Should foreign-born citizens be able to run for president? (aol poll)

[HawkerHurricane]

Should foreign-born citizens be able to run for president?
No, only born citizens should be allowed 60%
Only with 20 years of citizenship 28%
Sure, why not? 12%

Would you support Schwarzenegger in a bid for the White House?
No 65%
Yes 19%
Maybe 15%

Total Votes: 174,667

[HEyHEY]

1. The very idea that they shouldn't negates the American dream

I think anyway.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Horseshit.

[HEyHEY]

5. Thanks for that insightful opinion

I never realized not being born in the USA made you somehow inferior...thanks for clearing that up.

[kalian]

9. That's classical Jimmy reply...

come on down to the I/P dungeon for a dose...

[HEyHEY]

11. Ah

The man is quite verbose. I can learn much from him.

Jimmy: what manner of feces is the idea of the United Nations?

[Jim Sagle]

13. The idea RAWWWWKS!!! The realization SUXXXXX!!!!

[Jim Sagle]

14. It's about affinity, not inferiority. Who among us would argue that

Arnold is really American, or that he understands or appreciates our values?

[HEyHEY]

15. That's the problem with the USA

You worry too much about your "Values" If someone is smart enough to run the show - let them run it. Besides he's been in the US long enough to know what the values of the USA are. And if the people don't like where he stands on such things - they won't vote him in.

[Jim Sagle]

23. In his run for governor, Arnold said corporations were not a

special interest. So no, he hasn't absorbed our values - he's still a fascist.

[HEyHEY]

24. SO we're basing national policy on the guy who played "The Terminator"

ah,

Also, half of your country is right wing...he just doesn't reflect YOUR personal values.

[Jim Sagle]

25. And on the bozos who voted for him.

[HEyHEY]

26. I'm here to PUMP YOU (full of shit)

Should have been his campaign slogan

[iverglas]

27. interesting ethnocentrism

Who among us would argue that
Arnold is really American, or that he understands or appreciates our values?

Kinda begs the question though, don't it?

Who is "us", and what values are "ours"? That kinda seems like the whole point of the thing, to me. Is this "us" only the native-born "us", and is there a set of values universally shared by that native-born "us" that remains a puzzlement to the non-native born, or that the non-native-born reject? And can it be determined simply by looking at a birth certificate whether someone understands or shares those values?

Of course, speaking as not-one-of-"us", not even naturalized, I ask this in a hypothetical voice -- but of course the question applies to any "us".

I quite understand that at the time the US Constitution was written, all those loooooong years and decades and centuries ago, the concern for the independence of the US from outside intervention was rather foremost in the founders' & framers' minds, and this provision undoubedly seemed reasonable.

In a pluralist, liberal democracy, it's an anachronism, and anybody I know anywhere else would find it enormously offensive. Certainly all decent Canadians would.

It's one of those things where a constitution is internally contradictory. It contains both a guarantee of equal protection and a built-in denial of it.

Kinda like a constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage would be ... kinda like the tacit permission of slavery, or the tacit denial of the vote to women, was.

The world really is a different place from what it was all those looooong years and decades and centuries ago. Nobody's looking to become the agent-of-a-foreign power monarch of the US these days, really. And most people do have at least some dim notion of the equal dignity and worth of everyone.

Denying non-citizens the vote is a justifiable limitation on equality, since the people, collective noun, of the US does have a right to determine its own course, free of outside interference. But denying naturalized citizens the opportunity to seek the office of president, in this modern world of ours, is just a throwback to no longer meaningful considerations and no longer tolerable prejudices.

But hey, that's just my opinion, and I'm not suggesting that it counts for anything.

.

[DrBB]

114. At the very least, it's nice to see "begs the question" used correctly

So sick of seeing it used as a synonym for "raises the question."

[JohnLocke]

70. I beg to differ on this one, Jim. (nt)

[x-g.o.p.er]

72. Arnold notwithstanding...not only no, but hell no

[Loonman]

17. Okay, I'll go run for Canadian MP

:evilgrin:

[HEyHEY]

22. You'd welcome to here

We've had many PM's born elswhere.

[Art_from_Ark]

79. You've had three foreign-born PMs

Your first two PMs, John MacDonald and Alexander MacKenzie, and Mackenzie Bowell, all of whom served in the 19th century. None of these men really count as "foreign born", however, because they were all born in the mother country and immigrated to Canada before confederation.

By the way, Mackenzie Bowell, your last "foreign born" PM, has the dubious distinction of being Canada's only PM to be forced out of office by his own Cabinet.

[iverglas]

82. and?

Very nearly 20% of the Canadian population -- 1 in 5 Canadians -- are "foreign-born". (That's a little more than double the proportion of the US population.) The House of Commons and provincial legislature are littered with people born outside the country, including federal Cabinet ministers.

The very idea of denying 1 in 5 Canadians the right and ability to become Prime Minister is simply bizarre.

From February 2000: http://vancouver.cbc.ca/leadership/main.html

Ujjal Dosanjh is the new premier of British Columbia, and the first Indo-Canadian premier in Canadian history. He won the NDP leadership, defeating Corky Evans 769-549 on the only ballot at the NDP convention in Vancouver on February 20.

http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/ilac/Profiles/agofbc.htm

Ujjal Dosanjh was born and raised in India. He emigrated to England at the age of 17 and, four years later, to Canada.

And can you believe it -- it wasn't an issue.

Rosemary Brown, a black woman who was a candidate for the federal leadership of the NDP in 1975, was the first woman and first person of colour to seek a party leadership:

http://www.protocol.gov.bc.ca/protocol/prgs/obc/1995/1995_RBrown.htm

Jamaican-born, Rosemary Brown was a social worker before becoming the first black woman elected to a Canadian legislature when she became a member of the B.C. Legislature in 1972.

And can you believe it -- her place of birth wasn't an issue.

Leaders of parties whose parties obtain a majority in the House of Commons or provincial legislature automatically become Prime Minister or Premier; in Dosanjh's case, his party already had a majority, and he automatically took over as Premier. Wouldn't you think somebody would've noticed where he was born??

By the way, Mackenzie Bowell, your last "foreign born" PM, has the dubious distinction of being Canada's only PM to be forced out of office by his own Cabinet.

Well obviously it took them that long to get around to asking for his birth certificate.


Now -- no one's noticed, but I'll mention it. There *is* a difference between a Cdn PM and a US president. The Cdn PM is head of government only; the US president is head of government *and* head of state. One more reason why those USAmerican founders & framers might have been understandably wary of a foreigner -- they had essentially created a monarchy by another name and didn't want a foreign monarch.

But the values and needs and circumstances of the modern world are a little different from what they were in the US in the 18th century. At least, outside the US they are.

.

[Art_from_Ark]

86. Whoops, forgot about John Turner

born in England and served all of 2 1/2 months as PM back in '84.

Your last two foreign-born PMs have sure done bang-up jobs, haven't they?

There seems to be an unwritten law in Canada-- if you want to reign long as PM, you've got to be from Ontario or Quebec. One would have to go back to 1935 to find someone (Bennett) who served more than a year as PM who wasn't from one of those two provinces.

[iverglas]

90. demagoguery

Your last two foreign-born PMs have sure done bang-up jobs, haven't they?

I'll bet you can name an African-American and a woman who have voted Republican all their lives.

I must assume that you therefore wish to deny African-Americans and women the vote.

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason that John Turner was such a wipe-out was that he was born in the UK??

Kim Campbell was born in Canada, and she was PM for just over 4 months. I'll bet she's living proof that women should not be permitted to run for office.

There seems to be an unwritten law in Canada-- if you want to reign long as PM, you've got to be from Ontario or Quebec.

Sure ... but it's Canadians who decide whether to elect Albertans PM (i.e. to elect a party with an Albertan leader, like PM Joe Clark) or not.

Why not let USAmericans decide whether to elect a foreign-born president or not? Don't trust 'em? Too easy for a foreign power to pull the wool over their silly eyes and get one of its agents elected president?

Bigotry, paranoia and complete lack of faith in one's fellow citizens, native-born or not, as what I see.

How Schwarzenegger could possibly be worse than Bush, I just don't know. Bush would appear to be living proof that native-born USAmericans should not be permitted to run for president.

.

[_Jumper_]

115. It wasn't an issue because Canadians believe in equal rights for ALL

Canada is very progessive...

[MUAD_DIB]

55. What did Napolean, Stalin and Hitler have in common?

[iverglas]

56. why do you ask?

Is the fact that Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler were not born in the nations they ruled relevant to whether anyone else should be prohibited from democratically seeking the office of president of the US?

Why would that be?

Because all naturalized citizens of any country are really thugs with no respect for the rule of law, bent on acquiring and exercising power for their own benefit and their own evil ends, and persecuting the citizens of their subjugated state?

No? Then what was your point?

I continue to be gobsmacked.

.

[MUAD_DIB]

59. Dead on. Thanks for answering.

They had nothing to lose did they?

It wasn't even their own country they were screwing so what the fu@k, right?

Because all naturalized citizens of any country are really thugs with no respect for the rule of law, bent on acquiring and exercising power for their own benefit and their own evil ends, and persecuting the citizens of their subjugated state?

Now that sounds like you have sumed up Ahh-nold rather nicely. Thanks for seeing my side!

