Hello all, I'm an American who is disappointed beyond words that it appears W will get reelected as president of the USA. I'm to the point where, rather than being proud to be an American, I'm ashamed of what this country has done in the world under this president, and where he is likely to lead it during another four years.
This morning I began discussing with my wife the possibility of relocating to Europe, which seems to share more of my values. So, this question is to anyone, European, American, or otherwise, who knows the process of someone moving from the U.S. to Europe.
So, how does one do this?
Is there an agency that one would need to contact in the new host country that I would need to contact?
How difficult is it to gain residency in a European country?
Is preference given to people from one country over another?
How long does the process take to be granted permission?
How do the taxes work - do American expatriots still need to pay U.S. income tax?
Do they pay taxes in the host countries?
Do they get to vote in the host country?
Would our existing children ever be granted citizenship?
Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
All I can tell you is what one must do to immigrate to the U.S. and maybe that might point you in the general direction.
The legal way to do it is to start by contacting your destinations consulate here in the U.S. and file a petition for permanent residence. To legally immigrate here, you should do that before entering the country to avoid illegal alien status.
It is helpful to have a sponsor in your destination. In my case, I was the sponsor, given that my wife immigrated from Mexico. There will be background checks, medical exams and a long, long wait.
That is unless your destination is a third world country.
Hope that helps, and remember that the local laws over there vary greatly. I'm not sure if you could vote there. Here you need to become a naturalized citizen first.
And no, you do not need to pay U.S. taxes then because presumably you will sell your real estate here and will be subject to income taxes in your new country. U.S. income tax is only for what is earned in the U.S.
If you do decide to move to Europe, I'd recommend a Scandinavian country: Norway, Sweden or Denmark.
And I think you should start by contacting the country's embassy in the US. They should probably help you out, and answer your questions.
I think it's quite easy to immigrate from one western country to another.
Thanks for the information, everyone - I'll start looking into that.
weird, what with the loss of the right to silence, the right to trial by jury, the right to free education, the right to an unbiased trial and the UK's attempts to go down the patriot act route i'm thinking of emigrating myself... i just can't work out where to.
The scandinavian countries definately have more freedom, but i really need more sun than that. There just don't seem to be many democracies that live up to what my idea of a democracy should be. I wonder if i can just move to a desert island somewhere and let GW colapse the world aound it while i chill out in the sun....
Or maybe move to one of the new democracies in eastern europe and try to ensure that they develop in a slightly better way.
Any ideas?
PS/ As far as i can tell the deal with the US is that it has two entirely different sets of values (modern, cosmopolitan in the cities and coasts and fundamentalists in the middle and south).
Yes, I know how you feel. Other than the war in Afghanistan, I can't list off one thing that Bush had done that I agree with. So basically we have the fundamentalist Christians and the "greed-mongers" siding with the Republicans, the more enlightened, what I guess I'll call the "modernists", siding with the Democrats.
And I also agree - W has set the US on a course for destruction, and I'm ready to jump ship before it sinks. It makes me both frustratedly angry at his shortsightedness, and embarrassed to be an American.
I just don't know what country would be good to live in? How about Italy or France? Spain? Scandanavian countries sound like nice places, but perhaps too cold for me, climate-wise. Any thoughts?
Bah, Europe is too much work. I'll probably just move to Canada.
If we're still alive in '08, I'm just glad Bush can't run again.
*hugs 22 Amendment*
Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
Bah, Europe is too much work. I'll probably just move to Canada.
If we're still alive in '08, I'm just glad Bush can't run again.
*hugs 22 Amendment*
its almost hilarious that it was the republicans that pushed that amendment through to begin with. thank God!!
oh, and to the fundmentalist christians: try reading the bible once in a while before you make political descisions. you'll find out that it can actually help you make correct ones as opposed to your current desicions. [/ranting]
[/topic]
oh, and check out canada or the scandanavian countries for the best possible emgration results, even if it is a bit cold. ;)
You could start looking on the web. I recommend the official sites such as the French Embassy in the US:
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/) and the government sites.
And although not in Europe, Canada is not a bad choice :D (but it's cold :( )
Thanks, Darth333 - that's some great information :cool:
Glad I could help :)
This French official site is great ( but it's in French only ):
http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/N8.html)
Here are some other links:
Spain:
http://www.embusa.es/)
Italy:
http://www.italyemb.org/)
Norway:
http://www.norway.org/)
The US Department of State also has some useful info:
http://www.state.gov/travel/)
Originally posted by Vagabond
Yes, I know how you feel. Other than the war in Afghanistan, I can't list off one thing that Bush had done that I agree with. So basically we have the fundamentalist Christians and the "greed-mongers" siding with the Republicans, the more enlightened, what I guess I'll call the "modernists", siding with the Democrats.
And I also agree - W has set the US on a course for destruction, and I'm ready to jump ship before it sinks. It makes me both frustratedly angry at his shortsightedness, and embarrassed to be an American.
I just don't know what country would be good to live in? How about Italy or France? Spain? Scandanavian countries sound like nice places, but perhaps too cold for me, climate-wise. Any thoughts?
