It's been more than five years since you asked me why I was in the USA... it seems I have failed to answer the question satisfactorily, or perhaps there is no valid answer. But I shall try again with a different tack, in somewhat random order of relevant points:
That X was born in the USA does not give him/her any reason beyond inertia on why he/she is still in the USA (X in many cases is aware of alternatives that, by his/her own standards, are better than the USA).
So the question that matters is why here in the first place? The native born has an easy out here: couldn't help it. I was born here. What's your excuse?
The immigrant/expat I guess could answer: well one day I was walking around and this nice shiny plane was standing around and I figured what the hey and there I was in the USA. And perhaps that should be the only answer needed. Or perhaps he or she can say: well the environment in which you find yourself natively born is a result of various forms of exploitation of the environment where I found myself similarly born, and I figured what the hey, why not try some reverse colonialism? That would be a bit flip too. Well perhaps one has to lay bare the various personal reasons one makes one's life choices, so that they can be evaluated and judged on whether they are mere weakness ("internal contradictions") or absolute necessity by objective leftist standards!
But if we have objective criteria or methods available, cannot what one says stand or fall on the basis of these? Does the gotcha of internal contradictions matter? I do not know on what basis Satrapi holds up Iranian life/existence as a valuable one, but her own choice to participate or not participate in it is mostly irrelevant (*) except in the flip: that we not assume that those who live on bark and berries live worse than us and are necessarily in need of emancipation.
--ravi
(*) for the parsimonious assumption is that it informs her analysis.