[HEyHEY]

60. What do Pol Pot, Mugabe, and Saddam Hussien have in common?

They WERE born in the countries they screwed up...what an insignificant argument that was.

[MUAD_DIB]

68. So you're in favor of Ahh-nold having a chance at the presidency?

Now that is very curious indeed.

Since the founding fathers were much smarter than the average HeyHey or Muad Dib they added that caviot into the constitution to protect this country from the chances of an individual becoming President and being beholden to a foreign power.

Since those very weak examples that I provided were to illustrate that the three worst butchers in recent history were foreign born, and that they ravaged those very same countries that provided them power, maybe there is some wisdom in article two that you may have overlooked.

Now I am sure that there are other sections of the constitution that you view with distain and would like to aboilsh. Maybe the age of the presidency should be reduced to eighteen. Maybe states should be allowed to enter into a treaty with a foreign power.

I don't think that the constitution, or my argument, is insignificant, but I also don't believe that the case has been made for the repeal of parts of article two just to appease the political egos of Orin Hatch or some on this board.

Your thoughts?

But first answer me this: are you chomping at the bit for Ahh-nold to be the president?

I hope not.

[HEyHEY]

73. Way to twist an argument

So are you saying you'd rather have second class citizens in "The land of the free"?

If you are against changin un-just policy just to keep one guy out of the Whitehouse there's some serious problems down there.

[MUAD_DIB]

85. Way not to answer a question. Just try to answer it.

I have answered yours, and I'll answer again.

Immigrants who enter into this society have the option to, after time, become AMurkin citizens. That means that they can watch as much Joe Millionaire, FAUX News and pack their face with all sorts of life-reducing fastfoods and act like an a-hole as much as they want to.

They have the rights of virtually every other AMurkin. They can hold elected office, but not the presidency. This is what I think is called checks and balances. You may have heard of it. These checks and balances assure that if there was ever an unsavory situation with a particular individual that had foreign ties then that individual would be limited to elected office below that of the president.

I am curoius as to why you would be siding with the pubbies on this issue. I can gaurantee you that if there were several charismantic LibRuls, of foriegn bitrth, that could seriously challenge Ahhh-Nold that there would be nary a peep from neocons on this issue.

Our constitution shouldn't be considered some piece of paper that others think they can wipe thier asses on, when it serves them, then flush it into history. Reactionary politics has no business when it comes to the constitution.

Since your second class citizen-Land of the free argument has now become fairly weak I would like to remind you that we only have so many slots open for the POTUS, and only a handful have served since this country's inception. I find it laughable that you would consider somebody like Ahh-Nold a second class citizen.

Was it an unjust Canadian policy to keep the Provimce of Quebec from gaining it's independence? If they want to be unique then Canada has no right to tell them otherwise. That only makes them second class citizens. Right?

[iverglas]

89. demagoguery

I am curoius as to why you would be siding with the pubbies on this issue.

Gee, what are your feelings on apple pie? Perhaps you side with the Republicans on that one. May I ask you why? How about on the wisdom of swimming in the Atlantic during a hurricane? Are you a Republican on that one too?

Republicans, blind pigs, stopped clocks. You know -- occasionally right even if for the wrong reasons.

I'm curious why you would represent someone who looked at his/her functioning watch before telling you the time, when you noticed that the time s/he told you was exactly the same as the time shown by the stopped clock on the wall, as relying on stopped clocks to tell the time. I have to assume you would.

I can gaurantee you that if there were several charismantic LibRuls, of foriegn bitrth, that could seriously challenge Ahhh-Nold that there would be nary a peep from neocons on this issue.

And? If the Republicans jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?

Our constitution shouldn't be considered some piece of paper that others think they can wipe thier asses on, when it serves them, then flush it into history.

And individuals engaged in the discussion of serious issus should not portray other sincere individuals, honestly expressing opinions and speaking in good faith, as being engaged in the commission of disgusting acts.

Oh well, eh?

Reactionary politics has no business when it comes to the constitution.

And individuals engaged in such discussions who level accusations such as "reactionary politics" against those other sincere, honest individuals speaking in good faith really ought to do a better job of backing up their words with something resembling sincere, honest, good faith argument. That being a little different from demagogic appeals to emotion and prejudice, which is what a bald allegation of "reactionary politics" is in this situation.

I find it laughable that you would consider somebody like Ahh-Nold a second class citizen.

I find it lamentable that someone would pretend that a citizen who is denied one of the most significant perks of citizenship is anything but.

That's not to say that there might not be justification for such second-class status, just as there might be justification for any other limitation on anyone's rights. It's just to say that the only "justifications" I've seen offered in this thread amount to bigotry and paranoia and nothing more.

Was it an unjust Canadian policy to keep the Provimce of Quebec from gaining it's independence? If they want to be unique then Canada has no right to tell them otherwise. That only makes them second class citizens. Right?

Perhaps you'd just take your finger off the trigger and point that loaded question somewhere else for a moment.

Your premise is that a Canadian policy kept Quebec from gaining its independence. (We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that the point you raise has something to do with the issue at hand.)

Would you like to establish the truth of that premise, maybe?

Or you could just tell me when you stopped beating your dog.

Or learn something of what you're talking about:
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Reference re Secession of Quebec

.

[MUAD_DIB]

94. Thanks for (not)answering for HeyHey.

Gee, what are your feelings on apple pie? Perhaps you side with the Republicans on that one. May I ask you why? How about on the wisdom of swimming in the Atlantic during a hurricane? Are you a Republican on that one too?

Republicans, blind pigs, stopped clocks. You know -- occasionally right even if for the wrong reasons.

I'm curious why you would represent someone who looked at his/her functioning watch before telling you the time, when you noticed that the time s/he told you was exactly the same as the time shown by the stopped clock on the wall, as relying on stopped clocks to tell the time. I have to assume you would.

I will never side with the republicans on an isse sinceI have at least have learned that they cannot be trusted any longer. Maybe you think differently. You seem to ramble when you are angry. Thanks for not answering the question.

And? If the Republicans jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too?

See above post.


And individuals engaged in the discussion of serious issus should not portray other sincere individuals, honestly expressing opinions and speaking in good faith, as being engaged in the commission of disgusting acts.

Oh well, eh?

If you can't take the heat..., eh?

And individuals engaged in such discussions who level accusations such as "reactionary politics" against those other sincere, honest individuals speaking in good faith really ought to do a better job of backing up their words with something resembling sincere, honest, good faith argument. That being a little different from demagogic appeals to emotion and prejudice, which is what a bald allegation of "reactionary politics" is in this situation.

Did I hurt your feelings on that one? You should practice what you subscribe to others.

I find it lamentable that someone would pretend that a citizen who is denied one of the most significant perks of citizenship is anything but.
That's not to say that there might not be justification for such second-class status, just as there might be justification for any other limitation on anyone's rights. It's just to say that the only "justifications" I've seen offered in this thread amount to bigotry and paranoia and nothing more.

I find your argument as weak as your attempted ridicule. Your broken-record justification for the reppeal of Article II is that anybody that dissagrees with you is a paraniod biggot. I would also comment that by siding with the republicans claiming as you do that they are ..."occasionally right even if for the wrong reasons"... suggests that you either don't fully understand their reasons/intent or could care less. So was the constitution, in your opinion, written by paraniod biggots then?

I am certain that Iverson and HeyHey would do an infinately better job at our constitution if the reast of us would just shut up.

Perhaps you'd just take your finger off the trigger and point that loaded question somewhere else for a moment.
Your premise is that a Canadian policy kept Quebec from gaining its independence. (We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that the point you raise has something to do with the issue at hand.)
Would you like to establish the truth of that premise, maybe?
Or you could just tell me when you stopped beating your dog.

Or learn something of what you're talking about:


Nice cut and paste. I hope you didn't hurt your wrist doing it. Did I hit a nerve? I only ask because that you seem overly protective of HeyHey.

Just curious.

[iverglas]

95. curious indeed

The name, by the way, is iverglas. Iverson is a fine fellow with whom I am generally not displeased to be confused, but I am not he, and he is not I. And I was here first. ;)

And individuals engaged in such discussions who level accusations such as "reactionary politics" against those other sincere, honest individuals speaking in good faith really ought to do a better job of backing up their words with something resembling sincere, honest, good faith argument. That being a little different from demagogic appeals to emotion and prejudice, which is what a bald allegation of "reactionary politics" is in this situation.

Did I hurt your feelings on that one? You should practice what you subscribe to others.

That word is "ascribe".

Hurt my feelings? Are my feelings hurt by irrational expressions of prejudice? Well, a normal human being's are. That's how we got those notions of "human rights" we have; the capacity for empathy, as well as self-interest.

You should practise what I preach, methinks, which is of course what I said: offering rational, sincere, honest, good faith argument for your position. Characterizing others as engaged in disgusting acts, as being in cahoots with Republicans, as having reactionary politics, without addressing their arguments or offering any of your own, doesn't quite make it.

I find your argument as weak as your attempted ridicule. Your broken-record justification for the reppeal of Article II is that anybody that dissagrees with you is a paraniod biggot.

That word is "bigot", although yes, it does kinda rhyme with "maggot".

I haven't been attempting ridicule. I have been offering argument that you have consistently and persistently declined to address, preferring instead to offer straw people, appeals to emotion and prejudice, and assorted other demagoguery.

