Should the constitution be ammended to allow non-American born citizens to be president?

[Tiggeroshii]

I think a lot of us will be voting no on this, but I would point out that the first proposal for such a thing started int he House a couple years ago by our man Rep. John Conyers. I personally think it would help widen the prospects of a lot of great people and stregthen the potential of democracy.

[Mythsaje]

1. Oh, no...

Next thing you know, we'll be freezing felons and electing Ahnold to the White House.

I've seen that movie.

;)

[eliphaslevi]

2. Hell No

It was specifically written into the Constitution for a reason.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. What reason is that?

[eliphaslevi]

10. Foreign Interests

To prevent foreign interests from taking over our highest office (ie: British). Amendments are for fixing problems and there is not a problem with the requirements for Presidency.

[Infinite Hope]

18. Amen...

Not only that, but first generation immigrants are still able to serve in high office elsewhere (Congress, Cabinet, etc.) and their children can become president. There's no reason for a first generation immigrant to become president.

[Demi_Babe]

71. tell that to a little girl who is told everyday by me that she can grow up to be and do anything

she wants but the thing is...my daughter was born in China and she is as American as anyone born here and she can never be President. Somehow, that doesn't set well with me.

[krispos42]

80. Tell her she can become President of China

Which will be, by the time she grows up, more important than US President.

Or you can simply recite of list of the other two hundred or so nations that she cannot be the leader of besides the United States.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

121. Sorry, but i have little pity.

One job out of millions shouldn't exactly be holding your daughter back. And that job isn't even all that desirable. Unless you're a masochist.

[iverglas]

74. "There's no reason for a first generation immigrant to become president."

My, my. I haven't been able to discern any reason for George W. Bush to have become president, but it seems to have happened.

What a bizarre statement. There's no reason for a first generation immigrant to become president. Where I'm at, "there's no reason for a first generation immigrant" to do anything would not emerge from a progressive mouth.

You should take this one for a walk down in the gun dungeon. Disguise it as "there's no reason for a first generation immigrant to own a semi-automatic firearm", and see how it does.

Yeah, the Brits are just drooling to plant a Manchesterian Candidate who will achieve the position of US head of state and then ... uh ... I forget, what's s/he going to do? Something really really bad, I know it. 'Cause everybody's out to git ya.

Meanwhile, the slightly under 10% of the US population that was not born in the US (assuming that they are or become citizens), like the child mentioned in the post just below, can just sit there with its noses pressed against the glass ceiling, feeling almost equal to everybody else.

Immigrants don't need to become president, gay men and lesbians don't need to get married, I don't need to be sitting here voicing opinions ...

[SharonAnn]

140. We have more than 200 million people who qualify. We need to let

more of them have th eopportunity. Right now, the wealthy or those with wealthy friends have the advantage.

If we allowed foreign-born, then we'd have the foreign born wealthy or foreign born with wealthy friends with the advantage.

What we need to do is open up the playing field. We have at least thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people who would do an excellent job. Let's put them on the playing field.

If we ever run short of native-born talent, then we could consider it, I suppose.

Can't imagine that will ever happen. Running short of native-born talent, that is.

[Book Lover]

4. Yes, but we need to include a rider that says if you have won the Mr Universe title 7 or more times,

your brain is too addled from steriod use to be president.

[LisaL]

61. Yes, the amendment should read that all naturalized citizens are

allowed, except for those who have won the title of Mr. Universe.
:rofl:

[Eurobabe]

5. No, because they will run Arnold and the SAAV

(sutpid average American voter) will vote for him.

[Mass]

131. And is it worse than Bush or Allen?

[krispos42]

6. We have 300 million people here

If we can't find decent people to be President from that, we might as well curl up and die.

And we have enough foreigners owning and running business in our country as it is. And infrastructure, as well. Infrastructure like the Indiana Tollway, a road created and used by US taxpayers.

We can't make our own products anymore. We don't make our own computers, clocks, clothing, microwaves, game consoles, watches, toys, televisions, phones, or even the components to make them. We barely make our own cars, machine tools, and heavy machinery.

Everybody thinks this is no big deal, yet the countries that are supplying us with our merchandise are very nationalistic about where their products come from. And who is better off economically and socially?

Can we TRY to not be outsourcing our polical leadership as well as everything else?

[Book Lover]

7. So Madeline Albright can be our Secretary of State, but not the Chief Executive?

Why?

[MADem]

9. Because the Constitution, the law of the land, says so. NT

[Book Lover]

11. That's your argument?

Way to reason with me, MADem...

[MADem]

12. It's a good argument. I think the framers knew what they were doing.

There are plenty of opportunities to excel within our government that don't require native birth. Let those who come here and acquire citizenship use their talents in those venues. I like the idea of a US born President. I don't care what color, faith, orientation or ethnicity, but I would like the person to be born upon these shores.

[Book Lover]

13. Hardly a good argument

I counter it by saying that the moral authority of a document which lauds personal freedom but does not expressly recognize the freedom of thousands enslaved at the time of its writing is shaky at best. But I see that you've moved past that anyway, and placed yourself squarely behind the natavist argument: being born "upon these shores" grants a person some intangible quality that you prefer they have. I myself don't see what that intangible quality could possibly be. Can you define it?

[ieoeja]

24. Indoctrinated into our society from birth. n/t

[Book Lover]

27. Okay. So you are saying that in order to be president,

one should have lived in our society from birth. Am I correct? And if so, then I would ask if that would be better translated into a *residency* requirement? The scenarios I am thinking of are:

A) Ms. X was born in New York City to two US citizens. When she is 6 months old, the family moves from NYC to live in Beijing for the next five years of her life. The family then moves back to NYC. Ms. X grows up and wants to become president. She is eligible because she was born here and her five years out of the country are irrelevant.

B) Mr. Z was born in NYC to two US citizens. When he is six months old, the family moves to Beijing for 35 years, but retain their US citizenship. The family then moves back to NYC. Mr. Z is now grown up and wants to become president. He is eligible because he was born here and is still a citizen. But how indoctrinated into our society is he?

C) Ms. Y was born in Beijing to two Chinese citizens. They move to NYC when Ms. Y is 6 months old and the whole family gains citizenship shortly (I know, fantasy land. But bear with me). Ms. Y grows up and wants to become president. She is ineligible because she was not born here even though the only society she knows is US society.

You might have figured that my position is that Ms Y's ineligibility and Mr. Z's eligibility are both unjust. I would like to know why you think they are just.

[MADem]

56. Nope--I go for the "accident of birth" argument. And you might not like that, but

oh, well. Sometimes, you see, life ISN'T fair. Not in the slightest. If it were fair, the Monkey would not be President. Ideas would rule over war chests. People wouldn't vote against their own interests. The best man, or woman, WOULD win.

We are Americans, and we ought to be able to find one lousy or not-so-lousy American-born citizen to take the lead role for four to eight years at a stretch. Again, I think the framers got this one right. The President is not just a leader working with two other branches of government, he or she is a living symbol of the nation--unfortunately, our 'symbol' right now reminds me of a vicious version of Red Skelton's idiotic and slightly drunken hobo character combined with that Chucky doll from the horror films...but I digress.

Here's the thing, though--if you think Mister Z in your scenario will have a rat's chance of being elected absent any Diebolding or a military takeover by the Communist Chinese government, then you must think William Huang can sing. That "societal indoctrination" or lack thereof becomes apparent to the voting public during the course of a campaign. It isn't some secret that remains hidden--the first press conference, the first debate, the first pancake breakfast or bean supper out in the heartland, there's where that 'indoctrination' comes to the fore.

