo 87 said:


> I'm not talking about invasions as US is doing in Irak, I mean I'm talking of indiciduals or small groups, not the governament of a country.



So, what do you mean with "involved"? To give an opinion?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

Dr. Quizá said:


> So, what do you mean with "involved"? To give an opinion?


 
O.k I think I have to be more clear. When I say involved is in the bad way, not as chipolata point out, I mean I know person can worry about the problems of a nation but to get involved in a "bad way" For example some foreigners just come to make things worse, instaed to support the peace, they are with the violence side. For exmple when a demonstration turn violent they "the foreigners) are also part of this violence, they paint walls, they throw rocks, they hurt the police and it's not by own defense, it's just for be "alborotadores" That's when I said foreigners shouldn't be on the problems which doesn't concern them.
Chipolata is an especial case, 'cause he's living in the country and too many time in order to worry about it


----------



## jinti

My union has been debating the topic of international causes for awhile. Some of our union members don't like the fact that their money goes to support workers' causes in other countries (no, not violently). Others say that workers' issues cross national borders and we will all be stronger if we stick together.

Who are these "French and American people" you refer to? Union organizers/supporters? Tourists who had nothing better to do with their afternoon? Are you sure they don't live in Mexico? Are you sure they don't know the problems? And are they doing more damage than Mexicans?  Or more damage than good?  How can you tell?


----------



## Miguelillo 87

jinti said:


> My union has been debating this topic for awhile. Some of our union members don't like the fact that their money goes to support workers' causes in other countries. Others say that workers' issues cross national borders and we will all be stronger if we stick together.
> 
> Who are these "French and American people" you refer to? Union organizers/supporters? Tourists who had nothing better to do with their afternoon? Are you sure they don't live in Mexico? Are you sure they don't know the problems? And are they doing any damage by joining in demonstrations?


Thank oyu for give me the tools to explain me better.

French, americans, germans, argentinians, spanish, cubans.. could be whatever nationality.

About the unions or sindicatos as we called them, I think is good because some know what the problem is, ans i agree the union make the force. If you can help the world make better, that's perfect.

About the problems, I think they don't understand it, 'cause is not the same to live in one country tha in another, I mean problems cpuld be similars but not the same. 
About the damage, YES, unfourtunatly in México there are few demonstartions which doesn't finish in a violence act. For example I remeber that I watched in the news many many time ago, that a Spanish group of "tourists" where in Oaxaca when a demosntartion explode into violnce and they were ther demonstrating for a better wedge to teachers, when they weren't teachers, when was their first time in Mexico and they were only 2 days in the country, and they were very violent. Does it have sense?


----------



## jinti

Miguelillo 87 said:


> For example I remeber that I watched in the news many many time ago, that a Spanish group of "tourists" where in Oaxaca when a demosntartion explode into violnce and they were ther demonstrating for a better wedge to teachers, when they weren't teachers, when was their first time in Mexico and they were only 2 days in the country, and they were very violent. Does it have sense?


Well, I have no problem with this... until the violence part. Any demonstration here would welcome additional protesters -- whether they fully understood what they were demonstrating for or not. The more people, the better. It makes more of an impact that way. But of course, no one should turn violent....

But is it really common for tourists to take part in demonstrations and then become violent? It just doesn't sound like people on vacation to me....


----------



## 1Euro

I don't see why not. An injustice is an injustice. If I see a blatant injustice in front of my face, must I refrain to take any action just because I'm not "local"? Nonsense.

Best regards.


----------



## djchak

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Well I mean, do oyu think persons should get involved in social problems of a country when they weren't born there, or they don't live there?
> 
> I mean for example here in México sometimes we have social problems as bad salaries for the teachers, and all of a sudden oyu noticed taht inj the demonstrations are French and american people!!!!!!!!!!!
> i MEAN THEY don't live in our country, they don't know the problems, Why do they do that? Do oyu agree? In oyur country happens?
> 
> NOTE.- I'm not talking about invasions as US is doing in Irak, I mean I'm talking of indiciduals or small groups, not the governament of a country.
> 
> Also institutions as groups of The ONU or the UNESCO, that's right form me.



You can't have it both ways.

Excluding the obvious violence factor...people are either free to express themselves bt protesting...or they aren't...regardless of nationality.

What about all the protests for illegal immigration/immigration reform just recently , in the US? Many of those people weren't citizens, and i'm sure some weren't legally admited to the US. Should we have broken out the water cannons and the tear gas grenades, and the riot police?

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## JazzByChas

I think that in any country, as in here in the USA, if you want to be involved in the politics and government of a country, you should be(come) a citizen of that country.  You must earn the right to have a say in the worings of your country's government.

Anyone who immigrates to America and wants to live here, and participate in the American life must become a citizen, and I think the same should apply in any other country.


----------



## mirx

djchak said:


> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Excluding the obvious violence factor...people are either free to express themselves bt protesting...or they aren't...regardless of nationality.
> 
> What about all the protests for illegal immigration/immigration reform just recently , in the US? Many of those people weren't citizens, and i'm sure some weren't legally admited to the US. Should we have broken out the water cannons and the tear gas grenades, and the riot police?
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


 
They may have not been citizens, but they have been living in the country long enough to be affected by that resolution. Besides in this particular case those people were directly the aim, and not some american tourist on a cancun holiday who decided (to not lose the habit) that he was the judge and that what he said and fought for was the legitimate and undeniable truth.