My conclusion from the "arguments" I have seen against permitting foreign-born US citizens to run for the office of president is that those arguments are all based on prejudice and/or paranoia. If you could identify one that you claim is not, feel free. I would of course advise you again, in advance, that "Napoleon was a foreign-born citizen of France" ain't one.

Perhaps you'd just take your finger off the trigger and point that loaded question somewhere else for a moment. Your premise is that a Canadian policy kept Quebec from gaining its independence. (We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that the point you raise has something to do with the issue at hand.)
Would you like to establish the truth of that premise, maybe?
Or you could just tell me when you stopped beating your dog.
Or learn something of what you're talking about:

Nice cut and paste. I hope you didn't hurt your wrist doing it.

You're actually alleging that I plagiarized that passage from somewhere?? I do admit -- I cut and pasted the url for the Reference re Quebec Secession that followed that passage, and for which link I defined a name. And your point would be?

Did I hit a nerve? I only ask because that you seem overly protective of HeyHey.

I'm at a loss to see how my alleged behaviour is a "reason" for you to ask that question. I actually don't pay a lot of attention to the name of the person to whom comments to which I wish to respond are addressed. And in point of fact, while I'm 100% with HEyHEY on this one and we apparently both stand open-mouthed at what we see in this thread, he and I have rather large differences of opinion about political issues and I'm not always particularly nice to him here at DU. He's a dirty rotten Liberal, after all, and I sure as hell am not.

Overall, this thread is a nice illustration of the fundamental differences between Canadians and USAmericans that underlie the obvious differences on specific issues.

Many USAmericans admire some or all of our expansion of marriage rights to same-sex couples, our abolition of capital punishment, our tolerant attitudes toward marijuana use and various other behaviours, our more rational and humane approach to punishment of criminals, our more humanistic foreign policy, our commitment to universal access to health care.

What many USAmericans fail to get is that all those phenomena are effects of a fundamental commitment to equality and diversity, not just freaks of nature or coincidences of history. That the whole thing comes as a package -- and that principles, not persons, are at the bottom of it. We start from the principle, the most fundamental one being the equal worth and dignity of human beings, and tailor our actions accordingly, equal rights being the principal consequence of that fundamental belief in the equal worth and dignity of everyone.

When that is the fundamental principle, any deviation from it, in action, must be justified. Prejudice and paranoia are most specifically *not* justifications for denials of equal rights. A demonstration of a genuine and important public interest that requires protection and can be protected only at the expense of the least possible infringement of rights *may be* justification.

Those in the know actually know that the same basic principle applies in the US when it comes to justifying infringements of constitutional rights. Of course, the US Constitution can't be argued against a provision of the US Constitution itself -- but the principles embodied in constitutional guarantees like "equal protection" and "due process" certainly can be.

The US Supreme Court would cover its ears if someone argued "Austrians tend to be fascists" as justification for not employing an Austrian. Well, I take the same position on "foreign-born citizens tend to be fascist dictators". Offer rational argument rather than prejudice or paranoia, and I'd be all ears.

.

[MUAD_DIB]

98. I am neither, as you would infer, paraniod or prejudiced. I am a realist.

What I offered to you, and HeyHey, was fact. The three worst despots in recent Euro-Russian history were not even members of the country that they ruled from and later either destroyed or severely damaged.

If you wanted to have a real conversation on the issue of Article II you would, but you just can't stop with accusing others of being prejudiced.

Canada may be right on many issues that you mentioned from healthcare, drugs ect., but I believe that you are dead wrong on this.

On ridicule. You say you haven't used it, but all indications are that you do. Please be honest there. I used it on you when it appeared you were doing it to others. Please don't make me have to call you on it.

You can say that you haven't. You can correct their syntax (which is always a good indication of contempt) without checking your own (I don't play those kind of games) as you continue to side with the right wing of this country.
You claim that what you are presenting superior morals, but you are the kind of fool that the right wing loves. You would argue away a check and balance on principal, during a time of high partisan activism, so they could have their man; whether it is Arnold S. or somebody else. Either way the republicans are not doing this out of some sense of public service. If you beleive they are then you are a bigger fool then your postings have revealed. Do you really believe that Orin Hatch is doing this to better our society? Please...

Post away if you like...as you will, but I have to go to work.

Maybe we'll play later.


I will make one correction. I got your name wrong. There was no intent to insult there.

[iverglas]

100. it's always entertaining

to be called a fool by a demagogue.

Either way the republicans are not doing this out of some sense of public service.

And I don't give the slightest pinch of a shit WHY Republicans are doing anything.

I do what I do for the reasons that *I* find persuasive, and that I have absolutely no difficulty laying out, and that no one has yet succeeded in honestly characterizing as in any way similar to the reasons Republicans may have for anything they do.

I mean, unless Republicans have come all over egalitarian all of a sudden while I wasn't looking. But if indeed Republicans are proposing this change based on the principle of equal rights, then yay them. And just maybe their argument could be sent back to bite them in respect of some other equal-rights issue in the near future.

Canada may be right on many issues that you mentioned from healthcare, drugs ect., but I believe that you are dead wrong on this.

So I gather. And I'll be listening whenever you offer some basis for that belief other than these attempts to paint me as a closet Republican without any basis whatsoever.

Like I said, me and the Republicans probably agree that apple pie is a very fine thing. That just doesn't make me a Republican. If you don't believe me, ask one of them.

You claim that what you are presenting superior morals ...

Really?? I wonder whether you could quote me. I don't happen to have "morals", myself, so it would be hard for me to present any, superior or otherwise.

I do claim that my position is based on principles that are universally accepted among rights-loving people, of course.

You would argue away a check and balance on principal, during a time of high partisan activism, so they could have their man; whether it is Arnold S. or somebody else.

Yuppers, I guess I would. I'd argue it away -- but of course I WOULD NOT do so "so they could have their man", as you perfectly well know.

And except that what I'd be doing is arguing away an intolerable bit of equal-rights denial, not a "check and balance", and taking the good effects of equal rights with the bad. Which -- goodness and badness -- always lie in the eye of the beholder, anyhow. That's why we tend to just insist on equal rights and not let people's personal prejudices about who deserves 'em, or fantastical notions about what will happen once they get 'em, get in the way.

Seems to me that if Schwarzenegger were elected president of the US, there'd be a whole lot more proximate causes than the removal of the constitutional bar -- like the oinking self-interest, or lamentable ignorance, of the people who voted for him. But hey, most of them would be native-born USAmericans. And I still think that they might be your real problem here.

.

[MUAD_DIB]

101. I'm done arguing with your broken-record demagoguery.

See. I can use that word as well, and it fits just as easily.

But seriously, I am not going to argue my position with you any longer.

Say what you want. I have wasted far too much time reading your BS.

Eh.

[HEyHEY]

92. We gave Quebec a vote - if you remember

You know - a vote...which is a hell of a lot more than what happened last time a few states wanted to leave your nation.

I answered your question...you wanna say I'm siding with pubbies...fine I guess I am. It's too bad they are the ones who are right on this argument. You want to deny rights to all because of one man..... Doesn't that seem a little more facist to you?

I have a feeling if a left winger not of US birth was running - you'd be singing a different tune.

If you truly believed in equality and justice you wouldn't be against it just because one guy might be elected.

[MUAD_DIB]

96. Is your argumet now going to be based on

sympathizing with the confederate succession and ensuing civil war is this country?

I answered your question...you wanna say I'm siding with pubbies...fine I guess I am. It's too bad they are the ones who are right on this argument. You want to deny rights to all because of one man..... Doesn't that seem a little more facist to you?

This is not about one man, or one party's attempt to subvert the vote, again, to their will. This is about an ideal. The architects of this country had a quality and wisdom that will never be matched by todays politicians: they are far too partisan. The founders saw fit to add in checks and balances to the constitution to prevent tampering by foriegn powers or by subversive majorities. We now have one (subversive majorities: the corporate/republicans who you are siding with) who have a locked-down control over the political process on all three branches of government. Think about that for a moment. They can ramrod any legislation through that they see fit regarless of its quality or effect on the electorate.

These same politicos will do anything to take power. Tax cuts, the dismembering of Social Security and Mediacre, endless warfare on terror and a shifting of the wealth in this country are just a few of the tricks that they are using here to destroy what we have left of a decent society. But wait there's more. The same folks that you would side with on this issue also want to add a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If they had their way they would probably like to include a constitutional amendment outlawing all gay and lesbian activity. Are you going to side with them?

My point is that this constitution should not be lightly viewed or altered based upon whim, partisanship or political superiority. It is a social contract that has kept this country going, more or less, for the last 200+ years, and the idea that it is somewhat facist, all of a sudden, because you think everybody is against Arnold S. is somewhat insulting. The motive of or for facissm, I think, lies with the group that is actively seeking the constitutions alteration so that they can stack the deck in their favor to subvert another election cycle. What they can't gain legally they will gain by changing the rules to their favor.

Incidentally, fasccism is known by another term: corporatism.


I have a feeling if a left winger not of US birth was running - you'd be singing a different tune.

You don't know how wrong you are with that statement. Do you think that we are all without morals down here?

[HEyHEY]

105. Until this thread started I thought you all had them

But clearly giving true equal treatment to all Citizens is not a moral priority.