[LisaL]

63. Is it the geographic location that rocks your boat? So, if

someone was not born in US itself because his/her US citizen parents were traveling, should he/she be able to run?

[MADem]

66. Yes, IF his parents were working for the Federal government and filed

a Report of US Citizen Born Abroad, why not? If they are doing the business of the government, their business should be construed as business on US soil (which embassies and military installations are, according to diplomatic custom and Status of Forces agreements). If they were partying private citizens, like Madonna, maybe not. That is still uncharted water, to some extent:

Whether or not this restriction applies to children born to non-US citizens but adopted as minors by US citizens is a matter of some debate, due to ambiguities in the interpretation of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 as to whether acquisition of citizenship by that route is to be regarded as naturalized or natural-born. Those who argue that the restriction does not apply point out that the child automatically becomes a citizen even though violating every single requirement of eligibility for naturalization, and thus the case falls closer to the situation of birth abroad to US citizens than to naturalization. This interpretation is in concert with the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790, that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens", which does not draw a distinction between biological children and adopted children, even though the process of adoption was certainly well known at the time.

In fact, the phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution itself and its interpretation has never been the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Thus, some argue that even those born abroad to US citizens are not eligible to ascend to the Presidency, since an act of Congress such as the Naturalization Act may not overrule the Constitution (see "Natural born citizen" as presidential qualification). Thus far, presidential candidates George W. Romney (born in Mexico), and Barry Goldwater and John McCain (born in US territories) were never seriously challenged on the basis of their "natural-born" citizenship, but no candidate falling under this classification has ever actually become President, and therefore the question must be regarded as not having been finally decided. http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-nationality-law

Tell ya what, if John McCain gets elected, we'll have a chance to see how that scenario plays out. He was born in Panama in a US military hospital. Frankly, I'd prefer he not be in a position to test the matter out, but ya never know.

FWIW, I also believe that "anchor babies" should continue to be entitled to citizenship, although moves to change that law are frequently flacked by the far right. I think the "accident of birth" thing happens for a serendipitous but important reason and I just don't want to change it. If we start fucking with citizenship laws, expect the next tweak of said laws to be a limiting of those dusky babies, even if they're born here of foreign mothers. There's a flip side to this citizenship discussion that we are seeing take place in way too many hyper-nationalistic countries, and I am uninterested in opening up that can of worms on these shores (if it ain't broke, don't fix it): http://hrw.org/campaigns/race/nationality.htm

Millions of people in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East have been denied or stripped of citizenship in their own countries solely because of their race, national descent, and gender. In many countries, children born in their mother's country are denied her nationality because women can not transmit nationality. These citizens without citizenship are denied a broad range of civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights.

Governments drive huge populations across international borders by depriving them of citizenship in their own countries, creating refugee crises and generating armed conflict. The breakup of states, the political tensions of war and intercommunal violence, and the creation of new states all provide scenarios in which holding on to or acquiring citizenship may turn on race or ethnicity and the whim of those in power. ....

[iverglas]

76. good grief

I think the "accident of birth" thing happens for a serendipitous but important reason and I just don't want to change it.

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

Anyone born to US citizens outside the US is born a US citizen. In many cases, that would be the only citizenship s/he was entitled to, because many countries do not grant citizenship based on "accident of birth".

You want to create categories of citizenship -- one that gets you a shot at the presidency if your parents were on federal govt business outside the US, and one that doesn't if your parents were honeymooning in Paris when your mother went into labour.

What on earth removing the US birth requirement for eligibility for the presidency could possibly have to do with (how it could possibly lead to) removing the grant of citizenship to people born in the US to non-citizen parents I cannot begin to imagine. The two things are so unrelated it makes my head hurt to any rapprochement between them.

Me, I wouldn't dream of calling for one option or the other. I just gape at the bizarre justifications people offer for the rule, and the plain inability of anyone to come up with any real justification.

[MADem]

78. Ah, and you, of course, do?

What, pray tell, if the parent is a dual national who hasn't spent much if any time in the US? Is the child a US citizen? NO, not always. What if paternity is an issue? Is that father really an American, or a Swede?

I think that first you should do a bit of research before you act like a know it all and denigrate people for their considered opinion. A US citizen who hasn't spent any time in this country at all has a problem passing on nationality. It's harder too, if the parents are unmarried. Here, do some reading:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_782.html

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:

1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;

2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;

3) the father (unless deceased) had agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and

4) while the person is under the age of 18 years --

A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,

B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


I do happen to know what I'm talking about--if you don't file a FS240 "Report of US citizen born abroad" at your local embassy or consulate, your kid could lose their citizenship rights. There are some circumstances that trump this requirement (you didn't know you had a kid, for example) but that's pretty much the standard rule. It it is an "application and approval" process, not automatic.

http://travel.state.gov/family/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

Documentation of U.S. Citizens Born Abroad

Documentation of United States Citizens Born Abroad Who Acquire Citizenship At Birth
The birth of a child abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest American consular office for the purpose of establishing an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record is in the form of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America. This document, referred to as the Consular Report of Birth or FS-240, is considered a basic United States citizenship document. An original FS-240 is furnished to the parent(s) at the time the registration is approved.

REPORTING THE BIRTH

A Consular Report of Birth can be prepared only at an American consular office overseas while the child is under the age of 18. Usually, in order to establish the child’s citizenship under the appropriate provisions of U.S. law, the following documents must be submitted:

(1) an official record of the child’s foreign birth;
(2) evidence of the parent(s)’ U.S. citizenship (e.g., a certified birth certificate, current U.S.
passport, or Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship);
(3) evidence of the parents’ marriage, if applicable; and
(4) affidavits of parent(s)’ residence and physical presence in the United States.

In certain cases, it may be necessary to submit additional documents, including affidavits of paternity and support, divorce decrees from prior marriages, or medical reports of blood compatibility. All evidentiary documents should be certified as true copies of the originals by the registrar of the office wherein each document was issued. A service fee of $65 is prescribed under the provisions of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 22.1, item 9, for a Consular Report of Birth.

NOTE: Consular Reports of Birth are not available for persons born in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979, the Philippines before July 4, 1946, American Samoa, Guam, Swains Island, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the former U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. Birth certificates for those areas, except the Panama Canal Zone, must be obtained from their respective offices of vital statistics. Panama Canal Zone birth certificates should be requested through the Vital Records Section of Passport Services (see address below.) The fees are the same as those for DS-1350.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE

Consular Report of Birth (FS-240)

On November 1, 1990, the Department of State ceased issuing multiple copies of the Consular Report of Birth (FS-240). As of that date, a new format for the FS-240 went into effect. All previously issued FS-240s are acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship (Public Law 97-241 - Aug. 24, 1982). To obtain a replacement for a lost or mutilated document, please submit a notarized written request including the original FS-240 or a notarized affidavit concerning the loss of the FS-240 and a $30 fee, payable to the “Department of State.” Mail it to the address below. The affidavit must contain the: 1) name, (2) date, and (3) place of birth of the subject; (4) a statement regarding the whereabouts of the original FS-240; and (5) be signed by the subject, parent, or legal representative.

Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350)

If the birth was recorded in the form of a Consular Report of Birth, a Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350) can be issued in multiple copies. The DS-1350 contains the same information as that on the new format Consular Report of Birth and is acceptable for all legal purposes. The DS-1350 is not issued overseas and can be obtained only by writing to the address below.

