If I live in New Dehli my whole life, does that make me Indian? If I live in Tokyo, does that make me Japanese?

Zobel said:

---

If I live in New Dehli my whole life, does that make me Indian? If I live in Tokyo, does that make me Japanese?

---

Is this really a novel idea?

Yes, you'd literally be Japanese if you were born there, grew up there, and spent your whole life there. Just like you literally wouldn't be an American, because you'd never been here before. You would just be Japanese of whatever descent you are...and you'd probably know and practice a lot of their cultural norms or you wouldn't have been born and brought up there.

Being white doesn't determine your nationality.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

If I live in New Dehli my whole life, does that make me Indian? If I live in Tokyo, does that make me Japanese?

---

Is this really a novel idea?

Yes, you'd literally be Japanese if you were born there, grew up there, and spent your whole life there. Just like you literally wouldn't be an American, because you'd never been here before. You would just be Japanese of whatever descent you are...and you'd probably know and practice a lot of their cultural norms or you wouldn't have been born and brought up there.

Being white doesn't determine your nationality.

---

Yes. this is a novel idea to say the least.

No, I literally wouldn't be Japanese in any sense of the word. I would not be a Japanese citizen and I wouldn't be ethnically Japanese.

Japan doesn't offer birthright citizenship.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

If I live in New Dehli my whole life, does that make me Indian? If I live in Tokyo, does that make me Japanese?

---

Is this really a novel idea?

Yes, you'd literally be Japanese if you were born there, grew up there, and spent your whole life there. Just like you literally wouldn't be an American, because you'd never been here before. You would just be Japanese of whatever descent you are...and you'd probably know and practice a lot of their cultural norms or you wouldn't have been born and brought up there.

Being white doesn't determine your nationality.

---

Where to Jews have to be born to be Jewish?

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Do you have anything about it being a thing? Because the only milk tradition I know about is people drinking it at the Indy 500.

But it doesn't matter. There's a post above yours saying one of the guys lived in Austin his whole life, but since his name doesn't sound like yours, you're assuming you know everything about him and that it's bad because it isn't identical to you.

This isn't a discussion, it's just "forwarded email/X follow" uncles sounding off on whoever they don't like.

---

Yeah it's called paal abhishekam, a Hindu ritual where liquid is poured over statues of Hindu gods. It has carried over to cricket and pop culture in India. Here we drink the milk like normal, civilized humans.

It does matter because it shows they aren't assimilating, as you asserted. Even if it weren't a thing in India, it isn't a thing here. It's disgusting and unsanitary at best, and it's heretical non-assimilation at worst.

Nice racist uncle card. Outdated idiom.

Zobel said:

---

No, I literally wouldn't be Japanese in any sense of the word. I would not be a Japanese citizen and I wouldn't be ethnically Japanese.

Japan doesn't offer birthright citizenship.

---

It's so funny how little the normies actually know about anything.

Zobel said:

---

No, I literally wouldn't be Japanese in any sense of the word. I would not be a Japanese citizen and I wouldn't be ethnically Japanese.

Japan doesn't offer birthright citizenship.

---

I don't know Japan's rules. But if you're white and born in another country, you aren't immediately American. In your hypothetical, I assumed you were being born there because your parents were citizens. I'm not even advocating for birthright citizenship, but the kids in the photo have claimed they were born here to citizen parents.

Where do Christians have to be born to be Christian?

Quote:

---

It does matter because it shows they aren't assimilating, as you asserted. Even if it weren't a thing in India, it isn't a thing here. It's disgusting and unsanitary at best, and it's heretical non-assimilation at worst.

---

Yes, and the beer being thrown behind them is to clean up before everyone goes home.

Like I said...this isn't a discussion. We have, allegedly, US citizens watching a football game and having a good time and it's just an excuse for some people to make ignorant assertions about anyone who doesn't look like them.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Do you have anything about it being a thing? Because the only milk tradition I know about is people drinking it at the Indy 500.

But it doesn't matter. There's a post above yours saying one of the guys lived in Austin his whole life, but since his name doesn't sound like yours, you're assuming you know everything about him and that it's bad because it isn't identical to you.

This isn't a discussion, it's just "forwarded email/X follow" uncles sounding off on whoever they don't like.

---

I know Josh Pate and a lot of other sports pundits had a ritual of hoisting up bottles of Muscle Milk in between hot takes, but I'm not sure it was a religious ritual.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No, I literally wouldn't be Japanese in any sense of the word. I would not be a Japanese citizen and I wouldn't be ethnically Japanese.