We should stop carrying on, I can see we won't agree ;-)

[Art_from_Ark]

80. So, how many foreign-born leaders can you name

who have been worth a cuss in their adopted country?

And I'm not talking about two of the three Canadian PMs I mentioned above, either.

[iverglas]

83. I'm hearing echos

So, how many foreign-born leaders can you name
who have been worth a cuss in their adopted country

Do you folks REALLY not hear how like USAmerican racists from 40 or 50 years ago you sound?

Or how like the pack baying after that African-American newspaper intern? Or after any woman who ever screwed up on the job?

There, ya see -- look what s/he did. Obviously, <insert the stereotyped group of your choice> just can't be trusted to do the job.

.

[Art_from_Ark]

87. Excuse me, but what do my comments have to do with an intern?

You're throwing in a completely irrelevant straw man. I asked a simple question-- how many people can you name who have immigrated to another country and done an outstanding job as leader of their adopted country?

[iverglas]

91. owning the implications of your own words

If you wish to judge "foreign-born heads of state and government" on the basis of two or three or a dozen lousy examples, then I must insist that you admit that you would judge people of colour applying for jobs as newspaper interns on the basis of the well-known lousy example.

The fact that foreign-born citizens of any country have been few and far between until the last century or two, as have people of colour working as newspaper interns in the US, might be just one reason why it would be a tad unwise to be judging an entire group on the basis of a few examples.

I asked a simple question-- how many people can you name who have immigrated to another country and done an outstanding job as leader of their adopted country?

And I have repeatedly and in as many ways as I can think of asked you: what the fuck does that have to do with the issue of denying someone the full rights of citizenship based on country of birth?

The straw fella, my friend, is entirely on your side of the discussion.

Your attempts to demonstrate that it is unwise to allow foreign-born citizens to seek to become the head of state in a democracy by citing a few notorious examples of bad apples is about the worst form of demagoguery. It is EXACTLY THE SAME as the attempts by racists in the US south in the 50s and 60s to show that it is unwise to allow African-Americans to have the same educational and employment opportunties as whites by pointing to individuals who fit the stereotype of an incompetent African-American, and attempts by any bigot to deny anyone rights by pointing to the stereotype of whatever group they are seeking to exclude from full participation.

Your examples of foreign-born tyrants are complete and utter straw persons in a discussion of whether certain citizens of a democracy should be prohibited from competing for the position of president in an open and transparent and fair electoral process.

And hey ... if you don't have an open and transparent and fair electoral process, is that the fault of the foreign-born citizens in question? Methinks not. Cleaning up the back yard before blaming someone else for the hypothetical future mess in the front yard might be wise.

.

.

[Art_from_Ark]

106. Strawman argument

You are equating support for the Constitutional qualifications for President with racism and that is a fallacious argument at best. I never said I did not want a Native American, or black, or hispanic, or other American of non-European ethnic origin as President. What I am against is capriciously changing the Constitution just because some members of the radical right want to instill a Hitler-admiring, unabashed sexist as their next marionnette in the White House.

You seem to think that there is some sort of untapped well of talent outside the borders of your country that could somehow do a smashup job in the PM's office-- yet when I cited the last two examples of foreign-born prime ministers in Canada and their dismal performance, you became defensive and resulted to name-calling and extraneous arguments. Did their foreign roots have anything to do with their performance? Who knows? Perhaps we should go back into the archives and find out what would make Bowell's own Cabinet boot him out, eh? As for Turner, to hear some of my students and professors at UBC tell it, he wasn't "Canadian enough".

[iverglas]

107. my gaaaawwwwd

Have you never encountered the concept of an ANALOGY??

You are equating support for the Constitutional qualifications for President with racism and that is a fallacious argument at best.

Yuppers -- I am. I am equating

(a) support for the Constitutional qualifications for President for which no justification other than prejudice or paranoia can apparently be offered

with

(b) support for discriminatory treatment of people on the basis of their race for which no justification other than prejudice or paranoia can be offered.

How much plainer can this possibly be put?


What I am against is capriciously changing the Constitution just because some members of the radical right want to instill a Hitler-admiring, unabashed sexist as their next marionnette in the White House.

Gee, and so would I be.

However, I would be in favour of changing a constitution that, without appropriate justification, contained provisions blatantly and transparently inconsistent with the PRINCIPLES that the constitution itself was designed to express and the RIGHTS that the constitution itself was designed to guarantee and protect.

You may have gathered that the reason *I* would support such a change to my constitution, if my constitution said such a thing, is NOT "to instill a Hitler-admiring, unabashed sexist as their next marionnette in the White House".

That is something that might indeed HAPPEN IF the change in question were made.

But it would NOT happen BECAUSE OF the change -- it would happen because the requisite number of people chose, for whatever evil or insane or deluded reason, to ELECT the bastard in question.

Fettering the ability of the people of a democracy to elect whomever they bloody well please to be their head of state/government -- why, what kind of an elitist would propose THAT?

(You will of course be aware that there are no age limits on candidates for the leadership of political parties in Canada, or on candidates for seats in the House of Commons -- i.e. on the persons who have the potential to become Prime Minister/head of government. There are also no age limits (to my knowledge) on appointees or potential appointees to the position of Governor General, the proxy for the head of state. As to the actual head of state, the British monarch, our constitution says that we will recognize whoever that might be ... and of course we can withdraw that recognition any time we take a notion to, since we're the ones who wrote it in. But hey, here's an idea you might want to consider -- senators have to retire at 75. ;) )


You seem to think that there is some sort of untapped well of talent outside the borders of your country that could somehow do a smashup job in the PM's office-- yet when I cited the last two examples of foreign-born prime ministers in Canada and their dismal performance, you became defensive and resulted to name-calling and extraneous arguments.

What a complete dog's breakfast. And the only reason that I can think of why you would imagine that what you wrote made any sense is that you think it is appropriate to prejudge individuals on the basis of the performance of other individuals from the same group -- and you think that I would/should do the same thing.

I don't, and I refuse to. I couldn't care less how well or badly one foreign-born prime minister -- or one woman or one Chinese-Canadian or one vegetarian or one fundamentalist Christian -- has performed in whatever position s/he may have held, when it comes to the question of whether other members of those groups should have equal rights to participate in all aspects of Canadian society.

Again -- how much clearer could this possibly be??

Why would you think/say that I was "defensive" about the performance of foreign-born PMs of Canada?? I have not the least emotional investment in their performance, any more than I have in the performance of Canada's first (and so far only) woman PM, who was a Tory and a bad PM, but no concern of mine; or of Canada's first black Lieutenant Governor, who was a Tory and a very good Lt-Gov, but also no concern of mine; and so on and on. I do not pre-judge a group, or other members of a group, on the basis of what any member of the group may have done or been or said.

What I "defend" is the RIGHT of those people to hold those positions, NOT their performance in the positions. Is there something I can say to make this clearer?


Did their foreign roots have anything to do with their performance? Who knows?

WHO CARES??

Does a fundamentalist christian USAmerican congressperson's religion have something to do with his/her performance in Congress? Very probably, and it very probably influences it for the considerably worse (in my opinion, the whole thing being a complete matter of opinion). Does that mean that there would be JUSTIFICATION, as a matter of public policy and *not* personal preference, for barring fundamentalist christians from seeking public office??

I mean, hell, as a matter of purely personal preference, I'd be all for barring people with IQs below the top third of the population from seeking any public office at all -- but as a matter of public policy I could not possibly, and would not even attempt or wish to, justify such an exclusion from the rights of citizenship.

That's because *I* take rights seriously, and respect everyone's rights, and am committed to the equal opportunity to exercise rights, and all that strange "liberal" jazz.

.

[Art_from_Ark]

110. Oh, brother

You have not made the case that the US Constitution should be changed on your whim.

The restriction in the Constitution was adopted precisely because the Founding Fathers did not want to play the game of "musical monarchs" that was so popular in Europe at the time. And don't kid yourself for a minute that the current proponents want to change this part of the Constitution simply because of a perceived "injustice"-- they don't. They merely want to instill their next brain-dead puppet into the White House, but are precluded from doing so because of this Constitutional restriction.

And for what it's worth, I have been a resident of other countries, and had even seriously considered applying for landed immigrant status in your own country. It never dawned on me that I would want to seek the prime ministership, nor would I have considered it to be "discriminatory" if I had, as a landed immigrant, been precluded from seeking the prime ministership.

I am currently a resident of Japan. I am not a Japanese citizen, but in a hypothetical case, if I were to become a Japanese citizen, it would not bother me in the least to know that I could never become prime minister, if that was the law. But as a citizen of Japan, I would have all the other rights that Japanese citizens enjoy.

[MUAD_DIB]

88. You are a fine example

of what the founding fathers of this country wanted to avoid: a first-rate second rate person.

Do you ever tire of being a reactionary?

I am not a racist, a sexist or a bigot. I am a realist.


I think my earlier post about foreign-born despots destroying countries that they had no real ties to is a good historical point: a point that seems to fall on deaf ears here.

I'm sure that politically superior individuals would love to cherry-pick the constitution to suit their own needs and tell us that we are all bigoted racists and sexists unless we fall in line to their own moral bent.

It's really sad that your argument has to be reduced to refering to others here as racists to try and make your point.

And just exactly how long has this been your point? A day? a week? A year?