AMENDING/CORRECTING THE CONSULAR REPORT OF BIRTH

To amend or correct a Consular Report of Birth, submit a written request - accompanied by certified copies of all documents appropriate for effecting the change (e.g., foreign birth certificate, marriage certificate, court ordered adoption or name change, birth certificates of the adopting or legitimating parents, affidavits, etc.). The original FS-240 or replacement FS-240, or a notarized affidavit concerning its whereabouts, also must be included.

OBTAINING COPIES OF THE FS-240, DS-1350, AND PANAMA CANAL ZONE BIRTH CERTIFICATES
The DS-1350 or a replacement FS-240 can be obtained by writing to:

Vital Records Section
Passport Services
1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 510
Washington, D.C. 20522-1705

A written request must be notarized and must include a copy of valid photo identification of the requester. The written request must include:
(1) full name of child at birth (plus any adoptive names)
(2) date and place of birth
(3) names of parents
(4) serial number, if known, of the FS-240 (on those issued after November 1, 1990) if known
(5) any available passport information
(6) signature of requester and
(7) notarized affidavit for a replacement FS-240 (if applicable).
Note: For Panama Canal Zone (PCZ) birth certificates, just include items (1) through (3).

The fee for an FS-240 is $30. The fees for DS-1350 and PCZ certificates are $30 for the first copy, $20 each additional copy . Make check or bank draft drawn on a bank in the United States, or money order, payable to the "Department of State." The Department will assume no responsibility for cash lost in the mail. Documents will be provided to the person who is the subject of the Report of Birth, the subject’s parents, the subject’s legal guardian, authorized government agency, or a person who submits written authorization from the subject of the Report of Birth.

CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP ISSUED BY THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

A person, who acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) or who acquired U.S. citizenship by derivative naturalization, may apply for a Certificate of Citizenship under the provisions of Section 341 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Application for this document may be made in the United States to the nearest office of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security. Upon approval, a Certificate of Citizenship will be issued in the name of the subject, but only if that person is in the United States. Obtaining this certificate involves presentation of basically the same documentation required to obtain a Consular Report of Birth. Under law, the Consular Report of Birth and the Certificate of Citizenship are equally acceptable as proof of citizenship.


And then, there's this to consider:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

[iverglas]

83. that's all absolutely fascinating

I actually do happen to know a fair bit about US citizenship law. If you've never had a client who renounced her US citizenship at the US embassy in Canada, got deported from Canada and re-entered Canada without being challenged at the border crossing, you don't know the half of it.

And none of it has anything to do with the distinction you want to make between a child born to US parents abroad on fed govt business and a child born to US parents abroad on honeymoon. Here's the question: what the hell has the distinction got to do with the child?

[MADem]

85. It has to do with the ability of the parent to prove the child is entitled to citizenship

It has to do with the paternity of the child, it has to do with the filing of the forms before the kid reaches majority, it has to do with whether or not the nationality of the parent is in fact transmitted to the child (and as I said, this is NOT always the case--that's 'what the hell the distinction has to do with the CHILD,' see)...well, if you'd read the documentation, you'd know. Your two easy examples aren't the only types of applications seen at embassies and consulates.

Instead, you'd rather fight and get angry because I don't share your view. Oh well. Not the way to bring people to your viewpoint, FWIW.

I'm more convinced than ever that the decision of the founders to require a native born leader is a good thing for our country.

[iverglas]

89. oh good lord

Your previous commentary had nothing to do with the ability of the parent to prove the child is entitled to citizenship.

You object to someone who was not born in the United States but is a naturalized citizen rising to the office of president.

You object to someone born outside the United States to US citizen parents not travelling on US federal govt business rising to the office of president.

I have no reason to think that you would not object to the latter person rising to the office of president if the parents were Kennedys and the child's identity and paternity and maternity were documented on videotape from conception to delivery.

You simply don't get to say one thing and then pretend you said another.

THIS is what this little subdiscussion is about:

Q: So, if someone was not born in US itself because his/her US citizen parents were traveling, should he/she be able to run?

A: Yes, IF his parents were working for the Federal government and filed a Report of US Citizen Born Abroad, why not? If they are doing the business of the government, their business should be construed as business on US soil (which embassies and military installations are, according to diplomatic custom and Status of Forces agreements). If they were partying private citizens, like Madonna, maybe not.

You were not asked whether someone may run for president in those circumstances, you were asked whether s/he should be able to run, a question that I cannot help but interpret as being a request for your opinion, not your interpretation of present reality. I therefore construed your commentary on the question of children born to "partying private citizens" as your opinion.

And I then asked why the purpose of the parents' presence outside the US should affect the child's status as a potential candidate for the presidency of the country.

I don't give a flip about the "documentation". This entire thread was not a quiz on which marks were assigned for answers to a question along the lines of "who is eligible to run for president of the United States?" It was a request for / discussion of *opinions* in answer to the initial question:

"Should the constitution be ammended to allow non-American born citizens to be president?"

You said no, and I have yet to figure out the basis of your objection other than some mystical / mythical difference between people born in the US and people born anywhere else in the world, even if they are both born to US citizen parents or even if they are both reared in the US from the day they are born.

[MADem]

95. You need to read specifically what I wrote, and not project what you THINK I mean

based on your own prejudices. Is Madonna still an American? Is she now a dual national? She lives in the UK, she is, or was, married to a British national, and we'd have to know her INTENT. Did she file Reports of Birth Abroad? I didn't say NO, her kids are NOT citizens, I said <<<MAYBE NOT>>>. Reading is fundamental. That is why I named her, specifically. She isn't about to be mistaken for the Ambassador. But go ahead, get all "assumptive" and don't bother reading the actual words I typed.

And ignore the issues that arise when US passport bearing children of foreign nationals want to bestow citizenship on their kids, and they've been out of the US since before their 14th birthday. Citizenship is not always transmitted.

Look, there's no agreement here. You're angry because I don't see your viewpoint. I've explained, in several posts, why I don't, yet you keep ignoring what I've written and make up shit like "mystical/mythical differences" (I never said that) and "just because" (I never said that either).

You need to just get past that dog with a bone anger and stop ascribing arguments to me that I have not made. My opinion certainly isn't changing based on any weak, mostly insulting assertions you've made--you just keep repeating that I'm wrong because you don't like my opinion, and you haven't sold me on any real, tangible "benefit" of having someone with multiple loyalties leading our nation. I think I will continue to trust the judgment of the framers, and not you on this matter, sorry.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[iverglas]

98. No, I need to throw up my hands and get back to work

I quoted what you wrote. I'll be happy to do it again:

Q: So, if someone was not born in US itself because his/her US citizen parents were traveling, should he/she be able to run?

A: Yes, IF his parents were working for the Federal government and filed a Report of US Citizen Born Abroad, why not? If they are doing the business of the government, their business should be construed as business on US soil (which embassies and military installations are, according to diplomatic custom and Status of Forces agreements). If they were partying private citizens, like Madonna, maybe not.

Now, if you are now wanting to say that you used the example of Madonna because she IS NOT a United States citizen --

Is Madonna still an American? Is she now a dual national? She lives in the UK, she is, or was, married to a British national, and we'd have to know her INTENT.

-- well I just don't have room for the bogglement. The question was about US citizen parents. Why would you have chosen a non-US citizen parent as an example to illustrate your answer?

You're angry because I don't see your viewpoint.

You're using negative personal commentary because you don't have a good argument.

See how that works?

you keep ignoring what I've written and make up shit like "mystical/mythical differences" (I never said that) and "just because" (I never said that either).

I keep quoting what you said and you keep ignoring it. I didn't put "mystical / mythical differences" in quotation marks, so I don't know what your point here is; I was characterizing what you said, which consisted of things like:

I like the idea of a US born President.
That 'intangible quality' is being American born.
It IS an intangible quality

and I think I summed it up rather accurately. Your opinion may differ, but I'm seeing the evidence being on my side, and as you know, I'm not the only one.