Japan doesn't offer birthright citizenship.

---

I don't know Japan's rules. But if you're white and born in another country, you aren't immediately American. In your hypothetical, I assumed you were being born there because your parents were citizens. I'm not even advocating for birthright citizenship, but the kids in the photo have claimed they were born here.

---

Wait hold on. If my parents are citizens?

How do you know if those kids parents are citizens?

I'd be totally down with parents have to be citizens for child to be citizens.

If I go to Germany, as an American citizen, you're telling me my kids born there aren't Americans??

Zobel said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No, I literally wouldn't be Japanese in any sense of the word. I would not be a Japanese citizen and I wouldn't be ethnically Japanese.

Japan doesn't offer birthright citizenship.

---

I don't know Japan's rules. But if you're white and born in another country, you aren't immediately American. In your hypothetical, I assumed you were being born there because your parents were citizens. I'm not even advocating for birthright citizenship, but the kids in the photo have claimed they were born here.

Wait hold on. If my parents are citizens?

---

How do you know if those kids parents are citizens?

I'd be totally down with parents have to be citizens for child to be citizens.

If I go to Germany, as an American citizen, you're telling me my kids born there aren't Americans??

---

Because one of them told the DMN that he was. It's more evidence than the assumptions people jumped to based on a photograph.

Being a citizen while they're born there is a different discussion. If they immigrated to another country, say Australia, and became Australian citizens....and then their kids were born there, raised there, and had never been to America...no, their kids aren't Americans and no one would consider them one. They would be Australians.

It's confusing to me that anyone would think otherwise. Just as confusing as it would probably be to anyone born in the US to US citizen parents being told they had to go back to their ancestral homeland because someone noticed they had a funny sounding name.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Quote:

---

It does matter because it shows they aren't assimilating, as you asserted. Even if it weren't a thing in India, it isn't a thing here. It's disgusting and unsanitary at best, and it's heretical non-assimilation at worst.

---

Yes, and the beer being thrown behind them is to clean up before everyone goes home.

Like I said...this isn't a discussion. We have, allegedly, US citizens watching a football game and having a good time and it's just an excuse for some people to make ignorant assertions about anyone who doesn't look like them.

---

Obviously the problem with the picture isn't specifically with any one of those kids, I'm sure they are all fine people.

But the picture does show that America is becoming less American. It's a sad symbol that America is not for Americans anymore. It is for Indians and other third worlders with whom we have very little in common. It has created a low trust, multi-cultural (yes, I'm using this with a negative context because it is inherently bad), society.

I think you should just bow out of this discussion because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

In your example, the child born to US nationals who immigrated to Australia are absolutely American citizens, provided the US national spent at least 5 years in the US and at least 2 after age 14 before the kid was born.

Would it be a bad thing if they had to go back to their ancestral homeland? Why or why not?

Zobel said:

---

I think you should just bow out of this discussion because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

In your example, the child born to US nationals who immigrated to Australia are absolutely American citizens, provided the US national spent at least 5 years in the US and at least 2 after age 14 before the kid was born.

---

I can't know all of the unwritten rules of your hypothetical situation. You had to add multiple caveats. Bonus unwritten in my hypothetical, the US national is of Indian descent and spent 5 years in the US and at least 2 years after age 14 before the kid was born. Is his Indian kid born and raised in Australia clearly American now too?

The literal situation is we have a kid of Indian descent saying he was born here to US citizen parents. You really don't think he's an American?

Zobel said:

---

I think you should just bow out of this discussion because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

In your example, the child born to US nationals who immigrated to Australia are absolutely American citizens, provided the US national spent at least 5 years in the US and at least 2 after age 14 before the kid was born.

---

Seriously. Dude has consistently shown he doesn't even know that much then act confused about how anybody could believe anything different than him.

Also, DMN article doesn't say they are children of citizens.

Quote:

---

While Gupta and Kodali are of South Asian descent, both said they are U.S. citizens. Gupta is an immigrant from India who moved to the U.S. when he was about 5 years old and gained citizenship in his childhood, he said. Kodali, his friend, was born in Syracuse, New York. His family moved to the Dallas area when he was a toddler. He graduated from Flower Mound High School in Denton County and receives in-state tuition.

