Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: The Palestinian Future

  1. #31
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I would guess most don't know about the territories belonging to European countries either, and most likely almost nobody knows about voting and citizenship rights in those territories. I do know there was some fuss about Caribbean dutch who are part of the kingdom but not the Netherlands proper being eu citizens but not being allowed to vote but I don't know the outcome.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  2. #32
    True but none of the European territories I know about has a population of 3.6 Million. And as Greenland is now a proper country within the Danish kingdom, I don't think there are any large European territories left, just a bunch of little Islands. French Guyana might be considered something like a territory, but they have very little exceptions compared to the mainland.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  3. #33
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Fair enough, I wasn't aware Puerto Rico was that populated. And yeah, it's mostly islands. Quite a long list though.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overs...nd_territories
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  4. #34
    Note that those places also have almost complete autonomy, something the Palestinians certainly don't have and wouldn't have under a one-state solution.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    I always thought US citizen can still vote for the president when they live abroad. If that is correct, what happens if a US citizen move from a US state to a US territory?
    I'm no expert, but I believe you need to have a legal residence in an actual US state to vote in elections. You don't have to physically live there all that much, but you need to have an address somewhere. If that somewhere is in PR, you don't get Congressional representation. If it's in other territories, you don't get to vote for President, either.

    One other thing to note about PR in particular, though, is that they are very much eligible for statehood; in a contentious (fourth!) referendum a small majority of PR voters recently supported statehood. To actually become a state, however, requires action by Congress. I would imagine that over time support for statehood in PR will (likely?) increase, at which point they'll become the 51st state. It may seem a bit weird to Europeans that the US keeps adding states, but remember that Alaska and Hawaii have only been states since 1959/1960, though they were territories of the US for long before that. The vast majority of the US by land area, state number, and population began as territories that only gradually became states. So in that sense, these territories aren't really 'territories' in the sense of always being kept at arms length from the main country; rather, it's a midway point to statehood.

    I think the case of Guam/N. Marianas/USVIs/American Samoa are a lot closer to the European understanding of a territory. They aren't anywhere near becoming US states, and I doubt they'd want to - they would, for example, then be subject to US minimum wage laws, which would decimate their economies.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    It may seem a bit weird to Europeans that the US keeps adding states
    Pfft, we just added three countries to our Kingdom
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  7. #37
    Liar. You added two. Aruba was already a constituent country, and the remaining"Caribbean Netherlands" islands aren't a country, they're still under the Netherlands portion of the kingdom, albeit as "special municipalities"
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    It may seem a bit weird to Europeans that the US keeps adding states, but remember that Alaska and Hawaii have only been states since 1959/1960, though they were territories of the US for long before that. The vast majority of the US by land area, state number, and population began as territories that only gradually became states. So in that sense, these territories aren't really 'territories' in the sense of always being kept at arms length from the main country; rather, it's a midway point to statehood.
    Well the youngest canton is 1979, so I don't think we are considering new states weird. I said - I personally - think the concepts of keeping soil as a territory over such a long time is outdated.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  9. #39
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Liar. You added two. Aruba was already a constituent country, and the remaining"Caribbean Netherlands" islands aren't a country, they're still under the Netherlands portion of the kingdom, albeit as "special municipalities"
    Oh crap, you're right, I forgot Aruba left the Antilles way before. My bad!
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  10. #40
    Well, two of the US territories are self-governing Commonwealths, the Marianas and Puerto Rico. Guam would be except its people have repeatedly voted against integration with the other Marianas islands. . The Virgin Islands are not, they and Congress can't seem to agree on the terms for establishing their self-governance. And I can't remember how things are arranged in Samoa.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    No, this would be like the US granting citizenship to children of US citizens who are living in a US-administered territory even if the other residents of said territory don't have citizenship - like, say, the Insular Government in the Philippines. Israeli settlers don't achieve citizenship by the Law of Return; rather, they achieve it by already being citizens (or their parents being so). It's not an ethnic or religious question - those Israeli Arabs who live in the WB and East Jerusalem similarly keep their citizenship irrespective of the status of the territory they live in. It's a nationality distinction.
    Isn't it more of a blood-line distinction? Anyone born to a US citizen--regardless of where they're born--is a naturalized US citizen. (ie, even though Ted Cruz was born in Canada, since his mother was a US citizen, he is too.)

    Israel takes those ancestral and genetic roots a bit farther: its immigration policy caters to anyone whose maternal DNA is ethnic Jew, but also gives preference to any religious Jew seeking asylum. It's understandable, since "Jewish" is a religion and a race....and Israel defines itself as the homeland to both.

    But the same can't be said for "Palestinians". They're not a religion, or a race, or even a nation state. There's no shortage of people and politicians who think they should just absorb into Israel....but considering the expansion of Jewish settlements, and latest political shenanigans of Netanyahu, why should they?

  12. #42
    I don't understand how generations of peoples that challenged monarchy rule, and fought revolutionary wars, even civil wars or world wars, and made new democracies.....can't find a way for a Palestinian state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •