Why is there a difference in perception between Pakistan & India in the world?

[cricketjoshila]

Indians get bullied by Paks in uk, seen this many times.

Yea yea ofcourse. Look up where Indians stand and where Pakistanis stand in terms of economic strength in UK. Then make such absurd claims.

 

[R3verse Swing]

UK recognises dual nationality but the other country must recognise too. It's India that does not recognise dual nationality. Therefore how UK view the OCI is irrelevant since an OCI is not what gets one through the border in the UK, it a passport. OCI gets you through the Indian border.

India treats is overseas Indians with utter contempt by not issuing an Indian Passport, and reducing the rights of an OCi holder.

https://www.immihelp.com/nri/dual.html

Enjoy!

 

[cricketjoshila]

Another lie caught again he tries to change the goal posts. The salt guy doesnt learn does he.

 

[R3verse Swing]

India does not recognise dual nationality as per Indian constitution.

Dual nationality means 2 passports. Not a passport and a card which reduces rights of its owner.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Come to think of it, this does a rise an interesting point.

While this thread discusses the perception of Indians from outside of India, what is more interesting is the view overseas Indians from inside of India.

Seems pretty clear, the Indian government has reduced their rights. Cannot vote in India, cannot buy land in India, cannot hold certain jobs in India. This is discrimination on some next level. Unbelievable. If their home country discriminates against them on the grounds of where they live, then the Western view of Indians doesn't hold a candle.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

UK is rejecting visa applications by 1000s. Poor guy wants to gloat. Lol.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/trib...ng-pakistani-visa-applicants-in-droves/?amp=1

But Pakistanis don't claim to be respected worldwide, that is the premise of the OP no? That the perception of Indians in the world is sooper dooper and A1 first class in comparison?

 

[R3verse Swing]

http://lawtimesjournal.in/dual-citizenship-india/

Every country decides who its citizens are and who cannot be. This might be decided by the virtue of a particular person being born in the territory of that country or a person migrating from some other country and living in the territory of the principle country over a period of time. Citizenship in India has been described under the statutory provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Part-II of the Indian constitution also provides for the citizenship in India. India follows a rule of single citizenship. Article 9(1) of the Indian Constitution explicitly states that any citizen of India, who by naturalization or registration acquires the citizenship of another country, shall cease to be an Indian citizen. Dual citizenship implies a citizen having a citizenship of more than one country. India has since the very beginning taken a stand of single citizenship. It advocates single citizenship throughout its territory

Clearly the facts state that *Indians* naturalised abroad, such as the CEO of Microsoft, living in the UK, or USA, are not Indian at all. This explains why some Indians cite the argument of ethnicity rather than nationality. Their own constitution and law strips them of their Indian nationality. This must be the cruellest form of judgement I have ever read.

A cruel perception indeed.

 

[CricketCartoons]

http://lawtimesjournal.in/dual-citizenship-india/




Clearly the facts state that *Indians* naturalised abroad, such as the CEO of Microsoft, living in the UK, or USA, are not Indian at all. This explains why some Indians cite the argument of ethnicity rather than nationality. Their own constitution and law strips them of their Indian nationality. This must be the cruellest form of judgement I have ever read.

A cruel perception indeed.

Just like divorcing your spouse who is two timing is cruel? Any ghairatmund insaan would do that, but beghairats won't understand it.

anyway nationality is ephemeral..your ethnicity isn't. even you are from one of the native indian ethnicities even though your nationality is britsh and pakistani? now.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Just like divorcing your spouse who is two timing is cruel? Any ghairatmund insaan would do that, but beghairats won't understand it.

anyway nationality is ephemeral..your ethnicity isn't. even you are from one of the native indian ethnicities even though your nationality is britsh and pakistani? now.

Divorcing may strip you off assets but not your birth right nationality! So not an accurate anology.

Someone born in India, is Indian by birth right, but if natrulised abroad is stripped of their birth right. Brings a whole new meaning to human rights in India.

You can argue about ethnicities but your government and constitution says you ain't Indian if you settle abroad.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Divorcing may strip you off assets but not your birth right nationality! So not an accurate anology.

Someone born in India, is Indian by birth right, but if natrulised abroad is stripped of their birth right. Brings a whole new meaning to human rights in India.

You can argue about ethnicities but your government and constitution says you ain't Indian if you settle abroad.

And that is how any ghairatmund quam should treat its people..if they choose to become citizens of another country, they don't deserve to remain citizens here anymore.

dual citizenship is pathetic and worse than bigamy. How does one reconcile living with first world laws at one hand while also having third world laws applied on them from the third world country they come from?

It is still bearable when you are dual citizen of two first world free nations, but reeks of hypocrisy and beghairaty to follow liberal laws in one nation and backward barbaric laws in another. Shame on those crass opportunists. No respect for these people.

 

[R3verse Swing]

And that is how any ghairatmund quam should treat its people..if they choose to become citizens of another country, they don't deserve to remain citizens here anymore.

dual citizenship is pathetic and worse than bigamy. How does one reconcile living with first world laws at one hand while also having third world laws applied on them from the third world country they come from?

It is still bearable when you are dual citizen of two first world free nations, but reeks of hypocrisy and beghairaty to follow liberal laws in one nation and backward barbaric laws in another. Shame on those crass opportunists. No respect for these people.

Ridiculous argument. Dual nationality has nothing to do with hypocrisy in following liberal laws in one nation compared to another. It's about protection of a human and his/her rights.

Dual nationality is pathetic? So if a child with 2 parents from different countries, then the child doesn't deserve to be citizens of respective nations? Or having 2 parents from different countries is beghairaty?

What is astonishing is while an Indian can be stripped of his birthright nationality, said Indian cannot be stripped of the caste he/she is born into regardless of where they decide to live in the world.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Ridiculous argument. Dual nationality has nothing to do with hypocrisy in following liberal laws in one nation compared to another. It's about protection of a human and his/her rights.