Screw you guys, I live in the dead center of the Middle-West (for most of my life) and I'm no Fundamentalist, nor am I a greed-monger. My mother and father are both from Iowa, and one was a Democrat, the other a Republican. In recent years though they've also gotten annoyed with the two main parties and become Independant. Me, I've been Indepedant as long as I could vote. Independant doesn't mean you can't vote for a major party (even though it's turned out that way for me), it means you aren't beholden to some sense of party loyalty, that you vote according to your head and your heart, based on informing yourself with the options available. If you want to try to pin down my views, you could call me a "Moderate" or a "Centrist" I guess, but I make decisions based on conscience and the best information I have available, not some party line or what some guy on TV says to do.
I voted for Nader-Camejo, because I was researching positions right down to the 11th hour (down to election day even). I was thinking of going for the Green Party, even while I disagree strongly with some of their positions (namely Abortion and Drugs), I agreed with far more things than with the Democrats or Republicans. That guy for the Constitution Party I agreed with maybe one issue, otherwise it sounds like he'd make a poor president. Anyway, cutting through the info (which Kerry and Bush failed to provide) I was left with David Cobb (green), but then Nader's campaign filled out an NPAT for Vote Smart at the last minute so I got to see what he actually stands for. Comparing his views with Cobb, he was a little closer to what I believed in. Basically between the two Nader's domestic policy sounded very good. Sure, a lot of stuff he wouldn't change, and he'd increase a lot of government programs (read: higher taxes), but on the other hand he was against the war, in support of universal health care, a little more anti-death penalty, etc. Less supportive of abortion than Cobb. So he got my vote.
The religious baiting I'm used to by now, it's been used in this campaign and others. I'm a Catholic, and religious myself. I don't consider myself a "fundamentalist." Kerry is Catholic himself, but that had 0 to do with my decision not to vote for him. Some people tried to make it an issue "well he's not a faithful Catholic" or "he's a Catholic, therefore he should have the Catholic vote." Look, just because he and I may have something in common in our private lives doesn't mean I think he's going to be a good president or a bad president. You have to look at how he plans to run the office, and how he's done things in his other public jobs. Likewise with Bush, his religion had nothing to do with my decision to vote for him or not.
Granted, I live in Iowa, but the most fundamentalist Christians I've met and talked to have been on college campuses. I've been to the South, and I haven't talked to every single person ever, but I've met plenty of liberals there too, religious and none.
I do take faith issues seriously, but it's not a case of "either you are with the fundamentalists or with the non-believers" it's not like that, and people who say it is are simply naive or lying.
I do resent the idea that anyone who supported Bush must be evil. Is that why you're wanting to leave? Because you think that since Bush won that means Americans are evil?
I hope not. Because even though more people voted this year than four years ago, Kerry and Bush were neck in neck, just like Gore and Bush were in 2000. And in the end, all that means is 25% of voting age Americans voted for Kerry and 25% of voting age Americans voted for Bush. (I don't need to point out that this leaves another 50% of voting age Americans who didn't exercise their right this time, and typically about half of them don't vote either in recent elections). And while the rhetoric was different, in actual practice, their positions were NOT that different. I agree, Bush was not a president I liked. He made a lot of bad decisions, and I wouldn't have voted for him, period. Kerry however was in the Senate throughout Bush's term, and he could have done a lot of things differently than he did. In actual practice his plan for the presidency didn't strike me as really anything different, except "well this time it won't be a Republican."
Was Bush a bad president? Yes. Is the sky falling? I don't think so. Republicans said the same thing when Clinton was in office. Granted, while not a good man, I don't think Clinton was a worse president than Bush has turned out to be. Feelings like that are understandable from a certain point of view, but I can't say I haven't seen it before. If I'd lived through Kennedy or Nixon I'd have been a lot more stressed out with them than our modern presidents.
I hate to say it, but the rhetoric that "well Americans voted for Bush, therefore (because Bush is evil) all Americans are evil" is just BS. And it's the same BS Osama Bin Laden uses whenever he talks about blowing up Americans. This is simply illogical mumbo-jumbo.
Until the giddiness of the election mania wears off I'll forgive some of the "hysteria" people are having now, just like they did four years ago. But if you sincerely want to emmigrate to Europe, all I can say is, good luck.
But I'm sure things won't be all wine and roses over there either. Look at the poor Brits, stuck with Tony Blair all these years. ; )
I have no illusions about other countries and their problems. If I moved to another country, I'd probably go to Canada, because 1) It's close and 2) It wouldn't be that different from how things are for me now living here.
I'm Kurgan, and I approve this message.
Oops.. sorry, now they've got me doing it! ; )
Well remember the Vietnam war when plenty of Americans went to Canada to avoid being drafted?
It is now a very risky situation. What will happen next?
People want to leave out of fear. Deny it all you want, you have fundamentalists at the head of your country supported by a mass of people angered and afraid of the terrorists. When the populace is in such a situation, they tend to elect the first idiot who says he's going to save them(like Hitler for Germany).
Clinton was a different story. It was before 9/11, before a controversial and useless war. Now that Bush is on the run, who knows what happens next? What's the next country on his crusade to conquer the middle-east?
Originally posted by Kurgan (1)...Screw you guys, I live in the dead center of the Middle-West (for most of my life) and I'm no Fundamentalist, nor am I a greed-monger...I voted for Nader-Camejo, because I was researching positions right down to the 11th hour (down to election day even)...
(2)...The religious baiting I'm used to by now...I do take faith issues seriously, but it's not a case of "either you are with the fundamentalists or with the non-believers" it's not like that, and people who say it is are simply naive or lying...
