For the vast majority of Americans, the former is probably a more desirable profession than the latter.
Opensource softwares have helped the US economy because lots of today's internet giants like Google benefitted from the use of opensource tools. They are paying taxes and employing Americans, ain't they. Linus Torvalds is synomymous with opensource.
Mr America, if i might ask, what have you done to provide a job for yourself, because if you can't even provide a job for yourself, how do you provide for others.
Make yourself competitive, read more and stay away from TV etc and you will soon land a job.
Irony can also be used to put a clearly stupid sentence into someone else's mouth, and then claim, when that other person objects, that they just don't get irony.
I'm not sure what the intent is here, but the way I read it, the post may have been intended to mock people who believe that large scale employment-based visa programs (like the H1B) have had some negative effects, displacing some US citizens in the tech job market and deterring other Americans from entering the field altogether. The post suggests that these people would oppose the presence (and naturalization, I guess) of extremely talented foreign nationals or immigrants.
All I can say is that even the most ardent opponents of the H1B visa (such as Norman Matloff) strongly support a substantial number of visas for talented people (I think his ideal figure was 15,000/yr). So aside from the true bozos on various discussion forms, there's pretty much nobody in this debate who would make a statement like this (oh, but nobody did, it's irony. Right? Or is it?)
Clearly, this was an extremely popular post (over 100 karma points), and I suspect that's because it goes to the heart of what has made a lot of people so frustrated with the current H1B/employment immigration system. And if you feel this way, you probably see the post as kind of brilliant, rather than a cheap shot.
To me, this has always been the problem with bringing irony into a debate that is actually pretty complicated and nuanced.
1, they don't understand irony
2, they carry guns
A situation like your drowning example is also irony; sometimes to be explicitly this is called "situational irony" as opposed to "verbal irony."
I apologize for being pedantic; mostly I just wanted a justified link to Silva Rhetoricae:
(but see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony).
I don't even care if that's true of all of us Americans, it's true of enough. (The idea that Americans don't get "sarcasm" is very foreign to me; oh, I certainly know people who don't get it but we seem a fairly sarcastic culture to me.)
On the other hand, one can reasonably believe that every dictionary is, by its nature as a reference book, primarily prescriptive (and proscriptive) and therefore cannot be reliably descriptive. If so, then it seems we do have to go only with personal observations.
In terms of personal observations, I agree with you that many Americans I know would use "sarcasm" in this case and not use "irony." I think I (along with many other Americans, maybe fewer than the other group?) would use "irony" and probably not use "sarcasm" because it doesn't have that particular, hard-to-miss sarcastic tone of voice.
Alanis Morissette will be brought up in at least 50% of these cases, though the precise frequency depends inversely on the level of sophistication of the forum members.
Some psycholinguistic theorists (e.g., Gibbs, 2000) suggest that sarcasm ("Great idea!", "I hear they do fine work."), hyperbole ("That's the best idea I have heard in years!"), understatement ("Sure, what the hell, it's only cancer..."), rhetorical questions ("What, does your spirit have cancer?"), double entendre ("I'll bet if you do that, you'll be communing with spirits in no time...") and jocularity ("Get them to fix your bad back while you're at it.") should all be considered forms of verbal irony.
Sometimes I post a comment that I personally expect to be genuinely worth 27 points. That wasn't one of them. You have my sincere apologies.
Anyway, kiuyhjk - very funny post, very meta
so, just be more patient in the future ...
The USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#D...) seems to permit it, too.
Of course I can't know if Mr Torvalds has done anything in particular to only be a US citizen, but at least that doesn't seem to be the default.
Uruguayan law says that even if you renounce your uruguayan citizenship, you still keep it. I think this was put in place exactly because lots of Uruguayans were leaving for the USA (lots of Uruguayans is something like 50).
Among my close friends, I know Canadian, Israeli, and Australian dual-citizens.