I said "just because", in quotation marks, because it is a commonplace expression that I was using to characterize your argument (samples of which are presented above), not because you had said "just because", and I don't think there was anything in my context that suggested that I was alleging you had said, literally, "just because". How or why you would purport to interpret my statement:

But really, after all this, and your many reiterations and variations on the theme of "just because", there's still nothing there but "just because".

as an allegation that you had said, literally, "just because", I don't know.

You need to just get past that dog with a bone anger and stop ascribing arguments to me that I have not made.

Perhaps you'll try getting past attempts to demean by baselessly ascribing sad and pathetic little emotions to people whose ideas and words you don't care to address (me not being the only one in that category here), and consider addressing the responses that have been written to the "arguments" you have made. It's always entertaining to accompany that sort of thing with a baseless allegation that its target has been insulting, of course.

you just keep repeating that I'm wrong

Really? Got copy and paste? Can you tell the difference between saying your argument is weak / non-existent and "you're wrong"?

Let me help you; remember this?

Me, I wouldn't dream of calling for one option or the other. I just gape at the bizarre justifications people offer for the rule, and the plain inability of anyone to come up with any real justification.

you haven't sold me on any real, tangible "benefit" of having someone with multiple loyalties leading our nation

And the instant you establish that all naturalized citizens of the US (who DO NOT HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP, since we are not talking about people with dual citizenship) can fairly be characterized as having "multiple loyalties" is the instant I will stop seeing blind prejudice as the basis for this opinion.

I'm curious. Let's pretend that the multiple-loyalties red herring / stereotype wasn't tossed in there. What "tangible benefit" did women have to show men in order to be granted the right to vote? How about African-Americans, in order to be granted the right not to be bought and sold?

When did anyone seeking equal treatment have to prove to some other group that there was something in it for them, in order to receive equal treatment?

There may be justification for not granting equal treatment in this or any other situation; but the onus is always on the person arguing against equality to justify the unequal treatment, and never on the person seeking equality to justify equal treatment. The fact that someone is not "one of us" (again, you see, that's a commonplace expression being used to characterize something being said) is kind of the epitome of something that is not usually justification, in and of itself, for inequality. Not in a liberal democracy.

I think I will continue to trust the judgment of the framers, and not you on this matter, sorry.

No bloody wonder, since I have expressed none. Who wants a pig in a poke, eh?

More generally, I guess I just have more faith in humanity than I see expressed by a lot of people south of our mutual border. All this trusting in the judgment of the framers ... me, I prefer to trust people I can see and hear who actually have to live with the consequences of what they say and do. And neither the appeal to authority nor the assertion of one's own complete faith in that authority is actually argument, you know.

E Plebnista.

[MADem]

102. You are right about one thing

No bloody wonder, since I have expressed none...

You spout a lot of words, but you sure don't say much. You like to argue about nothing, get snarky, and pissed, and conduct yourself rudely, towards someone you don't even know, nitpick about nothing, and for what?

And not being south of your border, your falsely assumed 'blind prejudice" opinion and enthusiasm for social experimentation when you don't have to deal with the consequences is pretty much a hoot. It's easy to give orders from afar.

At any rate, your opinion is rather like an asshole....everyone has one. Enjoy yours.

Good day.

[krispos42]

96. Check it out

<snip>

Through birth abroad to two United States citizens
In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:

Both their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth
At least one of their parents lived in the United States prior to their birth.
A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of their citizenship. They may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have their citizenship recognized.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law

See also Jus sanguinis, Jus soli

[treestar]

69. Good point

There are people who come with their parents at ages like 6 months, and they are later naturalized, and they grow up in our society.

The matter of citizenship can be a technicality as you pointed out. I would never vote for Mr. Z, though he is eligible.

As for Ahhnold, I would not vote for him period, but that he is a naturalized citizen is irrelevant to why I would not vote for him.

[krispos42]

93. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, US Constitution

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

After 14 years, how well indocrinated into our society will Mr. Z be? I don't know. It depends on the individual. (For that matter, how indocrinated into our society is Dubya?) That is why they have to run campaigns and talk to voters and debate and such. The voters spoke about Dubya and rejected him. Not that you'd notice...

In Ms. Y's case, she was born in the wrong spot on Earth. The United States has clearly defined borders, and the Founding Fathers thought it would be a dandy idea if the person in charge of the military and the executive branch was born here. I know that I personally don't want my country and my government run by a foreigner.

I also know that the policy of native birth citizenship (jus soli) is absolute and provable, with documentation and papers. We don't have to try do decide on a case-by-case basis if a citizen of another nation can be a candidate for the Presidency. In Ms. Y's case, where is the cutoff? What if her parents moved here when she was 1? 2? 5? 10? If 5, why not 4? Or 6? What if her parents moved here when she was 16 but they had been really really Americanizing her since then?

Sadly, we don't have the Magic All-American 8-Ball that we can shake at a person and see how "American" they are. Either we have a subjective system, where a committee or judge or panel vets each person for "American-ness" before they are allowed to launch a campaign, or we have an absolute system. And the Founding Fathers put in an absolute system.

[MADem]

54. I will define it in three words: Ahnuld for President????

That 'intangible quality' is being American born. Maybe it isn't all that important to you, but if you have lived all around the world, in hell holes, in dictatorships, in authoritarian societies, as a kid, a young adult and a mature adult, it means something. I like my passport with the line that says I was born in the USA. Every time I got the opportunity to compare and contrast I was doubly glad of the accident of my birth.

It IS an intangible quality, and I do think the framers were right. YMMV. I'm not going to argue with you, but you aren't going to change my mind on this issue. If Jesus came back and wanted the job, I'd suggest that, absent his ability to produce a birth certificate suggesting he was born in Bethlehem, PA, the US born President appoint him as SECSTATE or UN Ambassador.

[Book Lover]

55. What a shame you are ending this conversation

I really would like to know what qualities you feel being born on US soil confers, because as far as I can see, there are none inherent in it. But as you say, I'll never change your mind, so this conversation is over. Oh well.

[MADem]

65. Here is a quality being born on US soil does NOT confer, as a rule

Dual citizenship.

Yes, there are exceptions (if Grampa or Grandma came from Country X, you can get a Country X passport). However, you have to take specific steps, fill out an application, and make the deliberate, with-knowledge-aforethought move to obtain that passport. They don't just send it to you in the mail without your asking for it first.

OTOH, if you are Italian, Irish, Canadian, South African, Iranian, from the UK, and so on, and you become a naturalized US citizen, you don't give up that other citizenship. You keep it, AND your passport, too. You can vote in elections overseas. And if you get in BIG trouble, you can run like hell to that other country--especially if you're charged with a crime that can carry the death sentence--we see that shit happen all the time. And that other country will refuse to extradite you. Our southern neighbor, Mexico, is famous for that move.

I like the concept of a leader who isn't beholden to another government. I think it's not just 'nice' it is necessary. And again, my mind will not be changed on this matter. I do think I'm in the majority, here, and most agree with my logic, but you've every right to your opinion--you're just not going to sway mine.

This isn't an "ethnic" (as opposed to Cleaver Family and Mayberry white bread folks) issue, though anyone who is not of European background still, in our less than enlightened 21st Century, has a tougher row to hoe, no matter how many hundreds of years their family has been here--while Eddie Chong from Seattle might be fine, some guy from Beijing named Chong just isn't. Federica Fusilli from the North End of Boston might be just up our alley, but Federica from Rome, unless it's Rome GA, ain't.