Foreigners should not protest because:

They don't know the cause of the problem.
The problem don't directly affect them.
Their appreciation of the problem will usually not have a valid foundation.
They only contribute to more violence (in Mexico specifically)
They might not know the consequences of their acts.
They are attemptig against mexican laws and may be impriosioned, deported and denied further access to the country.

Foreigner should protest because:

*They probably have a claerer perspective watching the problem from outside, and not let themselves be taken by feelings of any kind regarding the people involved or places were the people live.
*They have probably experienced some simialr situations in their homw countries and thus will and must do  their best to achieve better results.
*They have been living in the country/region long enough to have a solid understanment of the problem and therefore are able to act and should so
*They may be human beings and should help preserve other human beings' lives.

Get your own conclusions.

As a citizen of the world I believe we all should get involved in what happens in this world, I don't agree however, that just because some Spanish spring brakers thought it was an unfair situation they hit the police and supported the people who they just met.

And Miguelillo. As a mexican I wouldn't dare to protest. simply because I don't live in the region and what they do there and how many people are killed everyday doesn't influence me at all. But Probably Mr Smith who is Canadian and has been in Chiapas for 3 months will protest. While his protest will be legitimate mine would be worthless -If I ever protested-

So many mexicans like myself turn out to be more foreigners than some Italians or Frenchmen or other migrants who live the problem, sleep with the problem, and eat the problem.

I guess what I am trying to say here is. It doesn't matter whether it´s a foreigner or a local, as long as you deeply know what you're talking about, and there's no other way but to protest, assuming all the consequences it may imply, and in the know that your actions will affect you as well as other people who might be innocent but whose beliefs opposite yours.

All those americans, and spanish and germans, who have been in the country for a week (and had no previuos knowledge of the matter) and start manifestations and riots and get involved in acts of violence, well, those shoul not have been let in the country in the first place.

Viva Mexico!!!

This reading is product of the writer''s imagination, thus all names and nationalities mentioned are (not) intended to offend anyone. Any resemblance with real life is a pure coincidence, and not the author's responsability.


----------



## palomnik

The posts so far on this thread have dealt with Mexico, but this is a much bigger issue than it appears.

Take the example of South Africa. Apartheid, arguably, was a domestic issue, and foreigners, arguably, had no business applying pressure to the South African government. But if foreigners did not get involved, I'm not sure whether it would have collapsed as quickly as it did. 

I'm not sure where you draw the line here. In general, I am totally in favor of foreigners keeping out of internal issues in other countries, until such time as those issues threaten another country's sovreignty or stability. But sometimes it's not so clear.


----------



## fenixpollo

If you are a resident of a country, you should get involved in the problems of your host country, regardless of your citizenship. 

If you are a citizen, then your involvement should include voting. If you are not a citizen, then your involvement should include everything else that citizens do, besides voting. 

To do anything less, as 1Euro implies, would be to condone the problems of the host country.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> If you are a resident of a country, you should get involved in the problems of your host country, regardless of your citizenship.
> 
> If you are a citizen, then your involvement should include voting. If you are not a citizen, then your involvement should include everything else that citizens do, besides voting.



If you're a resident in a foreign country, I would _strongly _advise you _not _to follow the advice above. 

The fact is that in any country, the government has essentially unlimited discretion to deport foreign citizens and bar them from entry as it pleases. Thus, if the authorities dislike you, they can screw you over badly even if the reason is something for which a citizen would enjoy complete immunity. What makes matters even worse is the fact that once you get into such trouble in any country, you'll have much greater trouble getting visas and residence permits for other countries as well (if you've ever filled a visa form, it very probably contained questions about whether you've ever been deported, refused a visa, etc. by _any _country). 

Thus, if you have serious business to do in your host country and consider getting into political activism as a hobby, you'd be well advised to resist the temptation, unless perhaps if it's about some boring and non-controversial everyday affair.

And remember that the above holds for liberal countries whose citizens enjoy broad freedoms of speech and political activism. In less free countries, don't _ever _assume that there is _any _limit to trouble into which you can get because of any act or utterance that could be plausibly interpreted as having political significance.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Athaulf said:


> The fact is that in any country, the government has essentially unlimited discretion to deport foreign citizens and bar them from entry as it pleases.



Excuse me?? deport foreign citizens?? any country??
What the hell are you talking about??
What you described might happen in very few countries, where they still don't know what democracy is, but not in any country for sure and not in Canada where you seem to be living..


----------



## _forumuser_

Paulfromitaly said:


> Excuse me?? deport foreign citizens?? any country??
> What the hell are you talking about??
> What you described might happen in very few countries, where they still don't know what democracy is, but not in any country for sure and not in Canada where you seem to be living..


 
Well, I have been a resident alien of different countries for years now and I share Athaulf very pessimistic outlook on things. If you're thinking of getting politically involved, think again. Sad though it may be, foreigners, immigrants, and aliens of all nationalities, races and creeds had better keep on the lo lo.


----------



## karuna

Paulfromitaly said:


> Excuse me?? deport foreign citizens?? any country??
> What the hell are you talking about??
> What you described might happen in very few countries, where they still don't know what democracy is, but not in any country for sure and not in Canada where you seem to be living..



I think that Athaulf is right. You underestimate the trouble immigration bereaucrats can give to you. Maybe, if you have already received your residence permit then you might have more rights, but I wouldn't risk it anyway. 



