National Anthems: Home | Africa | Americas | Asia | Australia&Oceania | Europe | Olympic Anthem |

 
Passports: Home [ Africa ] [ Americas, Australia & Oceania] [ Asia] [ Europe] [ Other documents
Travel:
[Europe] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ Carabben ] [ Air ] [Cruises ]
Forum
Live chat




Subject: Re: Is a lawyer needed for self-deportation? Posted on: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:49:17 +0000 (UTC)

On Oct 29, 2:51 am, "GeekBoy" wrote:
> "For ePlay" wrote in message
>
> news:1193584064.871916.93570@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Say a guy from Europe came to US two years ago on a (6 month) tourist
> > visa. He overstays his visa only to come to the conclusion that US is
> > not for him: too much work, stress and no fun (which seems to be the
> > way over 90% of the Europeans think about America). So he decides to
> > buy a one-way ticket back to Europe and to leave US for good.
>
> So in other words he is a lazy ass Socialist who want papa government to
> cloth and feed him while he stays at home.
>
> > Now how does that work?
>
> > Can he just buy the ticket and go to the airport and board the
> > transatlantic? Would the immigration officers in the airport just let
> > somebody with an expired visa go? Can the guy (described above) decide
> > today that he wants out of here and two days later just land in
> > Europe? Common sense would tell me that he has to hire an immigration
> > attorney to take care of business, and that takes way longer than two
> > days.
>
> > Also: are there different legal consequences for self-deportation as
> > opposed to plain deportation?
>
> > Thanks for your inputs.
>
> > sagfectutyaoa

Argh. Sorry, I know you meant this as a nice, little sideswipe because
the parent poster was being rather arrogant and totally making
generalizations (parent post : Dude, you can have fun anywhere ! Stop
trying to make excuses. The US is a GIANT country. From San Diego to
Boston, all kinds of fun can be had.), however, I really have to
correct some terminology here, because these are some rather
historically important technical terms and are actually kind of
interesting.

Using them wrongly doesn't illuminate the interesting reality of what
they mean. Socialism is Marxism. In the modern context this is
represented by the repressive totalitarianism of China, for example.
In theory, socialism has nothing to do with dictatorship, but its what
it turned out to be in history. Marx's "Das Kapital" by the way is a
must read for any economist, because its where Marx analyzes how
capitalism works. Here he shined a brilliant and incisive philosopher,
who wanted to know and explain how Capital ("Kapital") worked before
attempting to change it. His "Communist Manifesto" is where he fails,
because politically he was a loon. :)

*Social Democracy*, on the other hand (what most Western European
states have) is coming completely from the other end. Its a capitalist
market economy where the state provides a safety net and regulation.
This is also called John Maynard Keynes-ianism or Keynesian economics.
Just because it contains the word "Social" doesn't make it related to
Marx's Communism/Socialism at all, completely different strain of
thought. Social Democracy evolved (or devolved depending on your
perspective :) ) out of John Adams' corner. John Adams is really the
laissez afair guy, the freedom guy. he is the libertarian. Give us
freedom, free markets, and a justice system which can sort out
conflicts and we are good to go.

So from left to right there is :

Marxism/Socialism (came mainly out of Marx's bearded head)