My question is why are so-called progressives like you and HeyHey actively siding with the pubbies on an issue that has been engineered to suit their narrow partisan interests of the moment?

I find it dubious that this is really a topic of grave concern for this country when so much other shit is going down.

[HEyHEY]

93. SO you're equating their poor performance with being foriegners?

No wonder Bush got elected with that kind of thinking from US "Liberals"

[_Jumper_]

118. Yeah

People not born here in North America are inferior. North American born people are the Master Race. If you weren't a furriner you'd know this. ;)


note: the above was sarcasm

[fujiyama]

130. LOL

Yep, looks like them 'Merikans are all just better than us f'rnirs....After all we mostly are brown folk.

Then again, considering the US isn't even close to electing a NATIVE BORN African American or woman, can you imagine it electing a freakin foreign born person? They might be one of those people that practices one of them funny religions. Hell, Kucinich is a practicing Catholic, but he's too "New Age".

It's amazing how xenophobic this place can be, and I'm not particularly in favor of amending the constitution for this. I'm just amazed by the visceral reaction. It's this kind of thinking that makes many feel like they will never be completely assimilated in the system, and therefore remain a foreigner. Remember all the questions about Kennedy's loyalty -- Was it toward the US or toward the Vatican?

[_Jumper_]

131. This is very troubling

If the most liberal people in America are this xenophobic I shudder to think about how xenophobic the average "real Murican" is.

You bring up an interesting point about religion and loyalty. No one here will question the loyalty of Catholics or Jews even though some of them are loyal to a foreign entity due to religion. Why? Because they are mostly white. Some people would prefer electing a white person loyal to a foreign entity over a loyal non-white American.

[iverglas]

135. it is indeed

If the most liberal people in America are this xenophobic
I shudder to think about how xenophobic the average
"real Murican" is.

And I think that every day I read stuff at DU.

Not just xenophobic, of course, to give 'em their due -- ignorant.

This talk about how the non-native born can't/won't understand "American values" ... like, uh, what -- freedom? democracy?

Yeah, nobody out here in the outer darkness understands any of that stuff, because we all live in totalitarian states where we dare not speak out against what our unelected governments do to us ...

It's the underlying belief that only USAmericans understand that stuff, and that nobody is as free or democratic as USAmericans, that seems to be the real problem much of the time.

I'll never forget the hitchhiker I picked up in Tennessee years ago. Very nice young man, unemployed and unskilled and broke, going to another state to visit his sick mother. He admired my funny coloured money, and then asked, very respectfully and with genuine curiosity: "What's it like up there? Are you free to go wherever you want?"

I said yeah, it was pretty much like down there ... except with free health care for everybody. And he seemed to get that and find it worth thinking about.

Yup, some of us do have different "values". They might even be worth some USAmericans knowing about and considering the wisdom of.

.

[Cat Atomic]

3. No way.

[Skittles]

30. why?

I have three brothers born on US Air Force bases in England. Two of them are American citizens. They cannot be president but a piece of shit like Dubya can???

[Cat Atomic]

47. Because I'm sick of how flippant conservatives are about

ammending the Constitution these days. They'll do it because it serves their immediate, short-term interests.

They want to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Basically just so they have a wedge issue for this year's election.

Now they talk of ammending the Constitution to clear the way for a Schwarzeneggar presidential run.

Such casual toying with the Constitution is just disrespectful and, in the long run, destructive. If you want to change the Constitution, you do it for important things. Not political wedge issues and Austrian muscle-heads.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. i agree with this argument

and i am an not american born

[_Jumper_]

119. What do you think of the 13th and 19th Amendments?

n/t

[Cat Atomic]

132. I think ending slavery and granting voting rights to women

qualifies as "important stuff".

Denying gays a right to marry does not. Clearing a path Schwarzeneggar's political career most certainly does not. I don't see how anyone could put those on the same level.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. I wonder if the poll would have been different if they specified countries

Like, should someone born in England be allowed to run for President?
Should someone born in Indonesia be allowed to run for President?
Finland?
Mexico?
Japan?
Canada?
Chad?
Yemen?
Lichtenstein?
Tonga?

[HEyHEY]

6. Well we should just ask around to make sure people like our "horseshit"

Friend don't get mad when the wrong nationality is running the country.

[_Jumper_]

120. Do it with a few countries from certain regions

We all know a lot of this is because people don't want to have the "wrong kind" of president. An amendment to allow all Americans to run for president would increase the chances of such a person being elected.

[ironflange]

7. Making it open only to Murricans

Reduces the possibillility of terraist infilteration into the highest govvament echelons.

[HEyHEY]

8. not ta mention we don't want no furriners running things

ye can't trust em.

[ironflange]

10. Wait a minute!

What are you doing in GD? I thought you were strictly a Lounge Lizard.

[HEyHEY]

12. I've been coming out lately

Kinda getting bored with the lounge....

[gula]

20. Haven't you been following the current administration's doings?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. absolutely NOT...would you want Kissinger to be president?

[mac2]

35. You got it right...or Kissenger President of the Americas Union.

Duel citizenships is bad also. Who are they most loyal to? We have 1st generation Americans who politically favor their parent's country of origin.

Nope..we have Americans born here that act more like global representavives for international corportions than citizens already.

Who is looking out for our interests? Wellstone said, he was..he's gone. Who else? Few and far between in Washington these days.

[_Jumper_]

121. Or Jennifer Granholm

She was a furriner for 4 or 5 years. When she was being breastfed by a furriner she was programmed to support terra. ABG, even Bush.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. ABA

(Anyone but Arnold).

[NewJeffCT]

19. original intent

Well, if the Republicans are really the party that goes strictly by the Constitution, they should say that should not be allowed.

The original intent of the law requiring a president to be a natural born citizen is because the Founding Fathers feared a closet British spy becoming President in the early days... at least I think that was the reason.

[_Jumper_]

122. The conspiracy has started

www.tonyblair2004.com

Do you think Hatch's effort came out of the blue?

[guajira]

21. To Find out What can Happen - check out South Florida!

Miami and South Florida politicians have Cuba (NOT U.S.) as top priority. They talk about freedom for Cuba, while lobbying to deny freedom for Americans to travel to Cuba and trade with Cuba.

snippet:
Critics say Rivera and others in the Legislature who rally round the Cuban flag are merely pandering to conservative Cuban exiles in South Florida, and should be focusing their energies on tackling Florida's many problems.

George Willis, a Democratic political activist from Collier County, said he is stunned by Rivera's obsession with Cuba.

''He ought to be run out of office,'' Willis said. ``We've got so many problems in Florida that for a legislator to spend his time on anything other than the people of Florida, he's not fulfilling his responsibilities.''

Rivera, 38, proudly says that his top priority is to help Cuba become free.
more....

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/8016915.htm

[Orangepeel]

34. Are there no US born children of cuban expats with the same agenda?

physical location of birth isn't the cause of such sentiments.

[iverglas]

41. or sons/daughters of the American Revolution?

Ya don't have to be a Cuban expat to be obsessed with ousting Castro ... and with getting back all that Cuban loot for your supporters. Trickle-down, and all that. Or to have any other strange and unsavoury ideas about appropriate US foreign policy.

Re your other post: exactly. Principles, not personalities. Just what I was simultaneously saying. ;)

.

[_Jumper_]

123. We have a lot of US born 5th columnists too

And not all of them are non-white...Why not let the people sort it out? If the people are too dumb to figure out a candidate's loyalty why a democracy?????????????????????????????

[adriennel]

28. double edged sword

the Dems want it changed too because Gov Granholm (D-MI) was born in Canada but she has been described as "a rising star" in the Democratic party.
I am in general not in favor of altering the Constitution unless absolutely necessary...but how can we change the constitution if we're anti-Arnold and pro-Granholm?

[iverglas]

29. how about

but how can we change the constitution if we're anti-Arnold and pro-Granholm?

... by acknowledging that their status as native-born or naturalized is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not "we" would like them to have the opportunity to be president of the US ... and the US to have the opportunity to have them as its president?

Goodness me, "good immigrants" and "bad immigrants", and maybe only the former should get rights, or maybe the presence of the bad ones makes it a bad idea to give any of 'em rights no matter how deserving the good ones might be. What's this reminding me of?

Groups, and members of groups, are not judged, as a whole and all, on the basis of the characteristics of certain of their members. The word for that has traditionally been "prejudice".

.

[adriennel]

31. misunderstanding

Where'd you get this "good" vs "bad" immigrants? It seems you missed the point of my post and chose harp on racial issues I didn't even mention. jeez.

To clarify, I am wondering how Dems are going to present their stance on changing the Constitution to allow foreign-born Americans to run for President considering how they are now faced with both a popular Republican Governor and a popular Democratic Governor. It's more of a Repub vs Dem issue that I am thinking of.

[iverglas]

37. Not getting it

I am wondering how Dems are going to present their stance on changing the Constitution to allow foreign-born Americans to run for President considering how they are now faced with both a popular Republican Governor and a popular Democratic Governor. It's more of a Repub vs Dem issue that I am thinking of.

It's a matter of principle that I'm thinking of.

Native-born USAmericans don't have to pass a political-correctness test in order to be eligible to run for president.

Why is it any more relevant for the foreign-born?

If they have qualified for citizenship and been accepted as citizens, what makes their political leanings relevant to whether they should be entitled to run for president? - and, I reiterate, whether the country should have the benefit of their candidacy and possibly presidency?