(3)...I do resent the idea that anyone who supported Bush must be evil. Is that why you're wanting to leave? Because you think that since Bush won that means Americans are evil?...
(4)...I hate to say it, but the rhetoric that "well Americans voted for Bush, therefore (because Bush is evil) all Americans are evil" is just BS... (1) I'm not sure why you're angry if you didn't vote for Bush. It certainly wasn't my intention to ignite a political debate. There's nothing to discuss - Bush won - game over.
(2) Actually, I wasn't attempting to bait anyone or engage any any debate whatsoever. I'm only trying to find information on how I can get out of this country before it self destructs. My comment was, "So basically we have the fundamentalist Christians and the greed-mongers siding with the Republicans." When I use the word "basically", it's meant as a qualifier implying that not all people fall into that generalization, but more do than do not.
(3) I do not categorize people as "evil" or "good" as Bush does, as that implies some sort of moral judgement, which I have not made, nor am qualified to make. And I certainly don't think that all Americans are evil. Where did you get this idea, Kurgan? I never said or implied any such thing - especially such an all-encompassing characterization of Americans. I consider you a friend, Kurgan, but your suggestion that I labeled him and all Americans as "evil" really confuses me. I do consider him incompetent, but not evil. Chenney, though - he appears to be unethical - I won't deny that.
(4) Agreed - see (3) above.
On an entirely different note, Kurgan, I hope you're able to make our Star Wars Battlefront game tomorrow night (2004.11.04) :cool:
Originally posted by Vagabond
(1) I'm not sure why you're angry if you didn't vote for Bush. It certainly wasn't my intention to ignite a political debate. There's nothing to discuss - Bush won - game over.
Just addressing the implication that as a Midwesterner or person of faith I should be lumped with the "fundamentalists" and "greed mongers" who "voted for Bush." While I said right up front I didn't vote for Bush, I didn't support Kerry, the Democrats' choice, either, so the implication was that I'm not part of the "good" group, but rather with the negative one, since it was so simplistically stated. Saying basically doesn't excuse the import of the words.
And I should point out that toms was expressing the same sentiment, so my response was as much to him as to you. While I don't deny that fundamentalists exist and some of these groups have made their voices heard in the past, it's still a hasty generalization to imply that these states are all of one mind and that allegiance to a political party is invariably correlated to the other. People forget that the two major parties also run a spectrum of beliefs. The "platforms" of the two parties literally don't represent the beliefs of practically anyone within the parties, or they have become so generic that they really don't stand for much of anything. Likewise, both parties feel that in order to appeal to the greatest number of people, they should put forth the most centrist candidate possible, which is why when Gore and Bush were competing and now Kerry and Bush were competing, it almost felt like the same guy being run, just with different packaging.
If I said this:
"So basically we have the fundamentalist Christians and the "greed-mongers" siding with the Democrats, the more enlightened, what I guess I'll call the "modernists", siding with the Republicans." would you categorize that as unfair? Maybe you'd argue that fundamentalist Christians = the Religious Right (which by definition would be siding with the GOP) or that corporations would be supporting Bush. However, Christian religious groups DID back Kerry (depends on how you define "fundamentalist" I guess) and corporations did as well (whether they are "greed mongers" is a matter of interpretation). And who are these enlightened modernists? Well educated people supported both candidates. Respected organizations supported both of them. So?
Seriously, it came off as a bitter parting shot at the percieved "opposition" now that your preferred candidate has lost the race.
Yes it is game over, till 2008, unless Bush somehow loses his office before then. I too was a bit disappointed to hear that Bush basically won. I still would have been disappointed had Kerry won though (maybe a bit less, but still definately), and I knew this from the outset, since the third party candidates just haven't done well since Ross Perot's bid back in 1992.
Of course the two major parties and their media allies have helped to sabotage this, but no matter...
(2) Actually, I wasn't attempting to bait anyone or engage any any debate whatsoever. I'm only trying to find information on how I can get out of this country before it self destructs. My comment was, "So basically we have the fundamentalist Christians and the greed-mongers siding with the Republicans." When I use the word "basically", it's meant as a qualifier implying that not all people fall into that generalization, but more do than do not.
That's about as heavy-handed a generalization as one can make, hence it was a pretty foolish thing to say if you didn't intend to bait anyone or start an argument. I know you're better than that!
I can understand your frustration with the country, which is why I forgive you for saying so, it's just a very meaningless statement, except as an invitation for flames.
(3) I do not categorize people as "evil" or "good" as Bush does, as that implies some sort of moral judgement, which I have not made, nor am qualified to make. And I certainly don't think that all Americans are evil. Where did you get this idea, Kurgan?
Calling people greedy or fundamentalists in this case isn't a nice thing to call them is it? It's categorizing them as at least "the enemy" that is opposed to, those who are the [opposite] supporting the Democrats. And the categories were applied to geographic regions, as if all people in those areas were to blame. So my state voted for Bush, that means Iowans are all a bunch of jerks, but the folks in California, are not. I'm sure there were plenty of jerks who voted for Kerry, and plenty of nice people who voted for Bush. How would anyone know really?
Actually, you ARE doing what Bush is doing, by either categorizing people as "with us" (the good people) or "against us" (the bad people). The implication is that if you're not supporting the Democratic candidate you're in favor of Bush, and thus one of the "fundamentalists" and "greedy" jerks. Since you failed to mention the people who don't side with Kerry either, I think that's a great omission. Likewise many people have many reasons for voting how they did, and a large number (far too many) with an opinion DIDN'T vote.
