Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If your passport is issued by India and you are a citizen of India, then you are a third world citizen.
In the literal sense, yes. However, I am not in that culture and have not been for a long time. That is precisely the double standard I am referring to. Western countries expect us to integrate but at the same time refer to us as "third world citizens" with all of the *ahem* privileges that go along with that.
Of course, you don't have the right to live anywhere in the world. If you had the right, you could simply go wherever you want and set up a place to live. It is necessary to apply to the government of the country where you wish to live unless you are a citizen of said country. Just because a person says they are a citizen of the world, does not make it true.
Davy said countries with very high per capita GDP are absolute 1st world.
However, Davy argued in another thread that Kuwait, Qatar ,Brunei and UAE are not 1st world countries because they are islamic, even though they have very high per capita GDP.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
This source ranks UAE, Qatar pretty high. as well as Saudi Arabia.
Yes, the right to vote with your feet is sacrosanct. freedom of movement is more important than anything. anything shy of open borders is unacceptable.
05-21-2013, 03:39 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 7 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,919,105 times
Reputation: 4052
Well, almost everyone should have this right for selecting any place they want to live in the world, and being able to freely move between places as frequently as they desire based on exact preferences for everything in life.
However, the level of fortune, and luck someone is having, opportunities, economy, and intricate system of immigration+national migration regulation laws determine the most elite, certain amount of people having the most freedom for living wherever they want.
This is the basic, informative, valuable summary and near perfect description for this topic question.
I believe that somewhere in the UN Charter there is a provision that no one may be deprived of at least one citizenship and that marriage and family are also protected in some special way;
This is interesting. I think you're right, but some of the principles the UN comes up with are wishful thinking. Refugees usually end up as stateless people. Tibetan refugees in India have no citizenship, for example. It's a nice idea, though.
Most residents there are much richer than average Americans.
The problem with those countries is they are not very democratic and they also don't have gender equality for starters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