> See: _At the very least, the discovery of any kind of criminal record, even where there was no finding of guilt, will result in complications to their immigration application._


It means, if you go on protest march that somehow turns violent (car burning, shop looting) and even you do not participate in this activity, if somehow you get in the middle of a crowd and get arrested and criminal charges are brought against you, you are in a big trouble even if you are later aquitted. And Canada is known as heaven for getting immigrant status. In most other countries is will be much worse. I was refused Swedish visa once even though I had shortly visited the country before. And you know, there is no legal way to appeal the decision of some embassy clerk who probably just had a bad mood that day. They don't even have to give you a reason why you had your visa denied.


----------



## Athaulf

Paulfromitaly said:


> Excuse me?? deport foreign citizens?? any country??
> What the hell are you talking about??



About the state of affairs that holds in the real world. I don't know how much experience you have with visas and immigration in general, but you seem to be seriously underestimating the powers and prerogatives that  immigration authorities normally have anywhere in the world. 

In any country -- I would be very surprised to hear that there are any exceptions -- the consular officers have unlimited discretion when deciding whether to grant you a visa. In fact, most governments state this quite plainly in their informational brochures for visa applicants. A officer could perhaps get into trouble by granting a visa to someone who later turns out to be problematic, but never for refusing to grant you a visa for whatever personal whim. 

Furthermore, even if you have a visa or don't even need one, the immigration authorities at the border again have unlimited discretion as to whether you'll be allowed to enter the country. (They are also allowed to manhandle and harass you pretty much however they please.) As with the visa application, there is normally no practical way to appeal the decision, and each rejection significantly lowers your chances of ever being admitted to the country (and in some cases, even other countries) in the future. 

Finally, the government anywhere certainly reserves the right to deport foreigners as it pleases. Admittedly, outright deportations are normally used only as a punishment for criminal acts, and in some cases you can try to fight deportation in court if you have plenty of money for legal expenses. But if you are a resident in a foreign country, you are likely to be in a position where you have to regularly apply for a new visa and/or residence permit -- and then the above described unlimited discretion kicks in. Even if you have some sort of permanent residence permit, you may completely ruin your chances for ever becoming a citizen if your activities displease the government, even if they might be legal for citizens. 



> What you described might happen in very few countries, where they still don't know what democracy is, but not in any country for sure and not in Canada where you seem to be living..


You seem to be confusing democracy and (classical) liberalism, but let's leave than one for some other discussion. 

I'm not saying that the above described system is abused very frequently in liberal countries. But it certainly has been abused more than a few times, and it certainly is used to harass people on a regular basis without rational reasons. 

In a liberal country, you certainly don't have to fear anything if you engage in political activism about e.g. the schedule of  garbage collection in your neighborhood or some other boring mundane topic. But I would _very strongly_ advise foreigners anywhere to stay away from any issues that might raise any sort of general controversy. Better safe than sorry, as they say. And this is not meant to allude to any particular sort of controversial beliefs or attitudes -- I equally advise staying away from any political topic that can raise passions and conflicting attitudes. 

And mind you, the original poster (Fenixpollo) was advising people to engage in political activism _wherever they live_, which would presumably include countries less liberal than those in North America and Western Europe. He might as well have been advising them to pass the time by playing Russian roulette.


----------



## Athaulf

karuna said:


> I think that Athaulf is right. You underestimate the trouble immigration bereaucrats can give to you. Maybe, if you have already received your residence permit then you might have more rights, but I wouldn't risk it anyway.



Revoking permanent residence permits (such as the U.S. green card) is indeed something you generally don't have to fear. However, if your long-term goal is to get full citizenship of the host country, you must be _extremely _careful, because that step can easily prove to be impossible.



> It means, if you go on protest march that somehow turns violent (car burning, shop looting) and even you do not participate in this activity, if somehow you get in the middle of a crowd and get arrested and criminal charges are brought against you, you are in a big trouble even if you are later acquitted.


It's even worse than that. You don't even have to be criminally charged. It's enough that you merely get arrested if the record of this arrest remains on the police computers. Even if it's just a case of mistaken identity, the record of the arrest can haunt you forever if the police don't delete it after you've been released (and this may easily happen due to sheer sloppiness on their behalf). 

Application forms for visas and immigration typically ask if you've ever been _arrested _or _charged_ with a criminal offense, _not_ whether you've ever been _convicted_ in a court of law. If the answer is affirmative, the burden is _on you_ to convince them that you're not a criminal. When you deal with a government as a foreign citizen, don't even think about invoking the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. 

In fact, to get into major trouble with immigration officials, it can be enough that the police merely have something on file about you, even if it's something that never led to an actual investigation or arrest and isn't even close to valid evidence of criminal activity. People have had their lives ruined by records of false suspicions and denunciations that the police simply never bothered to erase from their databases.


----------



## fenixpollo

Athaulf said:


> About the state of affairs that holds in the real world. I don't know how much experience you have with visas and immigration in general, but you seem to be seriously underestimating the powers and prerogatives that  immigration authorities normally have anywhere in the world.


 Perhaps it is you who is overestimating the extent to which those powers and prerogatives are abused.





> But it certainly has been abused more than a few times, and it certainly is used to harass people on a regular basis without rational reasons.


 Where is your evidence for this?





> And mind you, the original poster (Fenixpollo) was advising people to engage in political activism _wherever they live_, which would presumably include countries less liberal than those in North America and Western Europe. He might as well have been advising them to pass the time by playing Russian roulette.