Dual nationality is pathetic? So if a child with 2 parents from different countries, then the child doesn't deserve to be citizens of respective nations? Or having 2 parents from different countries is beghairaty?

What is astonishing is while an Indian can be stripped of his birthright nationality, said Indian cannot be stripped of the caste he/she is born into regardless of where they decide to live in the world.

Are you a dual citizen? If you are then don't take it personally. Have no respect for such opportunists who are not completely loyal to at least one country. Whom would they pick if they had to choose one, whether they are fence sitters or loyal to one, it makes them traitor to the other. These shameless people ditch the laws of the country which gave them shelter and citizenship, the moment they step into the third world hell hole they came from where their backwards laws apply. Don't know how they reconcile with this duplicity. These dual faced chameleons!

 

[TikkiTaka]

Dual citizenship doesn't tell anything about the country to be honest. China doesn't allow it either. Most large countries don't and I don't see the issue with that.

The problems I have with India are more fundamental: that it sucks as a country on pretty much every social measure and Indians are too blind to see that.

But magically they've managed to convinced most of their world of their fake democratic cred, supposedly syncretic culture while they go around killing people and that Pakistan is somehow the villain which couldn't be further from the truth. That's what I hate and we need to fight against.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Are you a dual citizen? If you are then don't take it personally. Have no respect for such opportunists who are not completely loyal to at least one country. Whom would they pick if they had to choose one, whether they are fence sitters or loyal to one, it makes them traitor to the other. These shameless people ditch the laws of the country which gave them shelter and citizenship, the moment they step into the third world hell hole they came from where their backwards laws apply. Don't know how they reconcile with this duplicity. These dual faced chameleons!

Weak argument. Your questioning is akin to asking whether a child is more loyal to a mother or a father. According to your logic listening to both is an act of duplicity and favouring one is an act of treachery. According to your logic an Indian seeking a better life outside of India deserves to be stripped of their nationality and rights - and is a traitor - thus must suffer within India. What are you going to suggest next, a couple believing in 2 different faiths shouldn't have kids because that child will have to choose thus labelling him a traitor on 1 side?

Immigrating is one thing, what about inheriting the nationality of a country where one is born, and the nationality of one's ethnic background? After all we don't get choose where we are born, or choose our ethniticy, and in an Indian's case, which caste.

Your view reeks of fascism and discrimination. No wonder the perception of Indians is terrible.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Dual citizenship doesn't tell anything about the country to be honest. China doesn't allow it either. Most large countries don't and I don't see the issue with that.

In india's case, the view of dual nationality speaks volumes.

I cannot think of any other country that strips the right of a native because they decide to migrate to another country for the betterment of life.

 

[TikkiTaka]

In india's case, the view of dual nationality speaks volumes.

I cannot think of any other country that strips the right of a native because they decide to migrate to another country for the betterment of life.

Well China does the same thing like I said, and place even more restrictions. Most large developing countries that have a distinct cultural heritage don't allow it simply cause you can end up with conflict of interest that can happen when you work in a globalized world. Fallacious argument tbh.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Weak argument. Your questioning is akin to asking whether a child is more loyal to a mother or a father. According to your logic listening to both is an act of duplicity and favouring one is an act of treachery. According to your logic an Indian seeking a better life outside of India deserves to be stripped of their nationality and rights - and is a traitor - thus must suffer within India. What are you going to suggest next, a couple believing in 2 different faiths shouldn't have kids because that child will have to choose thus labelling him a traitor on 1 side?

Immigrating is one thing, what about inheriting the nationality of a country where one is born, and the nationality of one's ethnic background? After all we don't get choose where we are born, or choose our ethniticy, and in an Indian's case, which caste.

Your view reeks of fascism and discrimination. No wonder the perception of Indians is terrible.

Pathetic argument. When parents are separated the custody goes to one. Who does the child stay with then? And that is the duplicity these dual citizens show. Half hearted loyalty to one of the nations. But we all know where their real loyalty lies. They become first world citzens when they want to boast of its history and first world status, but do everything to help their the cause of their third world nations. Sometimes going against their host nation and even waging arms..despite being its citizens.

Dual citizen = dubious loyalty.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Pathetic argument. When parents are separated the custody goes to one. Who does the child stay with then? And that is the duplicity these dual citizens show. Half hearted loyalty to one of the nations. But we all know where their real loyalty lies. They become first world citzens when they want to boast of its history and first world status, but do everything to help their the cause of their third world nations. Sometimes going against their host nation and even waging arms..despite being its citizens.

Dual citizen = dubious loyalty.

Whats this first world citizens you are going on about. You have a Bangladeshi flag, live in India, both 3rd world countries. Who are you loyal too?

I was not talking about parents being separated; separation of parents is your hypothetical to an argument. I'm talking about parents married, living together, with children. You can see how easy it is to expose the fallacy for your logic.

Oh even in the separation example, doesn't change who the father and mother of the child is.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Whats this first world citizens you are going on about. You have a Bangladeshi flag, live in India, both 3rd world countries. Who are you loyal too?

I was not talking about parents being separated; separation of parents is your hypothetical to an argument. I'm talking about parents married, living together, with children. You can see how easy it is to expose the fallacy for your logic.

Oh even in the separation example, doesn't change who the father and mother of the child is.

Your parent child analogy doesnt apply here. You can live in only one country at a time. that is where your fallacy is exposed. even if the parents get separated, and you love both, you can live with only one at a time. And this is what these dual citizens do. They have half hearted loyalties. Usually more loyal to the third world hell hole they keep the passport of, while living off the benefits of the first world nation which has been gracious in giving them citizenship. remember the traitor abuse sajid mahmood had to face? only third level gutter class people can show this mentality of not being fully loyal to the country they live in.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Well China does the same thing like I said, and place even more restrictions. Most large developing countries that have a distinct cultural heritage don't allow it simply cause you can end up with conflict of interest that can happen when you work in a globalized world. Fallacious argument tbh.