You've got to admit, the two parties didn't exactly give us great material to work with did they? In all honesty, were the candidates really that different, practically speaking? Other than party affiliation and their public speaking skills I mean... (I think Kerry was more articulate, albeit a bit less handsome). With choices like that a lot of people voted "against" someone rather than for someone. Others like me turned to third parties. I never would have voted for Nader, except that he was the best I could find who was actually running.
So it's still a gross generalization. Thus whatever you meant, was lost in what you said. Sorry to have to point that out. You're not the first one to do it, but it's just the kind of thing I wouldn't expect you to say, being the thoughtful intelligent kinda guy you are. So I sort of chalked it up to post-election adrenaline. But I still felt the need to respond. I could have left it out I guess. I did take it a little personally, so I'm sorry about that.
Anyway...
I never said or implied any such thing - especially such an all-encompassing characterization of Americans. I consider you a friend, Kurgan, but your suggestion that I labeled him and all Americans as "evil" really confuses me.
Okay, maybe THAT too is a generalisation. Your statement implied that the people of this nation are beyond help, basically. Maybe they are. But your generalizations also implied that these sort of people voted for Bush precisely because they are bad. They're either intolerant religious zealots or people who only care about money. And since they can't be beaten you're giving up and leaving.
Well, you're free to do what you want, and you can believe what you want, I just disagreed with what you said. I think you misjudged far too many people with your statement.
I do consider him incompetent, but not evil. Chenney, though - he appears to be unethical - I won't deny that.
I agree with you there for the most part. I don't know if the man is morally evil or not, certainly I think some of his actions are. They may be more the result of bad decisions than intentional malice though, so I can't make a judgement of his soul or anything like that. As a president, no, I think he hasn't done a very good job. I can't say I'd be a better president (once I turn 35) and I don't envoy him the responsibility, but it seems that the alternatives were available to him. Ditto with Cheney.
Apply the same standards to Kerry (granted, he's ONE SENATOR not the president himself, but he does have a role to play and has done so for several years), he too shares a responsibility for the decisions he's made. His plans as president (while untried at this moment) don't sound to be too much better than what Bush has proposed. Granted, hindsight is 20/20 but still. Again, I couldn't in good conscience vote for him either, sorry to say. But each person has to make that decision for themselves.
And I am sorry most of all that you feel as if you no longer belong here, that things have gotten so bad that you have given up. Again, all I can say is good luck to you. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all, assuming you're serious. I only say that last part because I remember people saying publically how if Bush won in 2000 they would flee the country (I don't recall hearing anyone follow-up on it though). Now at least those folks have more of a reason to, than before the guy was even in office.
On an entirely different note, Kurgan, I hope you're able to make our Star Wars Battlefront game tomorrow night (2004.11.04) :cool:
Vagabond, I consider you a friend as well, and hope you realize that disagreeing with you here hasn't diminished the respect I have for you one bit. ; )
As to the game, I'm sorry, I'd love to join in, but I am afraid I'll be too busy from the 4th until the 9th. I'm going to a wedding and then doing some interviews. Hopefully I'll have a new job after that and I may only be free a few days a week. But I'll see what I can do.. hope the invitation is still open!
If I could move, I'd see if I could move to north Austrailia! look at a globe! ist north of the tropic of capicorn! TROPICAL and NON US! now I just need to research how government works there! ...among other things, laws, economic capabilities etc...
In the interest of keeping this thread on topic, I am going to consider the discussion between Kurgan and myself closed.
Regarding Australia, that seems like a wonderful place. But from my understanding, it is very difficult to immigrate there. Not only that, but if I'm going to move across an ocean, I'd rather move some place that less isolated. Europe seems to have much more to offer in that respect, in my opinion.
I think I've narrowed my initial list to the following:
-Spain
-France
-Italy
-Greece
Anyone have any information on life in those countries?
They're all fine. Though I have some useful info I think.
Italy: Corruption rate is crazy. Mafia controls lots of industry. One litre of gas costs 2 $ as a result.
France: Decent country. People are a bit cold and perhaps the european country where racism is less present. However, the right wing was on the rise at the last elections(the extremists I mean) and lots of anti-jew crimes have been reported lately.
I have nothing on Greece and Spain.
Oz is nice, but more rightwing than the Us on a lot of issues like imigration and race..
Spain is great, but not so good for jobs at the moment.
----------------------
Sorry Kurgan, didn't mean to get into an anti-middle-america rant. I was just a little disappointed at the time.
It is a bit odd from a uk perspective that you have all the people on the coasts and in the cities voting as we would understand (based on jobs, performance etc...). But more people in middle america voting based on religious or "moral" reasons.
Ohio got 1/5th of the 1million job losses since bush took office, but the majority voted for him???? That implies they are voting based on religion, habit, personality or "personal morality" reasons.
You mightbe interested in this though: a few figures the pollsters mentioned in the Uk coverage...
40% of american voters define themselves as "Evangelical protestant". Only about 15% define themselves as catholic.
80% of those envagelicals were going to vote bush, only about 55% of the catholics were going to vote kerry.
Even more surprising to us out here: 60% of registered american voters believe in creationism, only 28% in evolution. (!!!!:eek: !!!)
(note: figures from memory, might be a little off).