 And you might as well be advising people to turn a blind eye when they see someone getting assaulted, just to keep a low profile. You're saying that it's OK for people to abandon their ideals and their principles, to roll over and play dead when they see injustice.


----------



## _forumuser_

fenixpollo said:


> Where is your evidence for this?


 
Well, I don't think we need evidence of regular harassment by state authorities on aliens and immigrants in many so-called liberal countries. It's just a plain fact for everyone to see. Athaulf's advice seems very sound to me and very considerate of the well-being of others.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> Perhaps it is you who is overestimating the extent to which those powers and prerogatives [of immigration authorities] are abused.
> [...]
> Where is your evidence for this?
> [...]
> And you might as well be advising people to turn a blind eye when they see someone getting assaulted, just to keep a low profile. You're saying that it's OK for people to abandon their ideals and their principles, to roll over and play dead when they see injustice.



From the information on your profile, I assume that you're a native U.S. citizen. Thus, it's understandable that you take freedom of speech and political activism for granted, since you've spent your life in a country whose citizens enjoy an unprecedented level of freedom in these regards. But you must understand that the reality of life is very different for most of the rest of the world's population, and that this is -- at least to a certain extent -- also true for non-citizens that deal with the U.S. government and the governments of other liberal countries. 

As a U.S. citizen, your constitutional rights nowadays protect you pretty effectively from being penalized by your government for your speech or political activism. But as a non-citizen applying for a U.S. visa, green card, or citizenship, you don't enjoy any of that protection. True, the worst that can happen to you is that you'll be barred from entering (or staying in) the U.S., but for someone who has important business to do there, this can be a very serious problem. Of course, very similar remarks hold for any other liberal country; I'm just taking the U.S. as an example.

So please, understand that for you, screaming against whatever you perceive as injustice is generally a cheap and low-risk activity -- but for many other people, things are very different. I am just telling people to think twice before doing something that might be more dangerous than they imagine. Whether they'll decide to do it or not is their choice, but they certainly deserve to be informed of the risk -- which many of them probably underestimate, believing too literally in certain ideals that it's nowadays fashionable for governments to profess (but not really to practice with that much enthusiasm).

I don't know to what extent you personally are politically active, but I'm quite sure that if someone proposed you to engage in forms of struggle against injustice that could actually result in serious consequences for your well-being even in the U.S. -- for example, to engage in physical confrontation with the police when they attempt to enforce some law that you consider unjust -- you would decline such a proposal as lunacy. Before you chastise others for their lack of commitment against injustice, try understanding that for them, the level at which activism becomes dangerous for one's well-being might be far lower than for you.


----------



## dificilima

Athaulf said:


> It's even worse than that. You don't even have to be criminally charged. It's enough that you merely get arrested if the record of this arrest remains on the police computers. Even if it's just a case of mistaken identity, the record of the arrest can haunt you forever if the police don't delete it after you've been released (and this may easily happen due to sheer sloppiness on their behalf).
> 
> In fact, to get into major trouble with immigration officials, it can be enough that the police merely have something on file about you, even if it's something that never led to an actual investigation or arrest and isn't even close to valid evidence of criminal activity. People have had their lives ruined by records of false suspicions and denunciations that the police simply never bothered to erase from their databases.



I lived in the US for many years as a resident alien and I was often threatened with deportation for the stupidest reasons (e.g. INS official thought that Thailand and Taiwan were the same country when checking my passport...).  I remember very well how frightening it was to have my life in the hands of an ignorant fool.  I never participated in any illegal or political activities (I was young and not interested at the time), but that did not save me from harassment by the government. 

All you say is true.  Governments can and do abuse their power.  Both citizens and foreign nationals can be targeted.  Citizens can be illegally detained (political prisoners exist in both the USA and Canada) and foreigners can also be deported, even if they have not engaged in any violent activities.  In fact, regardless of your nationality or where you live, the US government can arrest you and put you in Guantanamo without any justification or recourse to justice.  We do not live in a nice world.  The question we each have to answer for ourselves is whether we are content to tolerate this situation, allowing ourselves to be frightened into submission, or should we engage in action that displeases governments, putting ourselves at risk.  



JazzByChas said:


> I think that in any country, as in here in the USA, if you want to be involved in the politics and government of a country, you should be(come) a citizen of that country. You must earn the right to have a say in the worings of your country's government.
> 
> Anyone who immigrates to America and wants to live here, and participate in the American life must become a citizen, and I think the same should apply in any other country.



I spent some time in Darfur last year: witnessing atrocities, helping support victims of violence and trying to give people a sense of international solidarity and compassion for their plight.  What I did was very little, but still meaningful for the individuals involved.  Sometimes a foreign presence in a village will be enough to prevent a woman from being raped.  I don't think it was possible for me to have applied or received Sudanese citizenship (that would probably have guaranteed me a place in Guantanamo).  Do you think I should have stayed home instead?


----------



## natasha2000

I only would like to say that I agree with Athaulf a 100%. Sorry Fenix, I really like you, but I can't be with you on this one .