I understand but this thread is about perception of Pakistanis and Indians, and the point of dual nationality and stripping of rights, provides insight of how Indians overseas are viewed by their own countrymen. Plus the original point with respect to dual nationality is that since India does not recognise dual nationality, UK immigration has extenuating immigration laws exclusively applied to Indians – als restrictions.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Your parent child analogy doesnt apply here. You can live in only one country at a time. that is where your fallacy is exposed. even if the parents get separated, and you love both, you can live with only one at a time. And this is what these dual citizens do. They have half hearted loyalties. Usually more loyal to the third world hell hole they keep the passport of, while living off the benefits of the first world nation which has been gracious in giving them citizenship. remember the traitor abuse sajid mahmood had to face? only third level gutter class people can show this mentality of not being fully loyal to the country they live in.

Of you would say the parent analogy doesn't apply here, after all you have been discussing it in a few posts.

Though for the record, dual nationality isn't about being subservient or loyal, it is about the protection of rights. Something the Indian government would never understand.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Of you would say the parent analogy doesn't apply here, after all you have been discussing it in a few posts.

Though for the record, dual nationality isn't about being subservient or loyal, it is about the protection of rights. Something the Indian government would never understand.

lol..you are the one who brought parents analogy and i showed you how it doesnt apply.

So the penny has dropped. Dual nationality is only about citizen rights? What about citizens duties? If one cant be fully loyal (impossible for a dual citizen) then nothing need to be said about such beyghairat people. Traitors, the lot of them.

 

[R3verse Swing]

lol..you are the one who brought parents analogy and i showed you how it doesnt apply.

No, what you did was to use separation of parents to give your logic an ounce of credibility and then ultimately agreed that one can love both parents, even if they are separated. The essence of dual nationality.

So the penny has dropped. Dual nationality is only about citizen rights? What about citizens duties? If one cant be fully loyal (impossible for a dual citizen) then nothing need to be said about such beyghairat people. Traitors, the lot of them.

Penny dropped? I stated from the onset that Dual Nationality is about protection of rights. You changed it to loyalty and treachery and how one who leaves his nation of birth is a beyghairat and deserves to be stripped off his rights. Now you talk about duties.

Regardless, the ultimate point is Pakistan does not strip it's people of rights no matter where they live - yet you have the gall to talk about backward laws.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No, what you did was to use separation of parents to give your logic an ounce of credibility and then ultimately agreed that one can love both parents, even if they are separated. The essence of dual nationality.



Penny dropped? I stated from the onset that Dual Nationality is about protection of rights. You changed it to loyalty and treachery and how one who leaves his nation of birth is a beyghairat and deserves to be stripped off his rights. Now you talk about duties.

Regardless, the ultimate point is Pakistan does not strip it's people of rights no matter where they live - yet you have the gall to talk about backward laws.

jhoot. i said even if you love both separated parents, who have to choose one to live with..and when you have to make a choice, it cant be equal. this is the essence of dual citizenship..half hearted loyalty because they have to choose one over the other.

yes, and that is why you are wrong..because nationality is not only about rights but also about duties. you only seeking rights reeks of entitlement. yet another example of beghairaty. dual citizenship = dubious loyalties.

 

[Traveller55]

http://lawtimesjournal.in/dual-citizenship-india/




Clearly the facts state that *Indians* naturalised abroad, such as the CEO of Microsoft, living in the UK, or USA, are not Indian at all. This explains why some Indians cite the argument of ethnicity rather than nationality. Their own constitution and law strips them of their Indian nationality. This must be the cruellest form of judgement I have ever read.

A cruel perception indeed.

Pfft. Bangladesh does the same. So does dozens upon dozens of countries.
A country is not obligated to retain you as a citizen, if you are not part of that nation's social contract.
Ie, you live overseas, you earn income overseas,pay taxes overseas, yet you want rights in the country of origin ?
Thats the definition of priviledge and a country is not obligated to extend the same.
India to their credit, does a lot more for the ones who take 2nd citizenship than most nations who do not allow 2nd citizenships.
Atleast in India, they can own land (any land except agricultural land) and have the right to reclaim Indian citizenship up to 3 generations later, at ANY POINT they choose...even Bangladesh does not allow that.

 

[R3verse Swing]

jhoot. i said even if you love both separated parents, who have to choose one to live with..and when you have to make a choice, it cant be equal. this is the essence of dual citizenship..half hearted loyalty because they have to choose one over the other.

Again you and you separated hypothetical. You call it Jhoot, I call it desperation. Already refuted. Not just by me, but by yourself. The question is not of choosing one, since YOU LOVE BOTH parents, there is no question of choice. Your words not mine.

yes, and that is why you are wrong..because nationality is not only about rights but also about duties. you only seeking rights reeks of entitlement. yet another example of beghairaty. dual citizenship = dubious loyalties.

Nationality is about rights, you have no idea as you have never experienced dual nationality or have any inclination of what is entailed. You point is simply one is a beyghairat to seek a better life, or if one chooses to love both parents once is enacting duplicity. What a joke. Essentially you are arguing from ignorance, or experience, whether it is from the POV of a Bangladeshi, or a POV on Indian, take your pick - choose your loyalty.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Pfft. Bangladesh does the same. So does dozens upon dozens of countries.
A country is not obligated to retain you as a citizen, if you are not part of that nation's social contract.
Ie, you live overseas, you earn income overseas,pay taxes overseas, yet you want rights in the country of origin ?
Thats the definition of priviledge and a country is not obligated to extend the same.
India to their credit, does a lot more for the ones who take 2nd citizenship than most nations who do not allow 2nd citizenships.
Atleast in India, they can own land (any land except agricultural land) and have the right to reclaim Indian citizenship up to 3 generations later, at ANY POINT they choose...even Bangladesh does not allow that.