Lots of people born in the US are perfectly horrible human beings, and yet they qualify to run for president. Immigrants should not be disqualified from doing something because anyone is afraid of, or objects to, one particular immigrant, or kind of immigrant, doing it.

Substitute any noun for "immigrant" -- women, African-Americans, short people, vegetarians ... -- and the point is the same. My "racial issues" harping<*> was by way of illustrating that the point is the same, whether the group sought to be excluded from a benefit is defined by country of birth, race, sex, height, dietary preferences, or whatever. (<*> "Prejudice" is a word that covers the stereotyping of members of groups of people according to any shared characteristic, not just race, of course.)

Women cannot be denied the vote because some women are silly flibbertigibbets; African-Americans cannot be denied a seat at the lunch counter because some of them will spill their tea. Why should naturalized citizens be denied the opportunity to run for president because some of them are Republicans? It isn't a "Repub vs. Dem" issue when it comes to native-born USAmericans' entitlement to run.

And if you mean that the issue becomes "Repub vs. Dem" when one side proposes to amend the constitution to allow it, then surely a time when both sides have an interest in doing it is the strategically best time! (Obviously, simple arguments based on all citizens' equal dignity, equal worth -- equal rights -- can't be counted on to carry the day alone.)

The whole original reason for the prohibition was to prevent agents of foreign states (specifically of the UK) from stealthily rising to a position of power and subverting the entire intent of the 1776 revolution: independence from foreign powers. Arnold just isn't likely to be trying to make the US a colony of Austria. The original reason for the rule simply no longer exists. And any other reasons that might be offered come down simply to prejudice.

.

[adriennel]

45. sigh

we're clearly pursuing two different avenues. you are trying to convince me that foreign born citizens have the right to become President--which is not something I disagree with. Gov Granholm has lived in the US since she was 4, and imo, if she can be governor, she can be president.

Has the Dem party or any Dem come out and said "we support" or "we do not support" changing the Constitution?

[HEyHEY]

32. "Give us your tired, your weak, your huddled masses yearning to be free...

Unless they wanna say in how things are run."

[adriennel]

36. and how does this relate to my question?

which I am posting AGAIN, since you didn't seem to read it.

"To clarify, I am wondering how Dems are going to present their stance on changing the Constitution to allow foreign-born Americans to run for President considering how they are now faced with both a popular Republican Governor and a popular Democratic Governor. It's more of a Repub vs Dem policy issue that I am thinking of."

[HEyHEY]

38. THe post was addressed to Iverglass

[mac2]

39. You mean any richer country can send someone here.....

To run for President? If you elect this our person as President we will loan you money not bomb you, etc.? Wonder where their loyalties would be? Divided? Nope..too dangerous.

[HEyHEY]

42. Could you be any more extreme?

Obviously the person should be a citizen...and how come many of the other nations allowing foreign born people to run don't have this problem?

The point is how can a country that braggs about being so free and a place where every man is equal could have such an elitist policy.

[iverglas]

43. lordy

It's either the 17th century or the 24th ... sounds like a plot straight out of original Star Trek.

(Capt. Kirk was of course a Canadian ... sent to subvert the minds of the USAmerican children in front of their teevees ... but not to worry, we're not really a colonizing kinda people.)

You mean any richer country can send someone here.....
To run for President? If you elect this our person as President
we will loan you money not bomb you, etc.?

If the great USAmerican voting public would elect ... what, a Saudi sheikh? ... in response to such threats/inducements, well, I dunno. I think that if I were the Saudis, I could find a quicker and easier way of getting whatever it is I might want to get by having a sheikh elected president of the US.

Hey, look. They have.

.

[_Jumper_]

124. Well, there you go again!

I am tired of you and your furrin self implying that we oppose equality! We are all equal but some are more equal than others.

[Orangepeel]

33. Yes. We shouldn't base our principles on individuals

Yes, having Arnold or Kissinger able to run for president would suck, but that's not BECAUSE they are foreign born. It's because they are right wing assholes. And, unfortunately, having such a rule on the books doesn't prevent right wing assholes from running for president.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent people with mixed loyalties from becoming president. But it can't really do that. As extreme examples, compare someone born of US parents who are abroad on vacation but raised in the US to someone born in the US but raised by non-US citizens abroad. Which is more "American?" It is impossible to tell.

I think that people should have to renounce their foreign citizenship and have lived in the US for many years (how many is argueable -- 20? 35?)

[Cleita]

40. There is a good reason for this.

What is to stop foreign leaders from installing their own into our government like Prince Charles being declared the Prince of Wales? The Welsh had their country coopted this way for centuries. Even though the position is ceremonial today, it has been a real thorn for patriotic Welsh even to this day.

As far as installing Arnold as President of our country just because he had the head of Gray Davis handed to him on a silver plater, the governorship of a state that could be a nation, doesn't mean he should be Austrian Fuerher of our whole country. This will definitely have me thinking about becoming an ex-patriot.

[iverglas]

44. I'm shaking my head

As far as installing Arnold as President of our country just because he had the head of Gray Davis handed to him on a silver plater, the governorship of a state that could be a nation, doesn't mean he should be Austrian Fuerher of our whole country.

Do you really not recognize ethnic hatred when you speak it?

If Arnold became "Fuerher" of the US, it would be because he is a fascist asshole -- NOT because he is Austrian. And he would be the USAMERICAN Fuerher, NOT the Austrian Fuehrer.

I'm gobsmacked by the primitive prejudice I see in this thread.

.

[Cleita]

48. Ethnic hatred for what,, Austrians? No, I don't hate Austrians.

I have a real hatred for Nazis though, both home grown and imported. And Arnold is a conservative Republican with Nazi ties back to the old country, which translates to a facist ideology. His father was a Nazi. Do not attack me on grounds of ethnic hatred but hatred of political ideology. You can't prove that Arnold isn't in the pocket of very American Nazis with ties to the Austrian Nazi, Hitler,going back to before WWII. Look up his friendship with former Austrian president Kurt Waldheim.

[Orangepeel]

52. Okay. How about a rule that no bad actors can run for president?

that would take care of Arnold and would have stopped Reagan, too.

:shrug: Makes as much sense as the born in the US rule -- after all, we can't trust actors to be candidates. There's too much risk that they are reading from a script instead of being sincere.

[Cleita]

53. Well there is a school of thought that Presidential candidates

should be able to present a resume that indicates they have had the education, learned skills and previous experience for the job before they can throw their hat in the ring, just like any CEO of any company must be selected before the Board of Directors votes on their choice.

But our system allows any gob who can raise tons of money become President. Go figure.

[iverglas]

54. then why

... if you don't hate Austrians, did you refer to him becoming the "Austrian Fuerher of our whole country"?

Why not the "muscleman Fuerher", or the "Kennedy spouse Fuehrer", or the "movie star Fuerher", or the "Republican Fuehrer"??

What has his ETHNICITY got to do with it -- unless you are suggesting, or believe, that Austrians are, or are predisposed to be, fascists?

Arnold is a conservative Republican with Nazi ties back to the old country, which translates to a facist ideology.

And there are thousands and thousands of USAmericans who have NO ties to any old country, and may not even know what their "old country" is (or their "old countries" are), and nonetheless are reprehensible and fascistic -- in fact, far more reprehensible and far more overtly fascistic than Arnold.

So obviously, place of birth has nothing to do with political ideology, in the sense that no one's political ideology can be predicted based solely on place of birth.

To argue that ALL naturalized citizen should be prohibited from running for president of the US because some naturalized citizens from some countries are distasteful in some way is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT from saying that ALL women should be prohibited from voting because some women will just vote the way their husbands tell them, or that ALL African-Americans should be prohibited from sitting at the lunch counter because some African-Americans will spill their tea.

It is a denial of equal rights based on prejudice and nothing else. In fact, referring to Arnold as a would-be Fuehrer of any kind is stereotyping based on prejudice and nothing else. There are Cuban expats who are far more fascistic than he -- and I've never heard them referred to as would-be "Fuehrers". And there were and are native-born USAmericans who were and are far more Nazi-ish than he, and nobody is trying to prohibit them from running for president.

Equal rights involves taking the good with the bad. Arnold would be able to run for president. So would whoever that nice ex-Canadian Democratic governor is. Smart women and stupid women may all vote. African-Americans taught by Emily Post and African-Americans who eat with their fingers may all sit at the lunch counter.

And blaming Arnold's political leanings on -- or even associating his political leanings with -- his ethnicity or country of birth is no more acceptable than blaming a woman's stupidity on her sex, or an African-American's bad table manners on his race.

These are simple, basic rules that I learned in school and church in the 1950s: ascribing characteristics to all members of a group based on one member's shortcomings is unacceptable; ascribing characteristics to one member of a group based on another member's shortcomings is unacceptable. It's called prejudice, and it isn't expressed or approved in polite society. When did things go so badly off the track?

.

[Cleita]

57. So am I supposed to call Hitler the muscleman fuehrer too?

I don't suppose the irony strikes you that two people, who shoehorned themselves in powerful offices through unorthodox means in two separate countries that are apart from Austria came from Austria. Now since I am half teutonic ethnicity myself I guess I am prejudiced against myself and the eastern European Germanic branch of my family as well. Come on. Go split semantic hairs at Free Republic. As far as the Cubans I doubt if their native language is German.