People from so called full democracy countries simply cannot see some things other people that are NOT from the same countries are forced to experience in order to be allowed to enter those countries in question, even like tourists, let alone as immigrants to live and work there. As dificilisima pointed out very accurately, sometimes your life depends on some stupid ignorant who has every right to treat you as it pleases him, only because the authorities put him in this or that position. I'll give you my example. Before marrying a Spaniard, I was treated in a Spanish embassy in Belgrade as a shit. Sorry for bad language, but I can't think of any other word that describes better the treatment I received. When I came to the very same Embassy with my new Spanish husband, I was received as a queen, and when I was leaving, the very same person who treated me as if I didn't existed, told me: Come to us if you ned anything, before you leave to Spain. Now you're one of us". ONE OF US? One of US? And what was  I supoosed to be before IO married a Spanish citizen? 
So, Fenix, you have a tremendous luck to be born in one of those full democracy countries. Not all of us have the same luck and have to cope with the injustice and mistreatment that comes from those very same countries, only because we don't have their passport.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

_forumuser_ said:


> Well, I have been a resident alien of different countries for years now and I share Athaulf very pessimistic outlook on things. If you're thinking of getting politically involved, think again. Sad though it may be, foreigners, immigrants, and aliens of all nationalities, races and creeds had better keep on the lo lo.



I was not talking about getting politically involved, thing I'd avoid to do myself and moreover there's a big difference between not being granted a visa (if a Government had to grant a visa to anyone who asked, the visa itself would be no longer of use) and getting *deported.*


----------



## natasha2000

Paulfromitaly said:


> I was not talking about getting politically involved, thing I'd avoid to do myself and moreover there's a big difference between not being granted a visa (if a Government had to grant a visa to anyone who asked, the visa itself would be no longer of use) and getting *deported.*


 
But you can be deported and your residency taken away from you if a gouvernment sees it convenient due to your political activity. Hell, even if you obtained the citizenship, it can be taken away from you if gouvernment thinks your "crime" deserves it. I am not inventing this, it is on all gouvernment web sites, parts about how to get (and lose) the citizenship of a certain country.


----------



## fenixpollo

Athaulf said:


> As a U.S. citizen, your constitutional rights nowadays protect you pretty effectively from being penalized by your government for your speech or political activism. But as a non-citizen applying for a U.S. visa, green card, or citizenship, you don't enjoy any of that protection.


 I said that "perhaps" you were exaggerating because you never quoted an example or a specific case of government abuse of power, in the US or in another country.  You still haven't, but I'll agree with you on this one point because of the other forer@s who have corroborated your generalizations.


Athaulf said:


> From the information on your profile, I assume that you're a native U.S. citizen. Thus, it's understandable that you take freedom of speech and political activism for granted, since you've spent your life in a country whose citizens enjoy an unprecedented level of freedom in these regards.
> 
> I don't know to what extent you personally are politically active, but I'm quite sure that if someone proposed you to engage in forms of struggle against injustice that could actually result in serious consequences for your well-being even in the U.S. -- for example, to engage in physical confrontation with the police when they attempt to enforce some law that you consider unjust -- you would decline such a proposal as lunacy. Before you chastise others for their lack of commitment against injustice, try understanding that for them, the level at which activism becomes dangerous for one's well-being might be far lower than for you.


 The information in my profile doesn't say that I lived in a foreign country (both legally and illegally) and that I am married to a foreign national.  It also doesn't say that if someone proposed that I engage in activities to try to correct injustices in my country or my host country, I certainly would NOT decline their proposal. Your assumptions about me are insulting.  

I agree that your advice to "lay low" is sound and practical. It's realistic and really the best advice for people whose involvement might result in death or serious consequences -- whether they are citizens or not.  

However, you're so quick to assume that I'm some preachy American on his high horse, when the opposite is true. You are the one who is condescending towards me. 





natasha2000 said:


> I only would like to say that I agree with Athaulf a 100%. Sorry Fenix, I really like you, but I can't be with you on this one .


 Take a lesson, Athaulf, in the correct way to disagree with someone in a cordial, collegial manner. Natasha agreed with your points, but expressed her disagreement in a rational, non-accusatory tone.  

No worries, Natasha.


----------



## natasha2000

fenixpollo said:


> Take a lesson, Athaulf, in the correct way to disagree with someone in a cordial, collegial manner. Natasha agreed with your points, but expressed her disagreement in a rational, non-accusatory tone. No worries, Natasha.


Dear Fenix, this is because I know you very well, I read many of your posts and opinions you gave all along this one year that I have spent here in WR. I am sure Athaulf didn't mean anything bad, its just that he does not know anything about you. I don't guarantee that I wouldn't say the same if I were in Athaulf's place.


----------



## fenixpollo

natasha2000 said:


> People from so called full democracy countries simply cannot see some things other people that are NOT from the same countries are forced to experience in order to be allowed to enter those countries in question, even like tourists, let alone as immigrants to live and work there.


 Well, you DID say the same thing, Natasha. You implied that it's fine for me to talk, being a citizen of the US, but that I don't know what I'm talking about.  

I have had experiences like yours, and I agree with you that as an immigrant, one is at the mercy of the whims of bureaucrats and a**holes.  

Each of us has to weigh the costs of sticking to our principles. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## natasha2000

fenixpollo said:


> Well, you DID say the same thing, Natasha. You implied that it's fine for me to talk, being a citizen of the US, but that I don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> I have had experiences like yours, and I agree with you that as an immigrant, one is at the mercy of the whims of bureaucrats and a**holes.
> 
> Each of us has to weigh the costs of sticking to our principles. That's all I'm saying.