Not the point, India stripping a birth right national of their rights if they move abroad, but their caste stays with them. You couldn't make it up then people wonder why the perception of Indians is poor across the world.

 

[Traveller55]

Again you and you separated hypothetical. You call it Jhoot, I call it desperation. Already refuted. Not just by me, but by yourself. The question is not of choosing one, since YOU LOVE BOTH parents, there is no question of choice. Your words not mine.

The choice is where you live. You must pick one. Same applies to the national analogy - you love both, but must pick ONE to live in.

Nationality is about rights, you have no idea as you have never experienced dual nationality or have any inclination of what is entailed. You point is simply one is a beyghairat to seek a better life, or if one chooses to love both parents once is enacting duplicity. What a joke. Essentially you are arguing from ignorance, or experience, whether it is from the POV of a Bangladeshi, or a POV on Indian, take your pick - choose your loyalty.

False. Nationality is not about rights, its about the social contract. You are automatically part of that contract when you are born (to the nation of your citizenship).

I am a dual citizen of USA and Canada and since i live mostly in Canada, I think my US citizenship is simply an advantage to me and a disadvantage to the US government.

I am thankful that USA keeps me as a citizen, despite the fact that i pay no taxes to them, i contribute nothing to their society and if i deciede to move back to the US and claim social assistance, i am dipping into a social welfare pool i did not contribute to.

I see it as a priviledge, not a right.

 

[Traveller55]

Not the point, India stripping a birth right national of their rights if they move abroad, but their caste stays with them. You couldn't make it up then people wonder why the perception of Indians is poor across the world.

where the heck does caste come into all this ?

I am not the only one who's pointed it out here (majority of people have) that Indians enjoy a far healthier image in western nations than Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.


FYI, Canada is considering getting rid of dual citizenships for citizens who spend decades overseas.
Because of our national healthcare program, it means people become citizens, go overseas and earn income there, pay no taxes to Canada, yet when they are 65, come back to Canada and claim expensive healthcare privilidges. Thats totally not fair to Canada and it is completely within its right to strip dual citizenship in those cases.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Again you and you separated hypothetical. You call it Jhoot, I call it desperation. Already refuted. Not just by me, but by yourself. The question is not of choosing one, since YOU LOVE BOTH parents, there is no question of choice. Your words not mine.



Nationality is about rights, you have no idea as you have never experienced dual nationality or have any inclination of what is entailed. You point is simply one is a beyghairat to seek a better life, or if one chooses to love both parents once is enacting duplicity. What a joke. Essentially you are arguing from ignorance, or experience, whether it is from the POV of a Bangladeshi, or a POV on Indian, take your pick - choose your loyalty.

in case you are a dual citizen and love both of your countries equally (and hoping you dont get to choose one over the other, even though you have made the choice about which one you love more by staying there) i would be lenient with you. main problem are the traitors who have are more loyal to the one where they came from and work against the nation which gave them a better live. those are the ones have the lowest opinion of who dont have loyalty for their country and only seek rights and the benefits.. anyway it is good for me and my worldview, as these bad decisions by some western countries who tolerate such traitors has only given rise to the right wing, exactly what i want and want the world to move towards.

 

[R3verse Swing]

The choice is where you live. You must pick one. Same applies to the national analogy - you love both, but must pick ONE to live in.

Nope, you can live live between the two. It's called FREEDOM, rights.

False. Nationality is not about rights, its about the social contract. You are automatically part of that contract when you are born (to the nation of your citizenship).

I am a dual citizen of USA and Canada and since i live mostly in Canada, I think my US citizenship is simply an advantage to me and a disadvantage to the US government.

I am thankful that USA keeps me as a citizen, despite the fact that i pay no taxes to them, i contribute nothing to their society and if i deciede to move back to the US and claim social assistance, i am dipping into a social welfare pool i did not contribute to.

I see it as a priviledge, not a right.

That's the difference. In the UK, rights are not a privileged.

For example, in the USA, health and education are a privileges. In the UK, health and education are rights..

 

[Traveller55]

Nope, you can live live between the two. It's called FREEDOM, rights.

Except thats not how custody or citizenship works. There is always ONE primary residence and the rights are attached to that.

That's the difference. In the UK, rights are not a privileged.

For example, in the USA, health and education are a privileges. In the UK, health and education are rights..

Feel free to point out where in the UK constitution it says citizenship of UK, once granted, is a right.

Health and education are rights..FOR CITIZENS. And citizenship has obligations. If one breaks said obligations, a country is within its full rights to revoke citizenship.
This has already been established in the ICJ, where a nation has the right to strip a citizen of citizenship. Just because your nation doesn't exercise that right, doesn't mean it doesn't have that right.

 

[R3verse Swing]

in case you are a dual citizen and love both of your countries equally (and hoping you dont get to choose one over the other, even though you have made the choice about which one you love more by staying there) i would be lenient with you. main problem are the traitors who have are more loyal to the one where they came from and work against the nation which gave them a better live. those are the ones have the lowest opinion of who dont have loyalty for their country and only seek rights and the benefits.. anyway it is good for me and my worldview, as these bad decisions by some western countries who tolerate such traitors has only given rise to the right wing, exactly what i want and want the world to move towards.

First bold emphasis : this is the case with almost every dual national in the UK I know. They love both countries equally.

Second bold emphasis : This might be in your experience, hence why you refer to the people who leave India for a better life as beyghairat and deserve to be stripped of their rights.

The West views these traitors as you call them – Indians – in low regard. Not because they are immigrants (because even if they are traitors they still benefit the Western economies) but for other reasons. The essence of this thread.

Immigrants are not spies.

You talk about toleration, did you miss the part at the beginning of this thread that the West only cares about money and fleecing India hence the media is very much pro India? The West will tolerate anything as long as their pockets are loaded.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Except thats not how custody or citizenship works. There is always ONE primary residence and the rights are attached to that.