---

One naturalized, one by birth to immigrants.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I think you should just bow out of this discussion because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

In your example, the child born to US nationals who immigrated to Australia are absolutely American citizens, provided the US national spent at least 5 years in the US and at least 2 after age 14 before the kid was born.

---

I can't know all of the unwritten rules of your hypothetical situation. You had to add multiple caveats.

The literal situation is we have a kid of Indian descent saying he was born here to US citizen parents. You really don't think he's an American?

---

Correct. He's Indian, as you said in your own post. I'm confused how you're confused.

It was your hypothetical

Zobel said:

---

Also, DMN article doesn't say they are children of citizens.

Quote:

---

While Gupta and Kodali are of South Asian descent, both said they are U.S. citizens. Gupta is an immigrant from India who moved to the U.S. when he was about 5 years old and gained citizenship in his childhood, he said. Kodali, his friend, was born in Syracuse, New York. His family moved to the Dallas area when he was a toddler. He graduated from Flower Mound High School in Denton County and receives in-state tuition.

---

One naturalized, one by birth to immigrants.

---

And killshot.

Zobel said:

---

It was your hypothetical

---

Bonus unwritten in my hypothetical, the US national is of Indian descent and spent 5 years in the US and at least 2 years after age 14 before the kid was born. Is his Indian kid born and raised in Australia clearly American now too?

No. He's an Indian kid with American citizenship.

You can tell because you said "his Indian kid".

Also just for clarity, if I move to India and have a child, that child is not an Indian citizen unless the one parent is Indian. If I illegally go to India, the child isn't a citizen no matter what.

So, again, in NO WAY if I move to India with my wife would my children be Indian.

Vessel said:

---

Would it be a bad thing if they had to go back to their ancestral homeland? Why or why not?

---

Yes, because they're literally US citizens and they haven't spent any or little time in whatever country that is.

Do you think non-white people (or non-whatever) should have to go back to their ancestral homeland? How do you determine who gets to stay?

Zobel said:

---

No. He's an Indian kid with American citizenship.

You can tell because you said "his Indian kid".

---

Yeah, you're intentionally obfuscating race with citizenship. Americans don't have to be white.

Quote:

---

If I illegally go to India, the child isn't a citizen no matter what

---

I am not in support of illegal immigration. See earlier posts. We don't have evidence the kids in the photo are illegal immigrants, or even that their parents are.

If you think American = white (or non-Indian descent) , then we're at a disagreement.

Why did you ignore out that if I *legally* immigrate to India, my children aren't Indian? In other words, regardless of my status my kids cannot be Indian, unless I 1) legally immigrate and 2) marry an Indian.

I'm not the one obfuscating race and citizenship. YOU are.

Zobel said:

---

Why did you ignore out that if I *legally* immigrate to India, my children aren't Indian? In other words, regardless of my status my kids cannot be Indian, unless I 1) legally immigrate and 2) marry an Indian.

I'm not the one obfuscating race and citizenship. YOU are.

---

I admit I don't know about the immigration laws of every country. But I wouldn't consider anyone to be American just because they were a white person living somewhere else who's never been here, just like I wouldn't assume a non-white person couldn't be American because of where their parents were born.

Can you answer this question?

Do you think American = white (or non-Indian descent)? Is it literally impossible for the kids in that photo to be Americans? Because if you think that, we just don't agree.

Thank you, Bo French, for bringing it up.

John Cornyn is a likely a crook.

🚨 OMG. A MASSIVE India H-1B visa fraud ring has just been busted...nearly 90% PERCENT of India's visa applications contain FRAUDULENT INFORMATION

100,000 THOUSAND counterfeit certificates have been seized 🤯

"Law enforcement in India claim it has uncovered a network of… pic.twitter.com/977hVrtAlQ

— War Correspondent (@warDaniel47) September 15, 2026

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Vessel said:

---

Would it be a bad thing if they had to go back to their ancestral homeland? Why or why not?

---

Yes, because they're literally US citizens and they haven't spent any or little time in whatever country that is.

Do you think non-white people (or non-whatever) should have to go back to their ancestral homeland? How do you determine who gets to stay?

---

Not all. But for the people who have arrived here in the past 50ish years? Yeah, the vast majority of them should be forced to go back.

And to answer your obvious rebuttal, I understand there are some citizens here. So I'll say those can stay, but anybody who we haven't foolishly conferred citizenship should be forced to go back. If you are a citizen who has a legal migrant parent who is forced to go back then you should do the morally correct thing and return with your parents.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Do you think American = white (or non-Indian descent)?