Add to that the fact that 20 years ago politcs wouldn't have been mentioned in church, today bishops are telling their constituents that it is unchristian to vote for certain candidates...
America seems fairly evenly split, but the religious seem to have the slight majority over the rest.
Sorry, off topic again...
Well the thing is that moving to another country can be nice but no matter where you go, you'll find problems everywhere and good things too.
I lived abroad many years (parents job - went to 15 different schools) and I also travelled a lot. What you'll find can be quite different. Style of life, politics, mentality, religion, perception of things, work relations (hierarchy amongst others), etc...and oh yes...taxes :rolleyes: (we are tax champs in Canada but France is pretty heavy on this too and they tax capital - cost of life is also very high).
...and you never know who is going to be the next leader (unless you pick up a monarchy :D)...who knows, Bush may have some clones...:D
I have some great info sites at home in my bookmarks but since I am not at home right now, I can't post them. I can post it this evening when I get home (*edit* check your PMs :) ) . Do you speak English only?
Oh yes just for your info, they did a survey in Spain (can't find the link right now) about the American Elections and the difference was not so big: 53 % wanted Kerry to win and 47 % would have voted Bush....
*edit* found the link for the Spanish survey (in Spanish):
http://www.elpais.es/encuestas/encuesta.html?id=2495) (50% Kerry and 47% Bush - even closer!)
Originally posted by toms
Sorry Kurgan, didn't mean to get into an anti-middle-america rant. I was just a little disappointed at the time.
And I'm sorry I got you guys a bit off topic too. No prob.
; )
It is a bit odd from a uk perspective that you have all the people on the coasts and in the cities voting as we would understand (based on jobs, performance etc...). But more people in middle america voting based on religious or "moral" reasons.
Yeah. I understand how it must look from an outsider perspective. The sad part is our media and such skew things a bit. First off, there are things called "exit polls" when you leave the polling station after you voted. These are entirely optional, and many people don't even bother. They ask you specific questions, which can thus skew results. Such as "do you consider yourself a 'born again christian'" and "what was the most important issue for you."
Now saying "Moral Values" may mean one thing to one person and another to someone else. What does "Moral Values" mean? Does it mean stereotypical religious right stuff? Or what? Typically I've seen it associated with anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but you really could define it any way you liked. The thing is that it's left up to the imagination of the person filling in the exit poll sheet. They can put whatever they want.
I could put down my race as "black" (I'm white) and what is the poll worker going to do about it? Nothing.
Likewise some people don't like to say who they voted for (some of us third party people have been tarred and feathered before, metaphorically speaking) so they will lie.
As to "religion," again.. what does that mean? Both Kerry and Bush claimed their religion was central in their lives and mentioned God, Jesus, or Christianity or Jesus enough times in public. For the last election it was the same thing, pretty much all the candidates did.
So let's say if a person is voting according to "who is the better Christian" that depends on what the person thinks makes a good Christian.
Some for example, believe that Catholics (like myself, and John Kerry) are apostates who worship the Babylon Whore and are in league with satan himself. So to those people they should not vote for Kerry. Others (and you saw this with John F. Kennedy) vote on the basis of group affiliation. "He's Catholic, so am I, Bush is not, so Kerry has my vote!"
When Nader was running four years ago I hear that some Arab American groups were sponsoring him. They were Muslim groups, but since Nader has some Arab ancestry (though Christian), they were supporting him because of his ethnicity.
Then there's folks who are "liberal Christians" who tie their political beliefs to their religious beliefs. So again, they'd look at Bush and go "whoa, he's associated with the Religious Right, those fanatics! We will go with the Liberal Christian Democrats, woohoo!"
There was a lot of talk about the "Hispanic Vote" which to me sounds like they're grasping at straws. There's nothing about being "Hispanic" (which literally just means Spanish is your primary language) that would make you vote one way or the other, is there?
I read a great book recently about political trends and ideas relating to Relgion ("When Religion Turns Evil" by Charles Kimball). which has some good examples of things, like how during the first Gulf War you had Christian groups both for and against the war.
So yes, Religion and Values are a factor, but exactly HOW is an open question.
Ohio got 1/5th of the 1million job losses since bush took office, but the majority voted for him???? That implies they are voting based on religion, habit, personality or "personal morality" reasons.
Not necessarily. They could also be voting "against" someone, lesser of two evils. There are a lot of reasons. Usually economics are pretty important to most people. If your bills/taxes are high and your job sucks.... hitting the wallet is where it hurts. Then there's the issue of how informed the voter is. They may not know that much about the candidate. They may simply be voting for the same party they've voted for all their life without any good reasons why, except that's how they always did it.
Some people are just a little confused too. When I was at the polls the guy ahead of me voted for two people for president, and some guy also voted for five people (both of them had to get new ballots). They were older folks, but still. This was no butterfly ballot.
You mightbe interested in this though: a few figures the pollsters mentioned in the Uk coverage...
40% of american voters define themselves as "Evangelical protestant". Only about 15% define themselves as catholic.
80% of those envagelicals were going to vote bush, only about 55% of the catholics were going to vote kerry.
Even more surprising to us out here: 60% of registered american voters believe in creationism, only 28% in evolution. (!!!!:eek: !!!)
It all depends on the questions asked I guess.
Does Bush believe in Creationism? Does Kerry? I don't know that that's ever been an issue.