We want our American presidents to epitomize our national self, and be free of foreign ties, entanglements, or loyalties. I don't care if our future Presidents' ethnic backgrounds are Chinese, Japanese, Pakistani, Ethiopian, European, and/or Fijiian or any other ethnicity, so long as they were born here.

YM, obviously, V.

[iverglas]

77. you absolutely do not know what you're talking about

OTOH, if you are Italian, Irish, Canadian, South African, Iranian, from the UK, and so on, and you become a naturalized US citizen, you don't give up that other citizenship. You keep it, AND your passport, too. You can vote in elections overseas. And if you get in BIG trouble, you can run like hell to that other country--especially if you're charged with a crime that can carry the death sentence--we see that shit happen all the time. And that other country will refuse to extradite you. Our southern neighbor, Mexico, is famous for that move.

What the hell does that -- non-extradition without assurances against the death penalty -- have to do with anything?

The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly held that citizenship is irrelevant to the question of whether someone may be extradited to face criminal charges in a foreign state.

The individual whom France famously refused to exradite to the US without assurances against the death penalty was a US citizen with no other nationality.

The principles involved are just that: principles. And they are applied by people/societies who seem to have quite the opposite mindset from yours: that people are equal, and equally entitled to whatever protections of their fundamental human rights are afforded by the law of the jurisdiction where they are to citizens of that jurisdiction.

We don't extradite unless we have assurances that the death penalty will not be sought. Kinda like a US court wouldn't permit extradition if it looked like assurances that torture would be used were needed ... I say, hypothetically.


I like the concept of a leader who isn't beholden to another government.

Yes ... a child who immigrates to the US at the age of two is certainly "beholden" to the government of a country s/he might not be able to find on a map, and is not a citizen of, certainly by the point when s/he was seeking election to the presidency, one might think.


We want our American presidents to epitomize our national self, and be free of foreign ties, entanglements, or loyalties.

A president is indeed a head of state, and not just a head of government, and it is understandable that people would have symbolic expectations of the person in the office.

One more reason why so many of us think it's a good idea to have one of each: let the one do all the epitomizing and keep his/her face out of the business of running things, and the other look after business and not have to worry about all the epitomizing. Then you don't have to worry where the head of government was born ... or quite so much about what s/he gets up to in his/her spare time. If the head of government doesn't have to epitomize all that stuff, s/he can maybe have human foibles without someone trying to impeach him/her.

But really, after all this, and your many reiterations and variations on the theme of "just because", there's still nothing there but "just because".


(subsequently edited to fix typeface only)

[MADem]

82. Well, I've been civil, I have explained my viewpoint, and I've posted State Department regs

elsewhere on this thread. But you ignore what I say, get snarky, and insist that my considered opinions are "just because" because you don't happen to believe in something like national identity or that tinkering with the Constitution in willy-nilly fashion isn't something to be considered with great gravity. No, you just want to open the door to foreign influences that you can't even see coming downstream. You don't view the concept of citizenship the way I and others do.

Fine, we aren't going to agree. Here's some more light reading:

Pros and Cons
Along with the legal aspects of dual citizenship are the practical ones; there are also ethical considerations. Should people be allowed to claim more than one nationality? If not, why not? There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

People who favor the existence of dual citizenship explain that it can be useful to people traveling through countries in which one nationality is more welcome than another. The rise around the world in anti-American sentiment has a number of people genuinely concerned that an American passport could actually endanger the life of its holder. On a less ominous note, having a second nationality may make it easier for people to work abroad. Someone with dual citizenship in the United States and any European Union country, for example, could work in any European Union nation without having to secure permits.

For some, the issue is as simple as money. Belize, a small Caribbean nation known mostly for its beaches, initiated an Economic Citizenship Program that grants Belizean citizenship to anyone willing to pay the equivalent of $50,000. This "purchase" of nationality (which does not require renunciation of a former nationality) allows the new Belizean to reap the benefits of a lenient tax law structure that does not collect taxes on capital gains, estates, or money earned overseas.

Those who oppose the concept of dual citizenship say that it is antithetical to the ideal of loyalty to one's homeland. Citizenship is a privilege, they argue. In many countries, it is a privilege for which people fought and gave their lives. If citizenship requirements are eased too much, opponents of dual nationality say, eventually the concept of citizenship will have little or no meaning. Citizenship connotes a powerful emotional bond for many that should not be taken lightly. Those who may not feel this way may instead recognize the more pressing concern that becoming a dual national could mean having to serve in a foreign country's armed services or pay taxes to its government.

Dual nationals need to remember that they are subject to the laws of both countries. That may include some benefits, but it also may include tax and military responsibilities. This does not mean that a dual national living in the United States will be required to travel to the other country in which he holds citizenship to serve in the army there. If, however, he visits that country, the government may have the LEGAL RIGHT to compel him to serve out his military obligation if there is one....

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/dual-citizenship

[iverglas]

87. once again: fascinating

But dual citizenship is just another red herring.

It is perfectly possible for a naturalized citizen to have no other citizenship. Some people are stateless when they acquire citizenship; some people automatically lose their former citizenship when they acquire a new one; some people voluntarily renounce their former citizenship.

Your previous commentary had nothing to do with dual citizenship, it had to do with the propriety of making a distinction between citizenship acquired by birth and citizenship acquired by naturalization. And it included some rather xenophobic-sounding and non-fact-based negative comment about other countries and their practices in relation to their citizens which I corrected, and which provided no more basis for your argument than this current red herring does.

But you ignore what I say, get snarky, and insist that my considered opinions are "just because" because you don't happen to believe in something like national identity ...

I ignored nothing that you said. I pointed out that what you had said in no way amounted to good argument for your preference.

I said that your argument amounted to "just because" because that is how I perceived your argument.

You have ascribed a motivation to me for which you have not a shred or iota of basis. I "don't happen to believe in something like national identity"? Really? Have you asked me? I didn't think so.

Let's pretend you just did.

I don't happen to believe that national identity is determined by birth. I do believe in national identity. A very strong element of Canadian national identity, the national identity that generally concerns me, is the diversity of the society that it represents. And as a matter of fact, the dual-nationality thing is a subject of some controversy up here these days. Is permitting it (as we do) an expression of our choice to embrace diversity? Or should those who seek out our embracing of their identities as part of ours be required to express that choice by formally identifying only with Canada? And more mundanely, is dual citizenship worth the bloody hassle for this country when its citizens go and get themselves arrested or shelled in the other place they're entitled, and choose, to live in? It's a tricky question, both socially/politically (domestically) and legally (internationally).

... or that tinkering with the Constitution in willy-nilly fashion isn't something to be considered with great gravity.

Well, I guess tinkering with a constitution in willy-nilly fashion would be something to be considered with great gravity ... or preferably, not at all.

Of course, the idea that amending your Constitution to permit naturalized citizens to hold the office of president is tinkering with it willy-nilly -- well, you've just begged the question, haven't you? Nice try, but sorry, it doesn't work, and damn, I had expected a lot better.


I do understand the formal, symbolic meaning of the presidency; really, I do. And I see this whole controversy as an unavoidable outgrowth of the ill-advised practice of combining a head of state and head of government, as long as the office of head of state is assigned that meaning. As in many other aspects of law and government, lots of stuff has happened since the 18th century, and while nobody has yet solved this particular conundrum perfectly -- a heritary head of state, no matter how constitutionalized and common-person friendly, is really kinda passé, but a George Bush is really just too déclassé, and despite the various problems we do all still seem to like this idea of having some kind of head of state -- clinging to the past isn't always the best way to deal with the present. People in the 18th century just really were not smarter or wiser or better than us.