---

Generally yes. There are obviously black people and Hispanics who have been here forever who I would consider American, though still different from European Americans.

Quote:

---

Is it literally impossible for the kids in that photo to be Americans? Because if you think that, we just don't agree.

---

Yes. You can tell by everything about them that they are Indian.

It kind of seems like you don't understand the immigration laws of any country.

I think the term "American" is poorly defined.

"American" can accurately describe an ethnicity, much as Indian, Jewish, German, Russian can. As Teddy Roosevelt put it:

Quote:

---

Moreover, it is well always to remember that at the day when we began our career as a nation we already differed from our kinsmen of Britain in blood as well as in name; the word American already had more than a merely geographical signification. Americans belong to the English race only in the sense in which Englishmen belong to the German. The fact that no change of language has accompanied the second wandering of our people, from Britain to America, as it accompanied their first, from Germany to Britain, is due to the further fact that when the second wandering took place the race possessed a fixed literary language, and, thanks to the ease of communication, was kept in touch with the parent stock. The change of blood was probably as great in one case as in the other. The modern Englishman is descended from a Low-Dutch stock, which, when it went to Britain, received into itself an enormous infusion of Celtic, a much smaller infusion of Norse and Danish, and also a certain infusion of Norman-French blood. When this new English stock came to America it mingled with and absorbed into itself immigrants from many European lands, and the process has gone on ever since. It is to be noted that, of the new blood thus acquired, the greatest proportion has come from Dutch and German sources, and the next greatest from Irish, while the Scandinavian element comes third, and the only other of much consequence is French Huguenot. Thus it appears that no new element of importance has been added to the blood. Additions have been made to the elemental race-strains in much the same proportion as these were originally combined.

Some latter-day writers deplore the enormous immigration to our shores as making us a heterogeneous instead of a homogeneous people; but as a matter of fact we are less heterogeneous at the present day than we were at the outbreak of the Revolution. Our blood was as much mixed a century ago as it is now. No State now has a smaller proportion of English blood than New York or Pennsylvania had in 1775. Even in New England, where the English stock was purest, there was a certain French and Irish mixture; in Virginia there were Germans in addition. In the other colonies, taken as a whole, it is not probable that much over half of the blood was English; Dutch, French, German, and Gaelic communities abounded.

But all were being rapidly fused into one people. As the Celt of Cornwall and the Saxon of Wessex are now alike Englishmen, so in 1775 Hollander and Huguenot, whether in New York or South Carolina, had become Americans, undistinguishable from the New Englanders and Virginians, the descendants of the men who followed Cromwell or charged behind Rupert. When the great western movement began we were already a people by ourselves. Moreover, the immense immigration from Europe that has taken place since, had little or no effect on the way in which we extended our boundaries; it only began to be important about the time that we acquired our present limits. These limits would in all probability be what they now are even if we had not received a single European colonist since the Revolution.

Thus the Americans began their work of western conquest as a separate and individual people.

---

And American is now used of anyone who has US Citizenship.

From the founding of the country until 1965, with few exceptions, these two terms were synonymous. Like Roosevelt notes, the homogeneity of the country was unchanged until his day, and largely stayed that way.

This story has been so confused by modern globalist antihistorical people that we've forgotten. It was within the baby boomer's lifetime that this was radically changed.

So, no. Americans are NOT anyone who was born here. Before 1965 Americans were considered a separate distinct people group.

Quote:

---

Yes. You can tell by everything about them that they are Indian.

---

...or maybe Pakistani, or Sri Lankan or anything else. My issue is that I don't believe you can know everything about them based on a photo.

So that's where we'll just have to disagree. Anecdotal, but the Indian people I know, as mentioned, are the children of successful doctors/professors who legally immigrated, and who have spent less than a month (or zero) of their life in India and have no loyalties to the geographic location. They'd consider themselves Americans, and I'd agree with them. They're moving on to their 3rd generation in the country, and their kids look like some of those kids.

Quote:

---

Before 1965 Americans were considered a separate distinct people group.

---

It's 2026

Quote:

---

So, no. Americans are NOT anyone who was born here

---

Didn't say they were.

For you Christian nationalists, who say that America is only for Christians (which is dumb and evil)....did you know that there is a long-lived population of Indian Christians in India? That's why many have Christian names.

Now you know.