Maybe under USA law, not under UK law.

Feel free to point out where in the UK constitution it says citizenship of UK, once granted, is a right.

Health and education are rights..FOR CITIZENS. And citizenship has obligations. If one breaks said obligations, a country is within its full rights to revoke citizenship.
This has already been established in the ICJ, where a nation has the right to strip a citizen of citizenship. Just because your nation doesn't exercise that right, doesn't mean it doesn't have that right.

UK does not have a constitution so the rest of your point does not apply.

 

[CricketCartoons]

First bold emphasis : this is the case with almost every dual national in the UK I know. They love both countries equally.

Second bold emphasis : This might be in your experience, hence why you refer to the people who leave India for a better life as beyghairat and deserve to be stripped of their rights.

The West views these traitors as you call them – Indians – in low regard. Not because they are immigrants (because even if they are traitors they still benefit the Western economies) but for other reasons. The essence of this thread.

Immigrants are not spies.

You talk about toleration, did you miss the part at the beginning of this thread that the West only cares about money and fleecing India hence the media is very much pro India? The West will tolerate anything as long as their pockets are loaded.

good that in your small circle of ethnic minorities, people love both UK and the country of their origin, even if they made the choice clear about which one the prefer to live in.

do you deliberately misinterpret or is it genuine? those indians who take the citizenship of another country are not beghairats..but if they are not loyal to their new country, they definitely are.

anyway, off i go to post on british news websites using my fake british pakistani username. more useful time spent doing my bit in shaping perceptions towards the new world order.

 

[CricketCartoons]

UK does not have a constitution so the rest of your point does not apply.

UK has a constitution, just not codified in one document.

 

[R3verse Swing]

do you deliberately misinterpret or is it genuine? those indians who take the citizenship of another country are not beghairats..but if they are not loyal to their new country, they definitely are.

Here is what you said in post #250

if they choose to become citizens of another country, they don't deserve to remain citizens here anymore.

It is still bearable when you are dual citizen of two first world free nations, but reeks of hypocrisy and beghairaty to follow liberal laws in one nation and backward barbaric laws in another. Shame on those crass opportunists. No respect for these people.

There is nothing about loyalty in your post, #250.

In essence, what you are saying is that any Indian choosing to seek a better life outside of India does not deserve to remain a citizen and are beghairaty because they choose to follow liberal laws in one nation and backward barbaric laws in another. This is not even loyalty by any stretch of the imagination.

anyway, off i go to post on british news websites using my fake british pakistani username. more useful time spent doing my bit in shaping perceptions towards the new world order.

You do that because you are the epitome of Indian perception.

Have a good night.

 

[R3verse Swing]

UK has a constitution, just not codified in one document.

Googled that did you?

Try again.

Cite the British constitution. (Though you missed the part that UK rights are based on precedence of law).

 

[CricketCartoons]

Here is what you said in post #250



There is nothing about loyalty in your post, #250.

In essence, what you are saying is that any Indian choosing to seek a better life outside of India does not deserve to remain a citizen and are beghairaty because they choose to follow liberal laws in one nation and backward barbaric laws in another. This is not even loyalty by any stretch of the imagination.



You do that because you are the epitome of Indian perception.

Have a good night.

cant help with your comprehension and my composition. in essence, any indian who chooses to become citizen of another country does not deserve to remain a citizen of india. applies equally to pakistanis. because it is not fair to be either half hearted loyal to one country, or choosing one over another. one has to be fully loyal to the only country one is living in as a citizen. anyone otherwise, is a shameless beghairat.
don't know why it hurts you as you claim to love your country of citizen. or is it that you love the other one more? and only concerned about rights and the freebies from the current host? would be interested to know why you are hurt as i thought the hat of beghairatness i threw doesnt fit you.

 

[Traveller55]

Maybe under USA law, not under UK law.



UK does not have a constitution so the rest of your point does not apply.

Don't engage in word-play.

Show us in the constitution of Great Britain/England - that citizenship, once granted, is a fundamental right and cannot be revoked.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Don't engage in word-play.

Show us in the constitution of Great Britain/England - that citizenship, once granted, is a fundamental right and cannot be revoked.

If you are British born, you're citizenship cannot be taken away from you.

Why are you even in this thread? You're Bangladeshi but not Indian.

 

[Traveller55]

If you are British born, you're citizenship cannot be taken away from you.

Can you show me where it says in your constitution, that british citizens cannot be stripped of their citizenship ?

Why are you even in this thread? You're Bangladeshi but not Indian.

Because last i checked, i can post anywhere i wish to post and don't need to justify WHY i am posting, where i am posting or when i am posting, to anyone not a moderator. Clear ?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Can you show me where it says in your constitution, that british citizens cannot be stripped of their citizenship ?





Because last i checked, i can post anywhere i wish to post and don't need to justify WHY i am posting, where i am posting or when i am posting, to anyone not a moderator. Clear ?

lol. Britain doesn't have a constitution.

You can post where you like but it's obvious you are only here to rant about religion and make out a third world country is the Switzerland of the East . Nobody should take your seriously.

 

[Traveller55]

lol. Britain doesn't have a constitution.

So if Britain doesn't have a constitution, you cannot claim inalienable rights, as those are defined in the constitution. So what you really should be saying is ' if you are British born, your citizenship cannot be taken away from you - unless the government decieded to do so'.

You can post where you like but it's obvious you are only here to rant about religion and make out a third world country is the Switzerland of the East . Nobody should take your seriously.

Nobody said a third world nation is Switzerland of the East. That's a strawman from you, since I have said, of my own volition here, that India is no paradise, but its way, way better than Pakistan- which is the entire point of the thread : comparative, not absolute.