The truth is these two very similar power hungry individuals were at one time citizens of Austria. That is a fact that won't go away. Besides that I have know some very nice muscle men that I met at Muscle Beach and who attended Gold's Gym at the time Arnold did and I don't think they would appreciate your slur either.

Unfortunately the American Nazis you speak of are already in positions of power in our Government. They want Arnold to run because of his movie star quality. And since anyone who is one of their Presidential handpuppets would have to be as dumb as "W", Arnold has an excuse for his bad English.

[iverglas]

62. Gobsmacked. Just gobsmacked.

So am I supposed to call Hitler the muscleman fuehrer too?

I dunno; was he a muscleman? Is calling him the "German Fuehrer" (that being what he was) not an accurate characterization of someone who was the Fuehrer of Germany? Is calling him the "Austrian Fuehrer" (him having been Austrian) not also accurate, a Fuehrer from Austria?

Does this mean that it was RELEVANT to refer to SCHWARZENEGGER's national origin in a discussion of HIS political leanings?

I don't suppose the irony strikes you that two people, who shoehorned themselves in powerful offices through unorthodox means in two separate countries that are apart from Austria came from Austria.

If it did, I'd be in need of looking up the definition of "irony".

If I drew any conclusion about Austrians, or about anyone born outside the US, from the fact that Hitler, the Fuehrer of Germany, and Schwargzenegger, the Governor of California, were both Austrian, I'd expect to have someone call me:

- a raving lunatic, who had probably read too many tortured interpretations of Nostradamus;
- a spouter of ethnic hatred and prejudice and bigotry.

I mean, how would my conclusion explain the millions and fucking millions of Austrians who have never been the Fuehrer or Governor of ANYTHING?

Go split semantic hairs at Free Republic.

Yeah. So's your old man. Your mother wears army boots.

As far as the Cubans I doubt if their native language is German.

And once again -- you attribute characteristics to individuals based on ethnicity/nationality. Or "native language", in this case, I guess.

Is it that only those whose native language is German are fascists?
Or that those whose native language is German are more likely than those whose native language is English to be fascists?
Or that fascists are more likely to speak German than English?
Or all of the above?

The truth is these two very similar power hungry individuals were at one time citizens of Austria. That is a fact that won't go away.

Hey, Joe McCarthy and Timothy McVeigh were both born in the USofA. That fact isn't going anywhere either. May I enquire what we ought to conclude from it? What should we conclude if we throw Jimmy Carter into the equation? I mean, if we don't throw Jimmy Carter into the equation, aren't we kinda manufacturing coincidences? Nostradamus ... where you at?

Besides that I have know some very nice muscle men that I met at Muscle Beach and who attended Gold's Gym at the time Arnold did and I don't think they would appreciate your slur either.

If you want to accuse me of "slur"ring, you'd better be able to back your words up.

My characterization of Schwarzenegger as a "muscleman Fuehrer", as you either perfectly well knew or should be embarrassed to admit you didn't, was intended to demonstrate the precise opposite of what you are implying -- to demonstrate that Schwarzenegger's "muscleman" characteristic was completely unrelated to his "Fuehrer" nature and to demonstrate the fallaciousness of the connection YOU had made, by making an obviously ludicrous connection. YOUR association of "Austrian" and "Fuehrer" was intended to achieve the precise opposite of what I was doing -- YOU intended to MAKE the connection between the two, which is just as ludicrous and far more offensive.

The rest of your post does not appear to be related to anything I have said.

That it should be thought acceptable at DU to attribute negative characteristics of *any* kind to *anyone* on the basis of *any* personal characteristic -- sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or national or ethnic origin, or language, is just ... outrageous.

.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AgadorSparticus]

75. Cleita, hang in there! Some people haven't been to Austria lately...

the neo nazi movement there is alive and VERY STRONG. while there a couple years back, we asked our cab driver about it and he told us 1 in 3 people are nazis. obviously, not every austrian is a nazi, but apparently a whole lotta them are nowadays.

i guess as germany is desperately trying to distance itself away from the horrors of hitler and the whole nazi nightmare, the austrians are welcoming them with open arms.

what did we think? that nazis would just go away? it will never go away as long as economics suck for the masses.

i'm not saying austria is inherently evil as i'm sure some people will take this post. but i am saying the nazi movement is pretty mighty there.

[Kellanved]

78. hmm

Blanket generalizations about Austrians lead nowhere. The far right party (FPOE) has actually lost support in the past few months, but is still part of the governing coalition and is ruling one state (I'm far more worried about Governor Haider). In that state they're currently polled at 30%.
What many people are missing: It's not "Arnold was Austrian", it is "Arnold is Austrian" - AFAIK he has double citizenship and is a prominent supporter of the Austrian conservative party, the one in a coalition with the extreme-right, anti-immigrant (and even pro Saddam -sic) FPOE.
To his credit, he warned against entering the coalition and was (is?) an outspoken critic of it.



I've asked it before: why did Austria get away with it's Anti-War stance, without getting smeared? :shrug:

[iverglas]

81. exactly what

does any of that have to do with the question of whether foreign-born CITIZENS OF THE USA should be prohibited from running for president?

but i am saying the nazi movement is pretty mighty there.

Yeah ... so? Who said it wasn't? Who was talking about it?


By the "logic" Cleita applies and I can only assume you are endorsing, foreign-born citizens of the US should be prohibited from VOTING, or better still perhaps, from setting foot on US soil.

Prejudice, bigotry and ethnic hatred. Alive and well, and not just in Austria.


(edited to remove stray word)

[Cleita]

97. You have no right to lob those ad hominem attacks at me.

"Prejudice, bigotry and ethnic hatred. Alive and well, and not just in Austria."

These are nothing more than ad hominem attacks against me. There is no way anyone, who knows me, would call me anyone of those names. If you like Nazis and want to defend them, then I have to assume you are also one of them.

Do you think I am stupid enough to think that if some Austrians are Nazi, therefore they all are? No I am not that stupid. (I am stupid enough though to continue this argument with you and your selective "reasoning".)

As far as foreign born citizens voting, it is against the law, if you haven't heard. If Arnold hasn't renounced his Austrian citizenship when he became an American and swore to rennounce it, then he is in violation of his oath.

How do I know? My husband is an immigrant from Europe. So your assumption has no basis in fact. Where you got those assumptions in my post I don't know unless you are hallucinating.

By the way, when my husband became a citizen, there was a Hollenzollern princess taking out her citizenship papers also. She had to renounce all her titles and her citizenship, as did my mother. Arnold had to take the same oath of loyalty to the USA, so if he is maintaining dual citizenship, he is in violation of his oath and it means the USA is nothing more than a means to an end for him and that he is loyal to another entity.

[iverglas]

99. knowing whereof one speaks

If Arnold hasn't renounced his Austrian citizenship when he became an American and swore to rennounce it, then he is in violation of his oath.

That there is basically defamation.

You seem to think that an immigrant must renounce foreign citizenship before taking up US citizenship. You are completely and unequivocally wrong. I'm just a Canadian, and I know that.

http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.

To suggest that an individual has violated the law is a rather serious allegation. To do so based on the false belief that someone who becomes a US citizen is required to renounce other citizenship(s) is irresponsible.

How do I know? My husband is an immigrant from Europe.

Well, since you obviously *don't* know, it hardly matters how.

As far as foreign born citizens voting, it is against the law, if you haven't heard.

I'm sure you could not have meant to say this.

Against the law for foreign-born citizens of the US to vote in the US?? Surely you are *not* saying that.

Against the law for citizens of foreign countries to vote in the US? Of course -- unless they are also citizens of the US.

Do you think I am stupid enough to think that if some Austrians are Nazi, therefore they all are? No I am not that stupid.

Then all you seem to need to do is to explain what the fact that one Austrian, or several Austrians, or even lots of Austrians, are/were Nazis has to do with whether a US citizen born in Austria should be prohibited from running for president of the US.


By the way, if I may muse ... it was interesting that the survey question asked whether "foreign-born citizens" (did it even specify "citizens of the US"??) should be able/allowed to run for president. I'm quite sure that if the question had been framed as, e.g.:

Should naturalized citizens of the US be barred from running for president?
Should naturalized citizens of the US be entitled to all the same rights and privileges of citizenship as citizens of the US born in the US?
Should the country of a person's birth determine what rights and privileges of US citizenship may be denied?

... and if it had not been associated, as it appears to have been, with an express question about Schwarzenegger running for president ... and if the survey had not been self-selecting as it apparently was ... the results might have been at least slightly different. Maybe not a whole lot, since however you phrase it, "foreign" is just gonna be a red flag for some people.

Arnold had to take the same oath of loyalty to the USA, so if he is maintaining dual citizenship, he is in violation of his oath and it means the USA is nothing more than a means to an end for him and that he is loyal to another entity.

There's a damned lot of dual US/Canadian citizens up here to your north. If I based my opinions of them on whatever you're basing yours of dual citizens in the US on, I'd be calling them all Bush-loving Republican mercenaries and carpet-baggers loyal to a foreign country. I'm not.

You really do need to know what you're talking about, though, before accusing people not present of violating their oath of citizenship. Even though it's all the purest scarlet herring anyhow.

Here's a right-wing take on the issue of dual nationality, for anyone interested:
http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1166&c=2

.