Again, some of it may have to do with "how much like ME is this candidate" and if somebody thought that Bush was a creationist and they were as well, that might make them vote for him. Who knows. Some people do vote because they think he looks good on TV. There is always the phrase used for an incumbent president "don't change horses in mid-stream" like you'll screw things up if you don't let the president get re-elected and have two full terms.
(note: figures from memory, might be a little off).
Polls are interesting, but far from absolute and can be misleading by how and what questions are asked and under what circumstances.
Add to that the fact that 20 years ago politcs wouldn't have been mentioned in church, today bishops are telling their constituents that it is unchristian to vote for certain candidates...
In the 1980's? I dunno about that. Maybe its done more openly now, but I know that many churches have long histories of having fundraisers, and using the "bully pulpit" to pressure their members to vote a certain way. It's wrong (and often illegal) but they do it. Not all of course, but certain churches do it.
America seems fairly evenly split, but the religious seem to have the slight majority over the rest.
Sorry, off topic again...
It's also something of a misnomer because MOST of Americans consider themselves 'religious' (at least if polls are any indication and how the questions are asked). Then the question becomes "but how do their religious beliefs affect HOW they vote and WHO they vote for?"
Catholics for example have always been heavily associated with the Democratic party. Yet as a Church we're considered "conservative" (religiously? socially? I dunno). The country has supposedly shifted to the right in the past few decades (including the Democratic party) while the candidates have basically shifted to the center (of that right shift?). I'm no political expert, but again, I think polls can be misleading. There's a lot more factors going than just the plain numbers.
So did Kerry's being Catholic help him or hurt him? Did Bush's being a "born again Christian" help him or hurt him? I don't know. Maybe some of both for each.
Originally posted by Darth333
Oh yes just for your info, they did a survey in Spain (can't find the link right now) about the American Elections and the difference was not so big: 53 % wanted Kerry to win and 47 % would have voted Bush....
Intersting. With so few differences between them, I can see how that would not be so shocking.
Then again, the them for many people this time seemed to be "Who are you voting for?" "Anyone But Bush."
I agree with most of what you are saying, but as an extrernal person looking in i kind of have to rely mostly on what these people tell me...
Originally posted by Kurgan
So did Kerry's being Catholic help him or hurt him? Did Bush's being a "born again Christian" help him or hurt him? I don't know. Maybe some of both for each.
I think the figures showed that bush's religion helped him more, and with a bigger group than kerry's. Oddly, they are both pretty christian, but kerry ended up being portrayed as the non-christian's choice. I doubt anyone who wasn't christian could get close to the white house.
I wasn't so surprised that most of america labeled itself christian, but that so many labeled themselves "evangelical".
Originally posted by Vagabond
I think I've narrowed my initial list to the following:
-Spain
-France
-Italy
-Greece
Anyone have any information on life in those countries? [/B]
Well,
you'll find that the southern Europe countries doesn't have quite the martial wealth as western/northern Europe. They are anything but poor, but still the standards of living doesn't quite match up to the rest of Europe.
Also, France and Italy are actually more rightist that you think, IMO.
The Scandinavian countries aren't as cold as many people think (thank you, Gulf Stream!), the climate is actually quite temperate, at least in the southern regions.
I'd reccomend Sweden or Norway, countries with the best standards of living in the world, and the best developed social systems. Especially Norway will be nice if the red-green parties can make a majority goverment after the election in 2005 (Labour Party, Socialist Left and Centre Party together in goverment - pwnsome!).
That's my opinion, at least.
In the 1980's? I dunno about that. Maybe its done more openly now, but I know that many churches have long histories of having fundraisers, and using the "bully pulpit" to pressure their members to vote a certain way. It's wrong (and often illegal) but they do it. Not all of course, but certain churches do it.Actually Kurgan, from a documentary I saw recently I gathered that the majority of evangelical churches in the US were stringently apolitical before the recent rise of neoconservatism. (Nazism.)
In the case of Denmark, the relevant www-pages appear to be:
This (
http://www.denmark.dk/servlet/page?_pageid=80&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&_fsiteid=175&_fid=12360&page_id=1&_feditor=0&folder.p_show_id=12360) and this (
http://www.udlst.dk/english/default.htm).
I haven't checked the quality of either site (both are official, but official Danish websites can really be a mess to navigate sometimes).
If you do decide to move to Europe, I'd recommend a Scandinavian country: Norway, Sweden or Denmark.
Wouldn't be my first choice. Language is important. You need to be able to speak the local language pretty fluently. OK, need may be a little too much, but it certainly helps.
Originally posted by toms
weird, what with the loss of the right to silence, the right to trial by jury, the right to free education, the right to an unbiased trial and the UK's attempts to go down the patriot act route i'm thinking of emigrating myself... i just can't work out where to.
Could you fill me in on that please? (I don't mean to derail the thread, but you don't seem to be able to recieve PMs)
-Spain
Seems like a decent enough country. Not too extreme politically. But it has got trouble with seperatists. Dunno much about it besides that.
-France
Probably one of the countries I'd choose if I could speak French.
-Italy
Wouldn't live there if I was paid to do so. Nice to visit on holidays, but corruption is crazy, politicians are crazy, and if Silvio Berlusconi (called Silvio Corrupzioni by some) doesn't get his act together pretty damn soon, it's gonna have the rep of a banana republic. And it's got the Vatican. That can't be good.
-Greece
Halfway into the Middle East. Very poor compared to the rest of Europe. A tad too close to the Balkans and the Middle East for my taste. In a state of semi-war with Turkey (at least the would be if it wasn't for all the UN troops on Cyprus).