[MADem]

100. I don't think you do understand the formal, symbolic meaning of the Presidency.

And our system of government has worked for some time before anyone put their beak in on this matter, and I imagine it will continue to work.

Dual citizenship is not a red herring, it's divided loyalty, plain and simple. And if you can't see that, you can't see it.

I don't see much point in going on here. I've told you why I feel the way I do, and you don't agree. Certainly, stateless people exist. So do folks who renounce their old citizenship. But they aren't the majority of naturalized citizens in the US, they are quite rare, in fact, so that's a red herring. And as for diversity, we have all the damned diversity we need from within our own native born population. We don't need to socially engineer our presidency to make ourselves feel better. We just don't have to go find a Canadian, or an Austrian, or a person of any other nationality, to lead us and then shout "Ah HA, we're <<inclusive>>!".

But of course, the key thing here is point of view. We know that the US is NOT Canada. It looks similar, but it isn't the same. It is a unique entity, with no Queen, no ties to empires, and a totally different system of government. Different national priorities, too. So dragging Canadian "identity" out and trying to equate it to American identity isn't really a valid comparison, any more than it would be to equate Canadian identity to, say, Kurdish identity.

As for your riff on 'a heritary head of state' (I assume you mean hereditary) well, the framers did go over all that when they were coming to terms with the document, and they decided against any sort of monarchy from the get-go. Their judgment has stood the test of time; the system functions, and it functions fairly well. There IS no real controversy. Most Americans agree with me. I don't see a great hue and cry to change the Constitution to support this endeavor, beyond Orrin Hatch's abortive effort in support of Arnold a few years back, anyway.

Oh, and FWIW, we learned our lesson about fucking with our Constitution in the earlier part of the last century--it is a pain in the ass to change it, and a bigger pain in the ass to change it back--it's not a quick vote and a signature, it has to make the rounds to the states and 3/4ths have to sign off within seven years before the change takes effect. It's precisely why we don't like to leap, yes, willy-nilly, into modifying the document.

I'm done here.

[iverglas]

105. jeezus bleeding christ

Dual citizenship is not a red herring, it's divided loyalty, plain and simple. And if you can't see that, you can't see it.

Dual citizenship is a red herring when THE ISSUE IS WHETHER A NATURALIZED CITIZEN MAY BECOME PRESIDENT -- because not all naturalized citizens are dual citizens, and any one who is can easily remedy the problem by renouncing the second citizenship if s/he wants to be president.

YOU are talking about dual citizens in a discussion of NATURALIZED CITIZENS. They are two different things. They are not the same thing. How much more plainly can I put this?

We don't need to socially engineer our presidency to make ourselves feel better. We just don't have to go find a Canadian, or an Austrian, or a person of any other nationality, to lead us and then shout "Ah HA, we're <<inclusive>>!".

Well hey, bully for y'all. I guess if anyone had been suggesting you needed to do any of those things, you'd have some sort of point aimed at something.

All I'm seeing is more of the "it's all about us" stuff I've already remarked on, and how the issue, in equality questions, is not just the interests of "us", the majority.

So dragging Canadian "identity" out and trying to equate it to American identity isn't really a valid comparison, any more than it would be to equate Canadian identity to, say, Kurdish identity.

Gee, if only I'd done anything that remotely fucking resembled that. Can you really not follow a conversation, or are you just pretending?

YOU SAID: you don't happen to believe in something like national identity ...

and I offered information for your assistance and to refute the false and baseless statement you had made, with some details for your edification. But hey, you go ahead and pretend I was doing something else.

As for your riff on 'a heritary head of state' (I assume you mean hereditary) <how gracious of you> well, the framers did go over all that when they were coming to terms with the document, and they decided against any sort of monarchy from the get-go.

They decided to retain the institution of slavery and not let women vote, too. What a bunch of wise old white guys they were. Did you imagine I was suggesting that you adopt a monarchy, though? When I said:

a heritary head of state, no matter how constitutionalized and common-person friendly, is really kinda passé, but a George Bush is really just too déclassé, and despite the various problems we do all still seem to like this idea of having some kind of head of state

? I can't imagine how ...

the system functions, and it functions fairly well.

Actually, your system functions worse than any system in any other liberal democracy in the world. It is unwieldy, extraordinarily corrupt, and concentrates more power in the hand of a single individual at the top than any constitutional monarchy, just for instance, has done for a century. It was a really good thing in its day, just like the Model T was. Henry Ford was a smart fella. Do you see us all driving around in Model Ts and saying Old Henry, he knew what we needed, we don't need no anti-lock brakes ...?

There IS no real controversy. Most Americans agree with me.

Ah yes, that's the standard by which to measure the rightness of a policy in a liberal democracy. Most of 'em seem to want to deny same-sex couples access to marriage and all the protections that go with it, and to interfere rather radically in women's reproductive rights, too. And if most of 'em decided to jump off a bridge ...

So to conclude: I haven't seen an argument in favour of the prohibition in question yet. Question begging, appeals to authority, appeals to public opinion ... no argument.

I'm done here.

Good for you.

[MADem]

109. You need help, I think,

You're overinvested in this topic, spinning like a top, and pretty fucking rude, actually.

Many naturalized citizens ARE dual citizens, or can be simply by hanging on to their existing passport and renewing it when it gets close to expiring. The dual is far more common than the renouncer, especially when the citizen taking the oath is an adult. If you come from Venezuela or Spain, well, you have to make a choice, but other countries let you retain your citizenship.

If you have a Canadian parent and you are born in the US, you can wait till you are 28 to claim your Canadian citizenship. Other nations have similar regulations.

Coming the other way, Michael J. Fox is, and Peter Jennings was, a 'dual'--having not given up their passports. "Oath" -- the one that isn't federal law -- notwithstanding.

And I've news for you--when it comes to our nations laws, and how we conduct ourselves, it IS "all about us." Not you. Awwww.

You really should spend less time worrying about these matters--you're about to blow a gasket, it seems. I've rarely seen a person so twitchy, insistent, bellicose, and snarky about a topic, and so fucking determined to be deliberately abrupt and discourteous. You take some sick kind of joy in acting the smartass, and for that you take the cake.

Odd, I always thought Canadians were more open, friendly and polite, but you seem to be the exception that proves the rule, or you are over/undermedicated.

[iverglas]

112. keep it up, all of it

You need help, I think,

And you apparently need to re-read the rule book.

You're overinvested in this topic

Yeah, it's all about me.

spinning like a top

Now, from the source, that's just downright funny.

and pretty fucking rude, actually

Yeah, commentary on manners is always a winning argument. Commentary on the interlocutor of any sort is always the best tactic.

Many naturalized citizens ARE dual citizens, or can be simply by hanging on to their existing passport and renewing it when it gets close to expiring.

And most dual citizens can renounce their second citizenship any time they want. What point, exactly, do you imagine you have?

If you have a Canadian parent and you are born in the US, you can wait till you are 28 to claim your Canadian citizenship. Other nations have similar regulations.

And I believe you have to be 35 to be president, so ...

Coming the other way, Michael J. Fox is, and Peter Jennings was, a 'dual'--having not given up their passports. "Oath" -- the one that isn't federal law -- notwithstanding.

And ... your point is ...?

You see that bit in what you wrote where it says "having not given up their passports"? Not that giving up one's passport has a thing to do with it, but assuming you were speaking symbolically -- and if they did? Oh look. They wouldn't be dual citizens any more. They'd be (naturalized) US citizens. I'm just not understanding what's so difficult about this.