I've never heard of having to "renounce all other allegiances". (Note: it's entirely possible that there is some obscure method of obtaining US citizenship that requires it; but that's not the norm.)
Additionally, my brother became a Canadian citizen (born U.S.), and again had no problems; Canada didn't care about his U.S. citizenship, and the U.S. doesn't care about his Canadian citizenship. He could officially renounce his U.S. citizenship by walking into a consulate and doing so, but there's no up-side to it.
If America would get a draft again, could a dual citizen be drafted?
If that were to happen, there would definitely be an upside to renunciation. ;-)
In general different countries have (very) different sets of rules, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship
Also if you volunteer (as opposed to being conscripted) for military duty in your non-US nations then the US can kick up a fuss.
But basically if you're a dual citizen with a nation friendly to the US then you really have nothing to worry about.
As far as I know, Uncle Sam only gets pissed when you acquire another citizenship after you are already an American (either by birth or by naturalization). Even so, there are provisions in the law that account for the situation when a second citizenship is bestowed upon you without you actively requesting it (some countries do that automatically when you marry one of their citizens)
But it doesn't mean that you actually renounce citizenship of your home country.
Well from the linked Wikipedia page it does mean that you actually renounce citizenship. It's pretty clear in having you state that is the case. If you actually don't then you are lying.
>"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
For example if your former country required you to submit a form renouncing citizenship / sovereignty then taking the Oath and not having done that seems a highly dishonourable thing to do (ie IMO you're lying).
From that Oath (granted my first viewing of it in full) it seems that no truthful person could become a citizen of both America and some other place unless they were American first and no longer made that Oath on any occasion.
Also, the US really hates it when you change your nationality for tax purposes. That is, when you change it AWAY from the US for tax purposes.
For example, I believe Singapore requires you to renounce any other citizenship you have if you are eligible to become a Singaporean.
Struck down by the courts a very long time ago.
This is highly unlikely, but for instance if you're eligible for a draft, and both countries draft you, one of them is not going to be happy with your response.
There are probably some more likely scenarios where your obligations to one of your nations are in conflict with the other.
Definitely not true, or at least not mandated by the US (the other country might require it, though).
Most countries allow dual citizens. Also, I do know that some people have triple citizenships.
EDIT: Downvotes? Come on. Especially today, especially in our world of modern technology, physical location is less important than ever before. Where's the sci-fi novel where they abolished countries after they found out we all live on a tiny planet orbiting one of a billion stars?
IIRC Singapore and a bunch of other high tech SE Asian countries essentially did the same thing. Anybody with a high tech qualification, eg a CS degree, could live and work in any of the club no questions asked.
France is pretty nationalistic too, no? They're one of the harshest countries in Europe in terms of minority languages, if I recall correctly.
There was a huge effort to create a single nation, similar to the unification of Germany and Italy around the same time.
Their attitude to the language rather shows that - nobody in England thinks English needs 'protecting'.
It shows in their proliferation patterns too.
Other languages borrow foreign words - English lures them into dark alleys and goes through their pockets for any grammer they might have.
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary.
The USA is basically the same idea as the EU, it is just supposed to be the international face of our amalgamation of nearby states that have formed an alliance for their mutual protection and simplification. The real laws (i.e. not treaties or other international matters) are supposed to be implemented at the state level or lower.
I'm not historian but I suppose throughout history the space that we call home became bigger and bigger as time went by. Perhaps first it was a cave, at some point it was a village, then it was a city and eventually it was a country.
I guess what I mean is that eventually countries will go away. And calling them "old-school" was assuming we were there yet. But maybe we are not yet. But surely you would agree one day this day will come?
If countries "go away", what do you suggest they would be replaced by?
50 years ago it was difficult to be a city-state, Monaco couldn't have it's own currency, army , foreign embassies.
Now it would be much easier for eg. Scotland/ Bavaria/ Flemish-Belgium to become a country again - they would have a euroepean central bank/currency/etc but could handle everything else locally instead of in a capital city 100mi away that is only the same 'country' because of a battle 500years ago.