As a rule of the thumb going North and West you find less corruption and more left-wing politics.
If I was an American, I'd choose primarily based on what languages I knew. As I said before, language is important. In most of Europe most people understand and speak English, but mastery of the native tounge is always a good thing.
that was what i hear too... although of course i have no first hand knowledge. I heard you'd get chucked out of even the extreme evangelical churches if you started trying to be political a few years back...
the one exception has always been african american churches, who have been fairly political since around the civil rights movement.
---------------------
Barcelona and madrid are awesome cities... barcelona is my fave, but it will rain more in the winter and probably has less jobs (except in tourist service industries).
I'm thinking of japan, as i loved tokyo... but you do have to work and play very hard their and i may be too much of a slacker :D
Also, France and Italy are actually more rightist that you think, IMO
Italy, yes, but France? I have great admiration for France. France has been a stable bastion against Catholic influence in the European Union and is now beginning to prove its worth in the struggle against Islam. True, Chirac is probably corrupt and certainly right-wing - and Le Pen seems a shady kind of guy. But compairing France to Italy is, IMO, downright unfair.
The Scandinavian countries aren't as cold as many people think
But they also have some of the toughest languages in Europe. Those soft "d"s really are a pain to most foreigners.
Personally, I'd choose Britain or northern Germany, depending on whether or not I spoke German.
Originally posted by Kurgan
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darth333
Oh yes just for your info, they did a survey in Spain (can't find the link right now) about the American Elections and the difference was not so big: 53 % wanted Kerry to win and 47 % would have voted Bush....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersting. With so few differences between them, I can see how that would not be so shocking.
The point you're missing is that the European average was about 80/20 Bush is not a popular figure in Europe.
Now, at the considerable risk of derailing the thread, I feel that it is nessecary to comment a bit on this fact. I can't speak for all Europeans, but for me it's less an issue of what the candidates are going to do than who's backing them. Politicians are - with a few notable exceptions - full of bull. I think that their policies, in the end, boil down to sucking up to those who prop them up. Add to this the fact that Europe is far to the left of the US. From my POV, dubya looks like he is backed by people like the Evangelists, the KKK, the big corporations and suchlike.
Additionally, I look at who a leader surrounds himself with. And I don't like Dick "Fьrher" Cheney, "Darth" Rumsfeldt or Paul "Wolf".
Any political camp will try to present a likeable face to the public. But that is not where I think the real power lies.
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
[B]
Italy, yes, but France? I have great admiration for France. France has been a stable bastion against Catholic influence in the European Union and is now beginning to prove its worth in the struggle against Islam. True, Chirac is probably corrupt and certainly right-wing - and Le Pen seems a shady kind of guy. But compairing France to Italy is, IMO, downright unfair.
True it is unfair to compare them but he did not.
LePen is a right wing extremist, he wanted to boot out immigrants(now that's just racism). There has also been a rise in anti-semite acts of vandalism in France.
Haider was made out to be a right-wing extremist too, but turned out to be nothing more than a crook. A dislikeable crook, but nothing to seriously threaten Austrian democracy.
While I certainly don't hope that Le Pen gains influence, I guess my point is that most Le Pen-like politicians simply collapse on themselves should they actually gain any real foothold.
And anyway, Le Pen was a protest candidate. I think that most of the votes he got was from people who were pissed at the two main candidates.
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
The point you're missing is that the European average was about 80/20 Bush is not a popular figure in Europe.
I am conscious of this: I regularly follow news from European countries and I was surprised by the result of this survey in the Spanish paper El Pais. The survey was carried on among readers only and more than 16 000 people answered. But the result is still interesting (and no, I am far from being a Bush partisan, I think he is very dangerous and his re-election is the worst thing that could happen in terms of world stability and safety and social policies).
But one fact is true is that every country, has its problems and good sides. It all depends on what you want and what you chose to privilege (and on immigration policies of course). It can be language, economy and political stability, style of life, mentality and culture, religion, geography, employment, etc...and of course, fluency in the local language is mandatory unless you are working for a specific organization (still I don't understand these people that work abroad without bothering to learn the local language when they are not "obliged").
I lived in different countries, rich and poor, peaceful and violent, from big cities to the jungle (used to move every 3-4 yrs) and I regularly visit Inuit villages in the Canadian artic , in every place, despite the problems, I was able to find something good. I think that if Vagabond really wants to go abroad he has to see what is most important to him and his family. Every place you go there are things you gain and others you have to leave behind. For sure, the Scandinavian countries, France, Britain, Germany, although significantly different in many aspects, are more similar to what we have in North America than Spain or Greece. Personally I would go for Spain but it is a very personal choice (language, style of life mainly but they have lower salaries and some terrorism and some other problems).
Edited 11-10-2004: correction of horrible typos
Originally posted by Darth333
I am conscious of this
I was replying to Kurgan.
Grьss, ST
Personally, I'd choose Britain or northern Germany, depending on whether or not I spoke German.Don't choose Britain, it's turning into America.
Oh, and it's ruled by a malevolent elf.
Originally posted by Vagabond!