And I've news for you--when it comes to our nations laws, and how we conduct ourselves, it IS "all about us." Not you. Awwww.

And I'd say I have news for you, except that I don't think it's news at all. I think you know perfectly well that when you insinuate that I have in any way suggested that it is in any way about me, you are misrepresenting what I have said in a really quite intolerable way.

You really should spend less time worrying about these matters--you're about to blow a gasket, it seems.

I've long understood that when some people post here, they aren't thirsty.

I've rarely seen a person so twitchy, insistent, bellicose, and snarky about a topic, and so fucking determined to be deliberately abrupt and discourteous. You take some sick kind of joy in acting the smartass, and for that you take the cake.

I wish I could say I've never seen anyone so bent on avoiding, dancing around and changing a subject, and ignoring, twisting and falsifying what someone else says, but it wouldn't be accurate.

Odd, I always thought Canadians were more open, friendly and polite, but you seem to be the exception that proves the rule, or you are over/undermedicated.

I wish I could say that I've never seen such appalling incivility, but that wouldn't be true either.

[SaveElmer]

16. So you don't think citizens of DC should have voting rights?

That is a constitutional requirement as well!

[MADem]

57. Actually, I do, but without any changes to the Constitution at all

My proposal is to limit the 'definition' of "Washington, the District of Columbia" to those portions of the District which are the military district, Forest Service and the seats of government. All of the residential areas would be ceded to MD and VA. The budget which Congress grants to DC would continue for a few transition years, and then the states would be responsible for migrating the inhabitants to their tax and voting rolls, and assuming responsibility for provision of their public services in accordance with the laws of their affiliated state.

Thus, people could live in a city called District of Columbia, MD, or District of Columbia, VA, but not Washington, DC. The Congress could stop exerting a slaveowner's control over the population, and for their taxes, the people living in the area would be at last represented.

And lastly, Washington, DC, in concept, anyway, would still exist, but it would consist of ACoE properties (the military district), forestry properties (the Washington Monument, mall, and all the attractions run by the Forest Service) and the governmental buildings. Every state would pony up a chunk of dough to keep these buildings, grounds, and contiguous streets spit and polished, and the whole concept and charges of an inefficient or corrupt government would be replaced by a hired staff of urban managers, since the issues of representation of a "population" through a mayor and city council would no longer apply. The Capitol Police would have to expand their hiring, or pick the best and brightest from the DC police, to cover these areas beyond the actual Hill. If corruption reared its ugly head, the Congress would be responsible, and oversight committees would have the "Ah HA" finger pointed directly at them for failure to do due diligence.

I think the whole concept of "DC"--the DC that CONGRESS gets to control, anyway--ought to be a seat of government, not a place to live. It may require some creative line drawing, there will be arguments over who does what, and who pays for what at first, it will meet initial resistance from people who on the one hand LIKE being Washington residents yet at the same time GRIPE because they aren't represented, and the end result would look like a jigsaw puzzle map, but if you look at the ACoE maps of the "military district" it's a total patchwork now, as it is.

At the end of the day, you'd have a population that is freed from the yoke of the arbitrary Congressional masters and who can make their wishes known to an elected government that can actually make changes in accordance with their wishes.

[SaveElmer]

117. I agree with that ...but...

It is thwarting the intention of the framers...they were wrong not to give DC residents voting rights...and in the context of thet time it may have seemed a wise thing to do. After all they didn't know DC would become the city it is...

Just as the world has changed and it is no longer right to exclude naturalized Americans from seeking high office!

[happyslug]

39. Alexander Hamilton could not be President either.

AND HE WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Remember the US may NOT be always free of Foreign influence, a day may come where foreign countries will be able to buy the Presidency for their Candidate. With this rule such a Candidate still has to be a Native Born American, which provides a little bit of check on this possibility.

Fear of Foreign Rulers is the reason the president must be native Born, when the Constitution was written the history of both Germany and Poland was still recent history. Both had ELECTED kings, and both suffered from Foreign Kings being elected do to influence from foreign countries and then favoring those countries over and above the Country the elected King was King of. This was one of the Reason for the partition of Poland during the late 1700s and the division of Germany from the 1400s onward. The authors of the Constitution knew of this history and wanted to avoid it for the US, even at the Cost of one of the most brightest persons in American (Alexander Hamilton) being forbidden ever to be President (Alexander Hamilton had been born in the West Indies and came to the US as a boy to live with his uncle at the death of his Parents).

For more on Hamilton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

The constitutional provision in question:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

On its face this seems to include Hamilton but traditional interpretation have always excluded him, probably do to how New York made people Citizens at that time. Basically the question is was Hamilton a "Citizen" of New York by 1787? Prior to the Adoption of the Constitution it was the STATES that made people Citizens, and thus was Hamilton a "Citizen" of New York prior to 1787? If yes, he was a Citizen of the US under the Articles of Confederation (For the Articles had a "Full faith and Credit" Clause that meant all states had to accept as a citizen anyone who was a Citizen under the laws of any other state). On the other hand if Hamilton was NOT a Citizen of New York (or any other states, he had gone to School in New Jersey) he was NOT a Citizen in 1787 and thus NOT eligible under the US Constitution. I did a quick review on the net and could not find anything on this issue (I did find one site, but it just assumed Hamilton was a US Citizen in 1787 and thus Eligible, it does NOT mention HOW he was a Citizen which is the real Question).

Thus if Alexander Hamilton was a New York Citizen (Or a New Jersey Citizen) in 1787, he was an American Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the US Constitution and could have been President. On the other hand if Hamilton was NOT a citizen of any State in 1787, he was NOT a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution and thus NOT eligible to be President.

One last comment, Hamilton NEVER ran for President or Vice President, even through he was one of the top powers in his party. This may be because he lacked support among other members of his Party, but it may be because he did not think he was eligible. It will require someone to find out if he was a Citizen in 1787 given he only immigrated ot the US in 1774.

Anyway, my point was Alexander hamilton made someone like himself NOT eligible to be President, why should be permit anyone else who is NOT a Native Born Citizen to be the President.

[Book Lover]

51. Because being born here is no guarentee

that a person would be free of foreign influence in any event. Money knows no national boundary. I think fixing the place of birth to this nation does not address this potential problem.

[Igel]

46. Because as Secretary of State she is still under authority,

and can have that authority circumscribed and withdrawn. Note that this is the same for the military: it's under civilian control, and that control is native born.

The President has Constitutional authority in certain areas, and in those areas is the sole actor; the Congress and SCOTUS cannot properly reduce that authority.

No one Congressperson has much authority; even the speaker of the house, in line for the presidency, is two removes from it and her (in the upcoming case) power results solely from the group's authority.

[Book Lover]

52. Please let me see if I understand what you are saying

if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that a foreign-born person can hold any office except the presidency because the office of president is bound only by the authority of the federal constitution?

[Igel]

136. Maybe.

The office of a legislator is bound by the authority of the federal constitution, as is the office of Supreme Court justice. But the authority given any one person in those organizations is puny. The source of the authority isn't at point; the scope and shared nature of the authority is.

Nobody foreign born can have sole and ultimate responsibility given the Constitutional provisions. No single (federal) judge has authority over the outcome of a case--it can always be appealed to a higher authority, and supreme courts are committees. If a judge is foreign born, the power s/he wields over anything is limited. No single (federal) legislator has authority over the laws or over much at all, in fact; only the legislature does, and that's a committee. If a legislator is foreign born, the power s/he wields over anything is limited. But the president has constitutionally granted authority over some things, and it's unlikely that the Congress or the courts could Constitutionally overrule him/her, and certainly unlikely that they'd be able to overrule him/her quickly enough to make a difference; an truth that's pleasant at time and unpleasant at time.