Perhaps after that it will be planets (if you like Futurama), or religions, philosophies or even brands. :) Who knows.
> different cultures have different values and often don't want to live under the same set of laws.
different regions of america have different cultures and values, and yet you wouldn't question the status of the us.
> If you're oppressed under one countries set of laws at least you always have the option of leaving.
actually, no. it is precisely because of this offensive notion of citizenship that people are NOT free to leave the country they find themselves in.
This means that, until he became a citizen, he'd immigration status in the US would have been: "exceptional alien".
That's not a status i'd give up easily. :)
I was reading an article today about an Indian nanny who saved the life of a 2 year old Israeli boy during the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Israel honored her by granting her honorary citizenship and temporary residency in Israel.
Link : http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/09/14/israel.mumbai....
"National Interest Waiver - Aliens seeking a national interest waiver are requesting that the Labor Certification be waived because it is in the interest of the United States. [...] Those seeking a national interest waiver may self-petition (they do not need an employer to sponsor them)"
So, it is employment based, but without any sponsorship required from a particular employer. You're self-certifying that you're really really really good at what you do, and what you can offer to the US will benefit the US as a whole.
They will, of course, want lots of evidence to support the above.
The upside to this route is that you're not tied to a particular employer.
Plus if your income is in, say, Europe, it's effectively all excluded, because you can offset the European taxes (which are usually higher) one-for-one against U.S. taxes, ending up owing nothing.
(Only certain countries like the USA tax their non-resident citizens.)
But it's much harder for someone from the US to move to central Europe, aside from the UK and some enclaves that speak English.
Any of you hackers care to comment on the situation in your nation of origin, or the one where you live?
Getting Danish citizenship, though, is notoriously difficult, and among other requirements, they require you to renounce any other citizenships (unlike the U.S., they actually enforce this requirement). Many foreigners, as a result, live in Malmö, Sweden and commute to Copenhagen (it's about a 30-minute train ride over the bridge/tunnel), since Sweden's citizenship laws are more lax, and once you have EU citizenship you're essentially good anywhere in the EU.
Unfortunately as soon as the EU cracked down on the corporation tax scams, eastern europe became cheaper and US companies cut back on golfing holidays they realized they didn't actually have an economy.
But it was a great place to work for 10years - as long as you didn't buy a house!
As far as tax havens go we actually had quite a lot of people from those companies employed, it wasn't just your standard shell company running out of a solicitors office.
MSFT, Dell and HP both apparently lose money on all sales in Europe except those in Ireland.
When good americans die - they go to Paris
Not to mention hundreds of thousands of americans planning to retire abroad.
I can live and work permanently in 27 countries (including Finland) without having to change nationality.
All I had to do after I moves was to register with the local city authorities to indicate that I had moved there, and provide documentation proving that I had a job so that they knew they didn't have to put me on social security.
One might also make the counterpoint that while we can move between 30 states in the EEA US citizens can move between 50 states in their union, and their superstate comprises almost twice the surface area of the EU.
In contrast, one doesn't even need a law school degree to be able to take the bar exam in any US state. (admittedly it's almost impossible to pass without one).
Not quite: In a number of US states, a prerequisite to taking the bar exam is either graduation from an ABA-accredited law school, or a foreign law degree with additional training in a U.S. school. See Chart III at http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Comp_Gui... and the supplemental remarks afterwards, also Chart X.
By contrast Canadian permanent residents are treated exactly the same as citizens - except you can't vote in federal elections. Although with the choices on offer that's probably a blessing !
Especially one return from a conference where the minimum-wage-moron on passport control didn't understand the concept of visas (to be fair he had a limited understanding of the concept of passports or even other countries) and allowed me in for 24 hours which I spent queuing at LA's delightful immigration office downtown.