[Cleita]

104. I read your links.

The oath in your link is the very same ones immigrants have to take to take to get citizenship. Other countries often don't recognize the American citizenship of their nationals, but that doesn't mean the oath isn't binding to the new citizen. Your links only prove what I have said. Now I have to put you on ignore. Please do the same for me.

[_Jumper_]

125. What is to stop them from using an American puppet?

Heck, there are some people that claim that PNAC, which controls Shrub, is serving the agenda of a furrin country.

[HEyHEY]

46. Okay forget Arnold

Let's say Hugh Grant wanted to run for President. Think about that!

[Cleita]

49. How about me running for President. instead???

:evilgrin:

[HEyHEY]

50. Not if you weren't born in the USA

;-)

[Cleita]

51. I wasn't. My father was American and I was brought here as an

infant. I am considered a citizen from birth, but for some reason or the other those of us who weren't actually born in an embassy can't run for President. If they did allow it though, many people who are Americans but born in foreign countries could run for President. However, I like the rule as it stands. Our founding fathers knew it would be too easy to install puppets from foreign governments in our White House although I wonder if that hasn't already happened.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. cos bush so isnt a puppet.

this is an argument where i agree with both side..its quite funny

[Pithlet]

58. I say yes

knowing fully well that it would allow Schwarzenegger to make a run for it :shudder: I don't think that the place of birth matters and can't think of a good reason to keep such a restriction.

[HEyHEY]

61. HEyHEY annouces he's running for the US presidency

I'm gonna get elected by a legal majority then, only because I'm not American, I'm gonna begin destroying the very fabric of US life. Starting with baseball. OOOO I can't wait to get my hands on your country....bwhahahaa!

[JohnLocke]

71. Actually, baseball isn't American...

Basketball is, however. We're better at it than you guys, but you kick our ass in hockey. :)

[iverglas]

84. gimme a break

Actually, baseball isn't American...
Basketball is, however.

Basketball was invented by a (Canadian-born) Canadian.

http://www.athletics.mcgill.ca/varsity_sports_article.ch2?article_id=207

Naismith also tested the first football helmet and played in the first indoor football game. He was a Presbyterian minister, a medical doctor, a physical educator and received 11 academic degrees, including an honorary doctor of divinity from McGill in 1939. "He had a remarkable career — a career the likes of which probably no other Canadian ever has had," said former classmate Rev. W.D. Reid in 1939.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/naismith/faq/faq.htm

Q: What were the great accomplishments in his life, in regards to sport?
A: James Naismith had the great vision to introduce 2 objects in his life. In 1891 he introduced the game of basketball as a winter indoor sport in Springfield, Mass. And in 1894, he introduced the football helmet for American Football.

Q: When was the first game of basketball played?
A: The 1st game of basketball was played on December 21st, 1891, after spending 2 weeks preparing the rules and objectives as an assignment.

Q: Why was basketball invented?
A: Basketball was an assignment by his mentor, Luther H. Gulick to interest the incorrigibles. He was asked to come up with an indoor game free of rough play for the football and lacrosse players who were restless during the winter.

Q: Where was basketball invented?
A: He invented the game at the YMCA in Springfield, Mass.

You see what the foreign-born can do for you if you give them half a chance??

.

[Hammie]

63. I happen to think they should not.

Not because I don't think that there are not foreign born who are competent, but because it is a safeguard against the hijacking of our goverment by foriegn powers. Even though it seems unlikely at the moment, I don't see the reason to abandon such a protection.

[HEyHEY]

64. Do you know how many nations allow it?

If the country votes for the country to be "Hikjacked by foriegn powers" then that's what the country wanted.

[iverglas]

67. hey, HEyHEY

I see two major arguments against doing what all the rest of us civilized folk do.

They come down to:

prejudice
and/or
paranoia

Mind, I'm not talking about anyone in particular! I'm talking about the generalized feeling/opinion in a very large democracy, that foreign born citizens need not apply for the full benefits of citizenship that are available to the native-born. Whether it's justified by appeals to ethnic stereotypes or to the fears of people long dead about things long disappeared.

But then, how else to explain most US foreign policy, for example?

The rest of the world
- isn't worthy of what we have
and/or
- is out to get us.

Gobsmacked at seeing them at DU.

.

[HEyHEY]

74. I agree

I guess my destiny to be US president will never come to fruition...oh why did I have to be born 30 minutes from the border!

[Mick Knox]

76. no.. not for arnold.. not for nobody.. nt .. plink plink

[T_i_B]

77. VOTE THANKFULLY_IN_BRITAIN!!!!

:evilgrin:

Seriously though, it is only sensible that somebody who is born and bred in America is American president. That way you should get leaders who know about the country they are leading.

In the meantime, about the best I can do is endorse John Kerry. :-)

[MICHAEL_LAPERE]

113. Yes...

I was reading through these posts, someone actually made the argument that someone who comes from another country doesn't know what it is like to be American- that we need someone who has a genuine American experience.

The election is a democratic process, if an individual is not fit for the Presidency he/she will not wIn, it is as simple as that. The fact that someone comes from a foreign land should be viewed more positively. They moved to America for the opportunties we offer, for the freedoms that we promise. So I think they more than anyone have a firm grasp on what it means to be American. There should be a residency requirement I concede that much.

[PVnRT]

103. I think there should be a residency requirement

much like running for any other office. Make it 35 years as a citizen of the U.S., as that's the age requirement for people born here.

Since this is a nation of immigrants (for the most part), to say that you must be natural-born to be president is a bit hypocritical. If they've been here 35 years, what makes them any different from anyone born here?

[FrankBooth]

108. I think its a matter of priority

While I am not against the idea of non-US born citizens being president, I am hesitant to amend the constitution right now - I believe there are other things in the constitution that should be addressed first, namely the electoral college and the two-party system itself. It seems to me that the constituion as it reads now simply excludes a group of rich, white non-US born men from being elected president. My middle-class brother who was born in Canada is not eligible, but even if he was, he effectively has zero chance of winning. Unless these other issues which more fundamentally address the inequity of our system are changed first, I am against amendment.

President Schwarzanegger? President Kissinger? No thanks. Not that Bush is any better, but at least those two are excluded from runnning, (as is someone like George Soros, whom I like.)

[shivaji]

109. So long as he/she runs as a democrat

LOL

[Kamika]

111. Since the thread is bumped anyway..no...

NO I do not think so.

I'm a 2nd generation american.. my parents are still Korean, they know the language and the money system.. not much more.
And they've been here more then 20 years.


Imo a president should have been born here, he/she needs to have american values.

Thanks

[_Jumper_]

112. Equal rights

How can progressives deny equal rights based on place of birth? How far you people want to go to deny "fake Americans" rights? Do you want to revive segregation, this time based on how "real" of an American they are?

I suppose I'll have to go to Canada if I want to be a nation's chief executive. The Canadian people talk the talk about equal rights...

[Hippo_Tron]

116. I don't see a problem with it...

My guess is that the clause was originally written in the constitution so that somebody from Britain wouldn't come and take over the government.

[_Jumper_]

117. You must be a foreign plant

;)

[Hekate]

126. If it wasn't about Herr Gropenator I might think about it

But since it IS about my guv and it IS being floated by the Neocons, I am very very suspicious.

You should hear some of the comments people made on camera about him during the Davis recall campaign: Ahnold is a "strong" leader, and we "need someone who can take over" the government and "not be tied down by all those rules." And so on and so forth in the same vein.

Made my hair stand on end. These folks had no idea they sounded so much like the volk who elevated to power another Austrian in the 1930s. Someone who was strong, could take over, and was not encumbered by petty considerations like democratically passed legislation.

So am I in favor of this constitutional change right now? No, I think not.

On edit: The Austrian origins are a mere coincidence; it's the comments of those voters and his own younger statements about strength and dominance that give me pause.

Hekate

[_Jumper_]

127. What about Jennifer Granholm?

She is a Democrat and could be elected president if this amendment is passed.

[Hekate]

128. I don't know who she is, yet, so have no opinion on her

Keep seeing her name on DU, so guess I'll have to google for her info on the Net.

Criminy, we have not yet managed to nominate for president (I mean to get them on the November ballot instead of the primaries) any of the following categories of native-born US citizens:
Women
Gays
Jews
Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans
African Americans
Native Americans
Asian Americans

Need I go on? The point is, we have a lot of very qualified citizens to choose from whom we are ignoring as "disqualified" and "unelectable."

This Constitutional amendment thing is either a red herring or another damn Neocon scheme to elect a man of dubious credentials -- in this case Schwartzenegger, since they already managed to put Dubious Dubya in office.

So for here and now, the answer is still no.

Hekate

[_Jumper_]

129. Those groups can't get elected for the same reason people...

...oppose immigrants. People think that they will be loyal to THEM. White males want to elect other white males to protect the interest of white males.

[ButterflyBlood]

133. yes

keeping the clause in just to stop Arnold is the stupidest argument I've ever heard of. First of all, Arnold is way too liberal to win a GOP nomination anyway. Second of all, there are loads and loads of people born here who'd be worse than Arnold, including the current White House squatter. the fact that Arnold is foreign born is not what makes him bad. Just give equal rights to all citizens.

[evil_orange_cat]

134. I would vote No just because of AHnold

;)

but I would probably still say NO regardless