Whether someone takes me seriously not, is up to them- you only speak for yourself and that's it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So if Britain doesn't have a constitution, you cannot claim inalienable rights, as those are defined in the constitution. So what you really should be saying is ' if you are British born, your citizenship cannot be taken away from you - unless the government decieded to do so'.



Nobody said a third world nation is Switzerland of the East. That's a strawman from you, since I have said, of my own volition here, that India is no paradise, but its way, way better than Pakistan- which is the entire point of the thread : comparative, not absolute.

Whether someone takes me seriously not, is up to them- you only speak for yourself and that's it.

Britain has laws which are passed via Parliament, these can change if required and if voted. This is much better than a constitution such as you see in the US where it's difficult to change something which made since over 100 years ago but doesn't now. Recent laws have passed where those who have gone abroad to take part in terrorism arent allowed back, there is nothing much more than this.

I was referring to Bangladesh not India. Find a hobby instead of spending hours criticising something you don't believe in, it's weird.

 

[Traveller55]

Britain has laws which are passed via Parliament, these can change if required and if voted. This is much better than a constitution such as you see in the US where it's difficult to change something which made since over 100 years ago but doesn't now. Recent laws have passed where those who have gone abroad to take part in terrorism arent allowed back, there is nothing much more than this.

America is a poor example since the entire point of the US constitution is so that it cannot be changed easily.
Canada or Germany are a better example - the only things that cannot be changed easily in it are inviolable human rights.

which basically, the UK does not have, since it needs to be enshrined in a constitution- which you folks do not have.

I was referring to Bangladesh not India. Find a hobby instead of spending hours criticising something you don't believe in, it's weird.

Yet another strawman re: Bangladesh, since not once have I said that Bangladesh is an excellent nation or great place to be - but it IS better than Pakistan in almost all measurable metric.

As for criticizing something - its called educating the masses. Critique is a lot more enriching - from both sides, than meaningless back-patting in agreement.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Hang on.

How is Traveller55 even Bangladeshi?

He claimed he is a dual citizen of USA and Canada

Post #268

I am a dual citizen of USA and Canada and since i live mostly in Canada, I think my US citizenship is simply an advantage to me and a disadvantage to the US government.

He also says Bangladesh does the same as India; strips them off their citizenship if they are naturalised abroad

Post #265

Pfft. Bangladesh does the same. So does dozens upon dozens of countries.
A country is not obligated to retain you as a citizen, if you are not part of that nation's social contract.

Hmmmm.

 

[KingKhanWC]

America is a poor example since the entire point of the US constitution is so that it cannot be changed easily.
Canada or Germany are a better example - the only things that cannot be changed easily in it are inviolable human rights.

which basically, the UK does not have, since it needs to be enshrined in a constitution- which you folks do not have.



Yet another strawman re: Bangladesh, since not once have I said that Bangladesh is an excellent nation or great place to be - but it IS better than Pakistan in almost all measurable metric.

As for criticizing something - its called educating the masses. Critique is a lot more enriching - from both sides, than meaningless back-patting in agreement.

You dont understand the basics of how the UK operates and im now more interested in the bolded gem you have posted.



I will start a thread on this subject, please don't chicken out this time. : )

 

[Traveller55]

You dont understand the basics of how the UK operates and im now more interested in the bolded gem you have posted.



I will start a thread on this subject, please don't chicken out this time. : )

Speaking of chickening out, I am still waiting for the evidence that once you are a citizen of the UK, it cannot be revoked as a matter of law.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And that is how any ghairatmund quam should treat its people..if they choose to become citizens of another country, they don't deserve to remain citizens here anymore.

Tell that to your good friend cricketjoshila who is insisting Freddie Mercury and Ben Kingsley are the fine examples to represent India abroad.

 

[Traveller55]

Hang on.

How is Traveller55 even Bangladeshi?

He claimed he is a dual citizen of USA and Canada

Post #268



He also says Bangladesh does the same as India; strips them off their citizenship if they are naturalised abroad

Post #265



Hmmmm.

Bagladeshi origin, born Pakistani, then had Bangladeshi citizenship, who went overseas and got foreign citizenships.
You need to read better, because this was covered by me before.


And yes, that's only fair. A country can deciede not to share citizens with another country.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Don't engage in word-play.

Show us in the constitution of Great Britain/England - that citizenship, once granted, is a fundamental right and cannot be revoked.

They cannot. As



https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/amp....ed-150-jihadists-and-criminals-of-citizenship


https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/09/terror-suspects-british-citizenship-european-ruling


https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/ne...man-stripped-british-citizenship-13194956.amp


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21783475

British citizenship can be revoked. Has been revoked and even british born can lose their citizenship.

Dont fall for the lies, some have a habit of lying.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If you are British born, you're citizenship cannot be taken away from you.

Why are you even in this thread? You're Bangladeshi but not Indian.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21783475

Yes it can be taken away.

No one needs your permission to post in any thread.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Don't engage in word-play.

Show us in the constitution of Great Britain/England - that citizenship, once granted, is a fundamental right and cannot be revoked.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...itish-citizenship-nationality-policy-guidance

The particular law, its sections and sub sections.British citizenship can be revoked has been revoked.

I dont understand how some people can lie so shamelessly.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Readers should note that none of the links reveal a British citizenship can be revoked by law, only the Home Secretary can *apply* to revoke, and that to via the courts.

This is the complete opposite of the Indian constitution which automatically revokes citizenship, by law.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Bagladeshi origin, born Pakistani, then had Bangladeshi citizenship, who went overseas and got foreign citizenships.
You need to read better, because this was covered by me before.


And yes, that's only fair. A country can deciede not to share citizens with another country.

Oh OK, your claim is through ethniticy not nationality. Which is the point, that not even Bangladesh recognise you as Bangladeshi, by law.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Readers should note that none of the links reveal a British citizenship can be revoked by law, only the Home Secretary can *apply* to revoke, and that to via the courts.