Austrailia is VERY hard to get in!
just HOW hard? it's not impossible right? does anybody know just WHAT you have to do to get in?
just HOW hard? it's not impossible right? does anybody know just WHAT you have to do to get in?Well basically Kipper, to get into a country that has a strict immigration policy, you have to show them that you'll be a useful member of their society. Thus, you might for instance... send the immigration office your CV, in the hope that your qualifications would get you a ticket. And you might send details of the work you've done in your community, in the hope that that would sway their decision.
But realistically countries like Oz and Canada want people who have skills that are in short supply. So say there's a shortage of printers in Australia, well, if you're a printer they'll fast-track you. Otherwise, it's a numbers game.
THANKS spider al! Ill se if I can find out about PRINTING!
Remember the language issues as well. Moving to Norway, France, or Germany means having to learn another tongue.
Austrailia is VERY hard to get in!
Scandinavia as well.
Darth333 posted a very wise post. You have to study the country and figure out what political view it has. For example, Norway is far-left with a big public sector; Switzerland is isolationistic, and so on and so fourth. Scandinavia is thinly populated, not so Germany, England and France.
Is there an agency that one would need to contact in the new host country that I would need to contact?
When we moved to the USA, first stop was the immigration office at the airport.
I'd call the American embassy in one of the cities of the country you're planning to join, as above mentioned.
I'd recommend obtaining a VISA (with a work permit for you adullts) and staying in the country for two or three years before making up your mind, though. VISAs can be extended and give you a good deal of rights (although you of course can't vote or anything). You also get schooling, and of course you get to rent or even buy a house. etc. I warmly advice you to live in the country for a few "trial years" before making up your mind.
How difficult is it to gain residency in a European country?
Being a specialist of a high proffesion (doctor, IT technician, engineer, etc.) helps. Getting in isn't too hard, but many countries in Europe (like Norway) are getting a high load of refugees in these uncertain days. You'll probably get in, though.
Is preference given to people from one country over another?
Sadly, yes. The governments in power in Norway, for example, is pretty strongly anti-immigrationist (unfortunately), and tend to turn away dark people. It's a disgrace, but a fact.
How long does the process take to be granted permission?
How do the taxes work - do American expatriots still need to pay U.S. income tax?
No, once you seize being a resident of the USA you stop having to pay taxes to Bush, except if you still own a house there or something.
Do they pay taxes in the host countries?
Do they get to vote in the host country?
That varies from country to country. I'm
Would our existing children ever be granted citizenship?
As for Norway, whoever is born within our borders automatically are granted Norwegian citizenship. Existing children? Definatly. It might take a few years, though.
weird, what with the loss of the right to silence, the right to trial by jury, the right to free education, the right to an unbiased trial and the UK's attempts to go down the patriot act route i'm thinking of emigrating myself... i just can't work out where to.
The scandinavian countries definately have more freedom, but i really need more sun than that.
:D
There just don't seem to be many democracies that live up to what my idea of a democracy should be. I wonder if i can just move to a desert island somewhere and let GW colapse the world aound it while i chill out in the sun....
I consider moving to some remote place, too, like Iceland or Greenland...
- - - -
OT: It's pretty surprising that so many people are fleeing the USA because of Bush's re-election. New Zealand received 15 000 immigration applications in the week after Bush got re-elected alone..
I'm unsure as to whether or not I should call Americans leaving Bush behind "refugees", but I think it fits the definition.:( No worries, though, you have to be brown-skinned to be an "official refugee" in people's eyes ;) .
This really reminds me of my Anarchist punkrock friends...
They scream and rave about how thier government sucks and they would shoot them all in the back of the head and yada yada yada... The anarchists who dont realize they have the freedom to believe what they want... try acting that way in china or somthing.
I can see how you would be disapointed with some aspects of your government, but surely you see that you only have that opporunity because of your freedom?
So since we have the freedom to voice our dissent and not get thrown in prison means we should just be happy with the state of affairs?
I tire of that oft repeated statement, "Try being like that in china"
It doesn't matter if we have more freedom than this country or that country. What DOES matter is that our country is FAR from perfect, and at the moment I'd say it's hardly more than just good.
At least your anarchic punk friends are willing to exercise their rights to make sure that they are never taken away.
The anarchists who dont realize they have the freedom to believe what they want... try acting that way in china or somthing.I can't count the number of times I've heard this frankly unoriginal fallacy. You imply that they should stop criticising their lovely government because their lovely government is allowing them to criticise? That doesn't make any sense.
Either they have the freedom to be anarchic and criticise the government who is doing things that they don't like, or they don't.
What YOU seem to fail to realise is that criticising government is the most patriotic thing that anyone can do. It keeps people aware, it makes people ask questions, it at least forces the government to maintain the semblance of honesty... And of course people realise that they could be lynched in other nation states for the same satire and sundry criticisms. How should that affect their criticism? Not at all. The right not to be lynched is as protected as their right to criticise.
You are correct Spider AL. I am simply saying that if your going to criticise your gorvenment, at least know that you have the freedom to do so, and appricate it.
I think you'll find that they DO know that they have the freedom to criticise their government.
That's why they do it.
You couldn't be more wrong, Spider AL. Previous generations fought and died for our right to free speech only so we would never exercise it in the future while systematically taking a **** on the Constitution and in turn the ideas of the Founding Fathers, causing the ink of the First Amemndent to bleed into the surrounding text and become as irrelevant as the people who never used it. Didn't you know that was the whole purpose of the United States' Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II, and beyond?! They all bled and died on the battlefield so we could brag and cherish rights we're not really supposed to use! Like, duh!