 
Fenix, I wasn't referring directly to you with those words, but I must say that this is in most of the cases, true.
People from the USA or Western Europe are born and raised with all rights and most of them cannot simply imagine how life could be without those rights. I am not blaming them, I was myself very similar to them, until war in my country. It simply couldn't cross my mind how on Earth can happen that there is no oil or flour or bread in supermarkets, for example. For me, this was something impossible.But in the end, it did happen, and I did experienced it. So, I don't blame (too much) those people for being ignorant about injustice that is done many times to immigrants by their own gouverments, but I do mind if those people refuse to listen the other part, and there are a lot of those, too. I also know that there are other people who come from the very same countries, but they have their minds and eyes open, and don't let be fooled so easily by a good and comfortable life they have.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> I said that "perhaps" you were exaggerating because you never quoted an example or a specific case of government abuse of power, in the US or in another country.  You still haven't, but I'll agree with you on this one point because of the other forer@s who have corroborated your generalizations.



Unfortunately, there is no way to provide hard evidence for anything using this medium of communication. One can merely provide links to a few anecdotes, which can always be dismissed as anecdotal evidence -- and as a novice on the forum, I am not even allowed to post links to other websites. But fortunately, other people have confirmed that my claims are common knowledge.



> The information in my profile doesn't say that I lived in a foreign country (both legally and illegally) and that I am married to a foreign national.  It also doesn't say that if someone proposed that I engage in activities to try to correct injustices in my country or my host country, I certainly would NOT decline their proposal. Your assumptions about me are insulting and betray your colossal ignorance.


I apologize if my assumptions have offended you. I must admit that I am very surprised to hear that you have the experience of living as a resident foreigner, and yet your attitude is so different from most other people with such background whom I've seen either on this forum or elsewhere. 

Also, please note that I only claimed that you probably wouldn't engage in such correction of injustices that would directly invite serious trouble (I gave the example of physically confronting the police). I didn't claim that you were generally inactive in that regard. Again, please accept my apologies if even this assumption was incorrect.



> I agree that your advice to "lay low" is sound and practical. It's realistic and really the best advice for people whose involvement might result in death or serious consequences -- whether they are citizens or not.


I'm not sure what you mean by "serious consequences." If someone moves to a different country with the hope of living there for an extended period of time, or even permanently, there are usually very good reasons for such a move. Whatever those reasons might be, it is certainly a serious problem if one is prevented from fulfilling them -- and this is a consequence that can befall one even in the freest of countries.

Furthermore, if one advises people to engage in certain activities, it is only proper to also warn them about the associated dangers. For example, if you encourage people to engage in mountaineering, you should warn them that this activity, while cool and entertaining, can be extremely dangerous if practiced without adequate training and equipment. Similarly, if you encourage people to engage in political activism, you should state plainly that they may risk dire consequences by doing that. This is especially problematic because in my experience, people tend to underestimate the risks and dangers of political engagement. 

I was apparently wrong to assume that you were unaware of such dangers, and please accept my apologies for that. However, if you are aware of them, then you should agree that you were also wrong to advise people to engage in political activism without pointing out the associated risks that some of them are likely unaware of. 



> However, you're so quick to assume that I'm some preachy American on his high horse, when the opposite is true. You are the one who is condescending towards me.


I apologize if my post sounded inflammatory or accusatory. However, please take into account that you were the one who introduced the moral dimension into our discussion. The point of my posts was the cold objective fact that for foreigners anywhere, political activism can be much dangerous than they might imagine, and that your advice fails to warn people of these dangers. Your subsequent reply introduced the issue of whether my attitude was moral. It is very difficult to respond to such an argument without coming off as at least somewhat accusatory. If you, as a senior member of this forum, believe that my reply has violated proper etiquette, I would once again like to apologize.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> Each of us has to weigh the costs of sticking to our principles. That's all I'm saying.



Many people, however, are seriously underestimating this cost. I myself underestimated it when I was somewhat younger, and consider myself lucky for not getting into trouble as a consequence. I would have certainly been able to judge things much better had someone credibly warned me that the world was generally less free and benevolent than I imagined.


----------



## heidita

> fenixpollo;1956271I have had experiences like yours, and I agree with you that as an immigrant, one is at the mercy of the whims of bureaucrats and a**holes.


 
This is true and I think it happens in all countries.


> Each of us has to weigh the costs of sticking to our principles. That's all I'm saying.


Also true, Fenix, but one is frequently not so aware of the cost until something happens which puts your life in that country at risk. It is difficult to imagine for me, as I am from a full democracy and live now in another democratic country.



Athaulf said:


> Many people, however, are seriously underestimating this cost.


To this I once saw a documentary of a young woman taking part in demonstrations in Germany. She lost her eyesight on one eye because she was hit by a police man. 
She claimed that she would never participate again in any demonstration.

I think it is highly difficult to estimate the cost of your implication until something actually happens.


----------



## heidita

Athaulf said:


> Also, please note that I only claimed that you probably wouldn't engage in such correction of injustices that would directly invite serious trouble (I gave the example of physically confronting the police).


 
I should be very surprised if anybody would. If I understand you correctly we are talking about hitting the police, like sort of "hitting back". 

On the other hand I am an immigrant in this country. I have confronted the police now and again. I am not a person to be afraid easily. But then, my stay here is legal, so not a good example, possibly.





> Again, please accept my apologies if even this assumption was incorrect.


 




> If you, as a senior member of this forum, believe that my reply has violated proper etiquette, I would once again like to apologize.


Fenix is not only a senior member, but one of the most respected ones. I am sure he will appreciate your apologies.

It is not my intention or my place to talk for him, but it is often very difficult for some members to apologize and recognize they have wronged the other member.