This is the complete opposite of the Indian constitution which automatically revokes citizenship, by law.

Are you equally loyal to both UK and Pakistan? How much time do you stay in either of these countries.

Basically whom are you more namak halaal to?

 

[R3verse Swing]

Are you equally loyal to both UK and Pakistan? How much time do you stay in either of these countries.

Basically whom are you more namak halaal to?

Equally loyal. The I enjoy the rights of both countries.

Who are you more loyal to, India or Bangladesh? I guess it depends on which of the two governments actually recognises half of anything, right?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Equally loyal. The I enjoy the rights of both countries.

Who are you more loyal to, India or Bangladesh? I guess it depends on which of the two governments actually recognises half of anything, right?

That is good, and the best someone with dual citizenship can do. This is far better than those dual citizens who are loyal to one only.

But this is still not ideal, as your loyalty is also dual. How much money to you put in the UK economy vs how much you put in Pakistan? No need to answer this, but you see how your value is split between two countries when you were worth more if you were totally, unwaveringly committed to just one country you are the citizen of. An undivided British citizen fully committed towards UK.

 

[R3verse Swing]

That is good, and the best someone with dual citizenship can do. This is far better than those dual citizens who are loyal to one only.

But this is still not ideal, as your loyalty is also dual. How much money to you put in the UK economy vs how much you put in Pakistan? No need to answer this, but you see how your value is split between two countries when you were worth more if you were totally, unwaveringly committed to just one country you are the citizen of. An undivided British citizen fully committed towards UK.

Who are you loyal to? Bangladesh or India? Or are you ashamed to say?

And no I don't see how my value is split, in fact it's the opposite, I'm getting double the value.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Who are you loyal to? Bangladesh or India? Or are you ashamed to say?

And no I don't see how my value is split, in fact it's the opposite, I'm getting double the value.

I am not a dual citizen so there is no question.

Prove how you are more valuable to UK by putting some of your money in Pakistan, when you could have put all that money into UK.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I am not a dual citizen so there is no question.

Prove how you are more valuable to UK by putting some of your money in Pakistan, when you could have put all that money into UK.

You do not have to be a dual citizen to question loyalty, given you have a Bangladeshi flag in your profile yet defend India. This is why you are stuck on the point of loyalty, because you yourself struggle with loyalty.

You are seriously asking me to prove how the UK benefits if I move some of my money to Pakistan? Oh man, this is obvious, though why have you not asked the reverse too? How does Pakistan benefit if I move my money in the UK?

 

[CricketCartoons]

You do not have to be a dual citizen to question loyalty, given you have a Bangladeshi flag in your profile yet defend India. This is why you are stuck on the point of loyalty, because you yourself struggle with loyalty.

You are seriously asking me to prove how the UK benefits if I move some of my money to Pakistan? Oh man, this is obvious, though why have you not asked the reverse too? How does Pakistan benefit if I move my money in the UK?

I may miss the obvious, so please enlighten me. Repeating the question. Prove how.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I may miss the obvious, so please enlighten me. Repeating the question. Prove how.

Who are you more loyal to? Bangladesh or India?

I am not going to prove anything, even a child can figure out how parking money across two nations is beneficial to both countries.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Who are you more loyal to? Bangladesh or India?

I am not going to prove anything, even a child can figure out how parking money across two nations is beneficial to both countries.

The question is not how it is beneficial to both countries. Question is if it is more beneficial to UK if you divide it between UK and Pakistan vis a vis having it only parked in UK. Prove it.

 

[R3verse Swing]

The question is not how it is beneficial to both countries. Question is if it is more beneficial to UK if you divide it between UK and Pakistan vis a vis having it only parked in UK. Prove it.

Look it up on Google.

Your one way questioning is indicative of your misunderstanding.

Pakistan benefits too!

Why don't your prove who you are more loyal to? I'm guessing here, had to choose between the nations in the past. Ouch!

 

[CricketCartoons]

Look it up on Google.

Your one way questioning is indicative of your misunderstanding.

Pakistan benefits too!

Why don't your prove who you are more loyal to? I'm guessing here, had to choose between the nations in the past. Ouch!

You bolded the part which is not the question I am asking.

So you don't have the answer or don't have the courage to answer. Please prove me wrong by answering.

 

[R3verse Swing]

So you don't have the answer or don't have the courage to answer. Please prove me wrong by answering.

Says the guy who is afraid and ashamed to state his loyalty.

It's not about courage, it's about whether I should appease your struggles and insecurities.

You will never understand how dual nationality bestows rights upon civilians. Look at what Traveller55 said, he enjoys the rights of both USA and Canada. The same as any dual national in the world! Nothing to do with loyalty. Loyalty is a point because you have made it a point, since you struggle with your own loyalty, and money. (Typical Indian trait with respect to perception around the world).

Having assets in any country should give you an idea of how that country benefits. This is Economics 101 and has NOTHING to do with dual nationality, no matter how desperate you want it to be. It happens across the world! Go ask your Indian brethren who buy assets in the UK, yet live in India, how does this benefit India? Penny dropped yet?

I suggest you go back to banning Pakistani Mangoes.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Says the guy who is afraid and ashamed to state his loyalty.

It's not about courage, it's about whether I should appease your struggles and insecurities.

You will never understand how dual nationality bestows rights upon civilians. Look at what Traveller55 said, he enjoys the rights of both USA and Canada. The same as any dual national in the world! Nothing to do with loyalty. Loyalty is a point because you have made it a point, since you struggle with your own loyalty, and money. (Typical Indian trait with respect to perception around the world).

Having assets in any country should give you an idea of how that country benefits. This is Economics 101 and has NOTHING to do with dual nationality, no matter how desperate you want it to be. It happens across the world! Go ask your Indian brethren who buy assets in the UK, yet live in India, how does this benefit India? Penny dropped yet?