Still, well done to him for protecting the USA from another foreign Caltech physics prof.
(Not that I disagree that the whole setup is ridiculous and probably doesn't meaningfully add to security.)
There are more than 12 millions illegal immigrants in US. Illegal immigrants owns houses, driver cars and go to college. I find it amazing. In Japan, if you're an illegal immigrant you're pretty much relegated to the underworld.
How? I'd love to be able to do that.
By comparison e.g. Spain and Germany and almost any two countries in the EU you care to name speak different languages, are very different culturally, and have different customs.
Apart from a few of the more 'third world' european countries (like France) if you speak english and work in high tech it's not a big problem to work in Scandanavia/Germany/Netherlands.
The main difficulty is they drive on the wrong side of the road - but as consolation the coffee and women are much better.
How is France a third world country in any sense of the word? Because they don't speak English as much?
> The main difficulty is they drive on the wrong side
That's only in the UK, not Scandanavia/Germany/Netherlands.
It was 'irony' - France is notorious for obeying only those EU laws which benefit it. In particular there are lots of unofficial barriers to other EU individuals/companies working in France - even though they are legally allowed to. Is't common for various levels of government to delay required licencing for years.
It's an issue even with international collaborations - the European Space agency is in the Netherlands and CERN is officially HQed in Switzerland - there was a lot of concern over ITER before it was built in France, the French 'promised' to play nicely with people working there.
How difficult would it be to wipe and rewrite the constitution of the USA today? Imagine something 100 times more difficult than that, and that is how difficult it would be to create anything resembling the USA in Europe.
Incidentally, I don't know about "a lot". Many European countries formed as unions of smaller states not that much longer ago than the colonization of America--the UK, Spain, Italy, and Germany all formed this way, Germany after the United States and the UK only a couple decades before. And nearly every country on the continent of Europe has already had its constitution rewritten within the past century.
As a US citizen, it's a very appealing idea. While we do indeed have 50 different places I can live and work without applying for new/temporary status, the cultural, and historic nature of the places is certainly not as diverse as in Europe.
You don't know his motives. Maybe he just did it because it's more convenient for him to currently work there, and constantly having to organise visas was a pain in the arse?
For all we know he hates the USA...?
For all we know, he's the first in a series of genetically-engineered Finnish super-programmers, part of a growing sleeper cell of infiltrators hell(sinki)-bent on Finlandizing the USA via secret trapdoors in their code, all waiting for the flip of a single bit to instantly erase all memory of the Constitution and replace it with a Scandinavian welfare-state, then killing our leaders and converting us all to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland -- their state religion!
Or maybe he just likes living with his family in the Pacific Northwest. It's hard to tell, for all we know!
The number one product of a legal jurisdiction is providing a desirable place to live. The political system is designed to make citizens feel like the local jurisdiction is 'their' product. When your target market embraces your product, pride is natural and healthy.
An immigrant doesn't have to 'love' the USA more than the mother country; indeed the freedom to still love the ancestral land but build cool stuff here is one of the USA's greatest hacks. (Brain drain FTW!) The immigrant's children will 'love' their new land; that's more like a chick imprinting than any rational choice.
It's bigger than that though. The whole concept of feeling proud about something to which you had no input seems very strange to me.
And, even ignoring formal political 'input' (or the simulacrum of same), we all make the culture and economy as neighbors and workers. When a smart, productive, and freedom-loving person with many options chooses to live closer to me, under the same standing rules, it's a positive indicator about my desirability as a neighbor and an external validator of choices I've made previously. Hence, 'pride'.
That depends. I assume you are the most google'able Mike from Bath Spa. I stayed in UK to finish Bath Uni, so lecturers from there could probably feel proud of creating an environment where I felt welcome enough to stay for a longer time. It was their input into my environment and education and it did make a difference, because I still live in Bath.
Then again, this would be a personal situation and not "I feel proud, because some known guy wants to live in my country".
not sure why you got downvoted...