----------



## fenixpollo

I appreciate (and accept) your apology. Thanks for explaining yourself a little.

I don't think that anecdotes are irrelevant for illustrating your point because they are no less factual than "data". 





Athaulf said:


> I myself underestimated it when I was somewhat younger, and consider myself lucky for not getting into trouble as a consequence. I would have certainly been able to judge things much better had someone credibly warned me that the world was generally less free and benevolent than I imagined.


Given your experience, your attitudes are much more understandable. Thanks for sharing this. 





Athaulf said:


> I must admit that I am very surprised to hear that you have the experience of living as a resident foreigner, and yet your attitude is so different from most other people with such background whom I've seen either on this forum or elsewhere.


 Well, I never claimed to be normal. 


> I'm not sure what you mean by "serious consequences."


 I was being general, but I include deportation in the category of "serious consequences". 





> I was apparently wrong to assume that you were unaware of such dangers, and please accept my apologies for that. However, if you are aware of them, then you should agree that you were also wrong to advise people to engage in political activism without pointing out the associated risks that some of them are likely unaware of.


 I was just stating my opinion. I wasn't rallying people to my cause, organizing any followers, or trying to mislead anyone. I don't agree that I was wrong to state my opinion but not warn people that believing as I do is risky.  They are responsible for their own actions.  





> Your subsequent reply introduced the issue of whether my attitude was moral. It is very difficult to respond to such an argument without coming off as at least somewhat accusatory.


 I can understand that you might feel like I was criticizing your integrity. That wasn't my intention, however. I was simply stating an idealistic point of view, while you were stating a practical point of view. Humans often find their ideals at odds with reality, which was the whole point of my response and the reason for our disagreement.


----------



## Genecks

In the paraphrased words of Martin Luther King Jr.:

1. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
2. What affects one directly, thus affects all indirectly.

Therefore, these things justify partaking of events in another's country as a social duty.

Well, he was really hoping people would share his views on morality and God's law. But I come from the school of skepticism: I always beg the question. Heh. People don't like my skepticism.

I figure ever since people created ships and airplanes, we all considered what was happening where with more importance.

No one really has a right to do anything. It's all make-believe. I'm a social constructionist. Some people assume a consequentialism, which is the philosophy I have. In other words, if the person doesn't do something, he or she will eventually be affected. It would be nice, though, if such people provided proof of their theory. In other words, Bobby Fischer needs to write a paper on society and its possible changes.

However, I'm not one to jump into the realm of morality. I don't know why so many philosophers have jumped there. I simply into the field of saving my own life in the long run. I figure the world is based on biology; that's my ultimate view. Perhaps it's physicalist view without value theory.

Martin Luther King Jr. probably won people over because he combined morality, consequentialism, determinism, and free-will into one package. It seems contradicting to the critical mind, but he was able to persuade the public.

I sometimes think the best way to solve the problems of the world is like this:
1. Every American packs his or her stuff to leave the country.
2. Every American is statistically set to go into a different country.
3. Americans take away the groupthink, bias, conformity, and so many other things cultures have taken a long, long time to create.

It's like every American anime fan moving to Japan. I believe things in Japan would change very quickly. I sometimes think that Americans are annoyed by the problems in Mexico. Therefore, people in America ought to move down to Mexico and take it over. Afterwards, Mexico can be part of the United States. It would be like the North taking over the South. However, we would use economic warfare. And if economic warfare didn't work, cultural imperalism would probably kick in somwhere.

It really reminds me of the Norse going from land to land. However, the takeover would be non-violent.
And if people are sick of Americans being in their country, they can move to America; because no one would be in America at that time. Funny enough, America would be just as diverse again.

Excuse my improper English; I'm tired.
Goodnight everyone!


----------



## PandaX

If it doesn't affect you in your country and if genocide or anything extreme as such is not happening then no it is not any of your business.

I don't even think that first generation immigrants should be allowed to vote as invariably they will vote based on the culture they grew up in. I have a big problem with foreigners, mainly from Europe, coming to America and then complaining and demanding change of things that are fundamentally American and accepted by Americans. 

The right to bear arms is a perfect example. If it bothers you so much then why move here?


----------



## maxiogee

PandaX said:


> If it doesn't affect you in your country and if genocide or anything extreme as such is not happening then no it is not any of your business.
> 
> I don't even think that first generation immigrants should be allowed to vote as invariably they will vote based on the culture they grew up in. I have a big problem with foreigners, mainly from Europe, coming to America and then complaining and demanding change of things that are fundamentally American and accepted by Americans.
> 
> The right to bear arms is a perfect example. If it bothers you so much then why move here?



So people should not point out flaws in a society?
No outsider should have told the British ship owners that the slave trade was wrong?
No foreigner should tell the Irish that our treatment of our Travelling People is less than desirable?
No non-American should have protested the Vietnam War?

Wake up sunshine - the world is a small place and we've all got to live here.


----------



## Miguelillo 87

1Euro said:


> I don't see why not. An injustice is an injustice. If I see a blatant injustice in front of my face, must I refrain to take any action just because I'm not "local"? Nonsense.
> 
> Best regards.