I suggest you go back to banning Pakistani Mangoes.

Again no answer and dodging the question as usual.

You made the claim that you are equally loyal to both UK and Pakistan. Yet you fail to prove how serving two by dividing your capacity is better than serving one with your full capacity.

See I have still given you the benefit of doubt and didn't call you beghairat, because at least on the surface you claim to be equally loyal. You are the best a dual citizen can be. But that still falls short from full loyalty. You have the chance to show how it is not the case, but looks like you cannot prove it otherwise.

How does UK benefit by your moving your money to Pakistan?

 

[R3verse Swing]

I never claimed you called me beghairat. You called your own countrymen beghairat.

Amazing, all your questions answered and you are now stuck on the question of loyalty to money.

I have money in UK, Pakistan, Canada, and UAE. I guess this makes me a Quad-National according to your thinking.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You have the chance to show how it is not the case, but looks like you cannot prove it otherwise.

I have asked you enough times to confirm your loyalty since you have a Bangladeshi flag but defend India. You cannot. What are you afraid of or ashamed of? If you cannot answer this simple question, then you don't have the right to ask questions. Discussions are a two way thing - DUAL. Pun fully intended.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I never claimed you called me beghairat. You called your own countrymen beghairat.

Amazing, all your questions answered and you are now stuck on the question of loyalty to money.

I have money in UK, Pakistan, Canada, and UAE. I guess this makes me a Quad-National according to your thinking.

No you have not been answering the question I have posed repeatedly.

I understand you have investments in other countries, I hope those are temporary and the final destination of the gains will be UK. You take X money from UK, put it somewhere else, bring back X+Y to UK. That is good.

But if you take X money from UK, put it in Pakistan, bring back X + Y to UK, (ideal for UK) but not ideal for Pakistan as you are treating it as an investment opportunity for your personal gains and the money goes out of Pakistan eventually. Equal loyalty how?

Since you think it is obvious to explain it, you don't need to dodge it and you can educate me (for free).

 

[CricketCartoons]

I have asked you enough times to confirm your loyalty since you have a Bangladeshi flag but defend India. You cannot. What are you afraid of or ashamed of? If you cannot answer this simple question, then you don't have the right to ask questions. Discussions are a two way thing - DUAL. Pun fully intended.

I am not a dual citizen so question of undivided loyalty doesn't arise. Whether I am a traitor or a patriot to my country that doesn't prove how you are being equally loyal to both of your mother nations. I never made any claim about being loyal anywhere. You did.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I am not a dual citizen so question of undivided loyalty doesn't arise. Whether I am a traitor or a patriot to my country that doesn't prove how you are being equally loyal to both of your mother nations. I never made any claim about being loyal anywhere. You did.

Still no answer.

As pointed out earlier. You do not have to be a dual citizen when it comes to choosing loyalty. Case in point, you. Bangladesh flag vs Indian defence. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, that's all.

Whether you have to choose between parents, or whether you have to choose between a flag and your defence of another country, Dual nationality is not mandatory when choosing loyalty.

The fact you hide behind this tells me you are ashamed.

It's OK. I understand.


Some advise

 

[CricketCartoons]

Still no answer.

As pointed out earlier. You do not have to be a dual citizen when it comes to choosing loyalty. Case in point, you. Bangladesh flag vs Indian defence. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, that's all.

Whether you have to choose between parents, or whether you have to choose between a flag and your defence of another country, Dual nationality is not mandatory when choosing loyalty.

The fact you hide behind this tells me you are ashamed.

It's OK. I understand.


Some advise

Of course, even a person having single citizenship can be disloyal. that was not even a question. The point is how dual citizenship by its very nature makes it impossible, for even a nice person like you, who claims to "be equally loyal", to have undivided loyalty.

 

[R3verse Swing]

No you have not been answering the question I have posed repeatedly.

I understand you have investments in other countries, I hope those are temporary and the final destination of the gains will be UK. You take X money from UK, put it somewhere else, bring back X+Y to UK. That is good.

But if you take X money from UK, put it in Pakistan, bring back X + Y to UK, (ideal for UK) but not ideal for Pakistan as you are treating it as an investment opportunity for your personal gains and the money goes out of Pakistan eventually. Equal loyalty how?

Since you think it is obvious to explain it, you don't need to dodge it and you can educate me (for free).

Oh. My. God.

Wow. You have explained how one nation can benefit from investments abroad, using your own words, saves me from answering, but you have an issue with anything to do with Pakistan.

I finally understand, your issue is not with dual nationality, or with locality, or with money, it's strictly anything to do with anything related to Pakistan.

Now that's duplicity!

 

[R3verse Swing]

Of course, even a person having single citizenship can be disloyal. that was not even a question. The point is how dual citizenship by its very nature makes it impossible, for even a nice person like you, who claims to "be equally loyal", to have undivided loyalty.

Don't worry about what I claim, you worry about whether you are Bangladeshi or Indian. Tough and an embarrassing choice, I know.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Don't worry about what I claim, you worry about whether you are Bangladeshi or Indian. Tough and an embarrassing choice, I know.

You made a claim so you will be challenged for that. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[R3verse Swing]

You made a claim so you will be challenged for that. Put your money where your mouth is.

My claims have been answered, just not enough to appease your insecurities, this is your problem not mine.

In fact, you have answered some of my claims using your own words.

There is no challenge here, expect with your inner self.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Oh. My. God.

Wow. You have explained how one nation can benefit from investments abroad, using your own words, saves me from answering, but you have an issue with anything to do with Pakistan.

I finally understand, your issue is not with dual nationality, or with locality, or with money, it's strictly anything to do with anything related to Pakistan.

Now that's duplicity!

Duh. You claimed your are equally loyal to both UK and Pakistan, so naturally the discussion with involve these two countries.

Dual citizenship = dubious loyalty. You still have the chance to prove it otherwise.