Why nonsense? I think nonsense is when a person who see an "injustice", believe he knows what it is happen, I mean some people as I said just arrived to a country to cause more problems not for solve them,


----------



## Miguelillo 87

djchak said:


> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Excluding the obvious violence factor...people are either free to express themselves bt protesting...or they aren't...regardless of nationality.
> 
> What about all the protests for illegal immigration/immigration reform just recently , in the US? Many of those people weren't citizens, and i'm sure some weren't legally admited to the US. Should we have broken out the water cannons and the tear gas grenades, and the riot police?
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


 
Well that's different they were protesting for something it was happening to them and to their families, but to take place in a protest where you son't have any to do? I mean when a problem is so far away form you even for understand it, Do oyu have the right to take part on it?


----------



## Athaulf

heidita said:


> To this I once saw a documentary of a young woman taking part in demonstrations in Germany. She lost her eyesight on one eye because she was hit by a police man.
> She claimed that she would never participate again in any demonstration.
> 
> I think it is highly difficult to estimate the cost of your implication until something actually happens.



An additional problem for foreigners -- especially those who came recently -- is that when one moves to another country, even a country whose culture and political system is relatively close to one's homeland, there are often important differences in people's attitudes and customs, of which one can be dangerously unaware initially. Things that are entirely accepted in practice at one place can get one into serious trouble elsewhere. This doesn't necessarily mean that the laws on the books are different -- at every place, there are laws that are routinely ignored and broken by almost everyone, as well as laws that are truly dangerous to break. What makes certain infractions truly serious is the social attitude towards them; even if one hasn't broken any laws, the social consequences of certain acts can be severe if they are deemed grossly inappropriate by the local population. To give a trivial and non-political example, at some countries it's perfectly OK to drink beer in public, but if you're seen by the cops smoking marijuana, you're in serious trouble -- whereas in other countries, it's essentially the other way around. I won't give other examples, because they might lead into a discussion of the specific issues they consider, which is definitely not my intention.

Thus generally, as a foreigner, one should initially practice extreme caution before one has learned the social customs and attitudes of the domestic people very well. Of course, when one engages in political activism, it's very easy to overstep the limits of acceptable speech and behavior, since every country has its own sensitive and delicate issues whose importance for the locals can be easily underestimated by a foreigner. Thus, even if you decide to enter political activism as a foreigner (which I certainly don't recommend in any case), at least make sure to study the environment in which you live extremely well before doing so, with all its issues, controversies, and taboos.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> Given your experience, your attitudes are much more understandable. Thanks for sharing this.



Now that I look at that post, maybe I sounded a bit too dramatic. It's not that I ever really stepped over any serious limits -- what I find disturbing is the easiness with which I could have done so without even realizing, considering how ignorant I was about things.


----------



## John-Paul

If you are a foreigner in a country where you are not allowed to protest I would suggest you start a new life, as a foreigner, in another country. To answer the question: yes. The reason, they are already getting involved. Companies move their plants to countries where the labor and environmental law are lenient at worst and non-existing at best. The salaries are minimal and the profits are high. How can you suggest all these developments are OK while if people come over and protest it's not. I don't get it. What if you live on the border and they're building a stinking chemical plant on the other side, why shouldn't anyone from one side of the border be allowed to protest something that is polluting the air and the water accross borders? Granted, there are "action-tourists" but they're just following their capitalist country men and women and the do get alot of attention, but I don't see a problem with that because, unless you live in North Korea, you're connected. Personally I would like to encourage people to go over to China to explain them something about minimum wage, pension, health insurance, human rights, children's rights etc.


----------



## heidita

John-Paul said:


> If you are a foreigner in a country where you are not allowed to protest I would suggest you start a new life,........
> Personally I would like to encourage people to go over to China to explain them something about minimum wage, pension, health insurance, human rights, children's rights etc.


 
Oh, yes, John, you would, sitting home and comfortably in Holland!

I said before I couldn't talk, as I am form Germany. Even there sometimes it is dangerous to protest but that's not the rule.

But then you come to a country where human rights are not the same and yes, do go and protest! Good idea! 
Tell the German guy who landed on the Red square in Moscow. He thought it was a kind of protest and thought, too, that nothing much could happen, as he was German. 
He was held prisoner and was sentenced to 4 years in a work camp in Russia. After spending 14 months in a prison in Moscow he was returned to Germany.

Of course, for him it was worth it. He became famous and sold his story for millions.


----------



## djchak

Miguelillo 87 said:


> Well that's different they were protesting for something it was happening to them and to their families, but to take place in a protest where you son't have any to do? I mean when a problem is so far away form you even for understand it, Do oyu have the right to take part on it?



But if you are residing or even visiting the country, it affects you directly. Why do you think the people were protesting in the U.S? That's like saying those "protesters" didn't understand U.S. immigration law...it's obtuse at best.


----------



## fuzionman1997

Well, I think all of our problems become interdependent in some way. If I may dabble into World War 2 as an example, Hitler would probably have succeeded in conquering Europe and many other continents had foreign intervention not stopped Nazi Germany in its tracks.  And so a policy of containment was established before one nation's problems became the problem of several others. This could be taken too far however, if for instance, a nation goes over and uses containment policy as an excuse for military adventuring.  Therefore, I think that it would be constituted as interference. So, to wrap it up....it really depends on how far foreign power goes. It may help, but if it goes too far, it may hurt.

As far as individual citizens...if you look at the ONE campaign or the exposure of the Darfur conflict....these campaigns were created in an effort to help others....even if they didn't live in our particular nation.  In that case our common humanity is what the motivation is. In my opinion, we can't remain isolated from each other. The world has forever been interdependent and grows more so with each passing decade.


----------