States usually don't have the same restriction; hence Granholm and Schwartzenegger (?). But states have limited responsibility, overall, and their authority is circumscribed--more so now than in 1792--by the federal Constitution.

[krispos42]

88. Because she is a Czech national

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeline_Albright

As such, she cannot be president. Even if the four people above her when Clinton was in office were killed, she still could not be president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

And I am quite happy with that. If you are born here, you are a natural-born US citzen, which is something that many countries do not do. Even if you are born in Germany, for example, you may not be considered a citizen if your parents were immigrants.

I do not want to be ruled by a foreigner in my own country.

[iverglas]

91. like I wuz saying

I do not want to be ruled by a foreigner in my own country.

Sometimes the true colours do just slip out.

But hey, does that prez of yours actually "rule" you? I thought youse guys did away with all that forelock-tugging a couple of centuries ago ...

[krispos42]

97. Sleepless night, eh, Iverglas?

Didn't know lawyers kept the same hours as humble factory workers! :-)

I also loved the name of that flashlight. "Rotoglo". Very clever!

But back to the topic.

Does Bush rule? Well, let's see...

At his discretion (so far, at least), I can be stripped of the following Constitutional guarantees: Amendments 4, 5, 6, 8, and 14, and Article 1 Section 9 (habeas corpus), simply by him declaring me an 'unlawful enemy combatant'. Without warrant or other judicial review, I can be tossed in a cell within or without the United States and held and tortured indefinitly, my residence raided and searched and property seized, all with no possibility of appeal.

See José Padilla.

You be the judge.

I'm also curious as to the requirements to be the Canadian PM. Care to tell the class what those are? And what you think of them?

[iverglas]

103. yeah, but did you read down to the bottom?

I didn't until after I posted that, and on the one hand I hoped no one would notice, and on the other hand I thought I should confess. It said:

Because of a recent development initiative the revolutionary RotoCharger will not be offered to the public at this time.

The RotoCharger was so revolutionary that the U.S. Military has just tabbed us to develop electronic applications for our charging device for our troops in combat. Because of this we have chosen to only release this product after our military development efforts are completed.

We know you aren't happy about the added delay but we are sure you believe, as we do, that our U.S. troops deserve the best equipment to continue to wage the war on terror.

I was touting for the military industrial complex. Canadian Tire is advertising mine now; turns out it's a Noma, phew:


Does Bush rule? Well, let's see...

Gosh. The Queen can't do any of that stuff. Let alone the GG.

I'm also curious as to the requirements to be the Canadian PM. Care to tell the class what those are? And what you think of them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3005000&mesg_id=3006017

iverglas
Thu Dec-07-06 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
81. thanking our stars for little problems ...

Canada, of course, has no requirement that our head of government -- the Prime Minister -- be anything but a Canadian citizen, citizenship being availble by birth or naturalization. The PM need only be elected as a member of Parliament from one of the 301 electoral districts in the country, for which purpose s/he must be a Canadian citizen of voting age. Period.

Well, and not have been convicted of an election-related offence, although I can't find the provision that says that. And not be a govt employee -- I can find that provision, but I can't find the one that meant that I had to give up my non-employee govt contract when I ran; maybe it's been removed.

Anyhow, the PM is just an MP. And I'm quite sure we have way more than one MP with dual citizenship. Speaking of which, I was gobsmacked to read that the US has just got its first Muslim member of Congress. From the 2004 Canadian election:
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20040723.html

The recent federal elections will be remembered for a number of seminal events: the first husband and wife team in the Commons, the first quadriplegic MP, the first Sikh woman member of Parliament, and of course the first African-immigrant MP from Quebec.

The national media covered these developments in detail, and today Mr. and Mrs. Grewal from B.C., Dr. Ruby Dhalla from Ontario, Steven Fletcher from Manitoba, and Maka Kotto from Quebec are household names.

Lost in these accomplishments was another first for Canada. It was the election of Canada's first Muslim woman member of Parliament - Yasmin Ratansi from the Toronto riding of Don Valley East. Her achievement went completely unnoticed.

I guess because it just didn't seem newsworthy.

Commentary on the comments of the nasty little Ezra Levant that I quoted in that previous post:
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/12/05/give-it-up/
(Garth Turner got himself turfed from the Liberals recently, I forget for what ... oh, leaking caucus stuff or something)

Well, that didn’t take long, eh? The PMO’s (Prime Minister's Office, Oval Office equivalent) favourite hitman journalist, Ezra Levant, writing in the Calgary Sun, today caused a storm by revealing Stephane Dion carries dual citizenship. Canada and France.

So, Levent asked, does the new Liberal leader have potentially traitorous tendancies as a result? “When it comes to making decisions about the war on terror, and Canada’s role in Afghanistan, will Dion be unduly influenced by France,” Levant pants, “a country that has taken up the role of lawyer and arms dealer for every terrorist state in the world, even defending Saddam Hussein until the even of his overthrow?”

Gee, Ezra, we thought he was a formerly geeky college prof who spent the last decade toiling away as a Canadian cabinet minister. We just didn’t realize he was a terrorist. Or at least that he was a puppet of France, you know, the terrorist-loving country over there on the left hand side of Britain. Do you think he should be arrested when he walks into QP today?

... There’s no evidence to suggest Stephane Dion is any less loyal to Canada than Stephen Harper, Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe. Er, scrap that last thought.

Yeah, that's right. The guy whose sole purpose as a member of Parliament is to accomplish the secession of Quebec from Canada could be PM.

Some of the less benighted comments on Garth's blog:

So, I agree with your comments on Ezra. But, not sure I get your view on Dion needing to give up his French citizenship if he seeks to be Prime Minister. Are you saying that the highest elected official in Canada needs to be solely Canadian? If so, do other elected officials need to be solely Canadian? Minister of the Crown? Provincial politicians? Local politicians?

... Evra should be more careful when writing such racist remarks. Just because he’s part french doesn’t mean he has some undue loyalties. This is the type of attitude that got the japanese interned.
... I’m really sick of this attitude that if you’re a dual-citizen that you’re somehow less than 100% loyal to Canada or somehow less than 100% Canadian. Bollocks.
As a multi-cultural mosaic of a country we should embrace dual-citizenship, not attack it.
These comments are truly shameful.

... I find it very disturbing that this kind of crap and politically motivated gossip remains in our system but it does and in our silly society I am afraid remains.
I could care less about this issue or how good his English is (it is far better than my French).
The issue is what leader and what party can demonstrate the integrity we are looking for so much.

Now, once again, the caveat: the PM is not the head of state. The Queen is, at the moment. And she isn't a Canadian citizen, I guess ... but I guess that's your whole point. ;)

The viceroy, the present Governor General, is a fluently bilingual francophone black woman born in Haiti who holds Canadian citizenship by naturalization and held French citizenship by marriage/naturalization when the PM announced her appointment, and gave up the French citizenship when it became known and objected to. She precisely does embody the Canadian national identity. Given that she is the deputy of the head of state, and performs all the functions of the head of state (signs legislation, reads to schoolchildren), the dual citizenship was really a tad OTT.

John Turner, who was quite briefly the Liberal PM last decade, was born in England.

Not much excitement about it down in the Canada forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x18402

And here's the babble at rabble.ca:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006169

Big snooze, basically. And I concur.

No lawyers here, you know, just us ex-lawyers. The House debated whether to re-debate same-sex marriage until 11:30 pm tonight, so I was at the keyboard, and then I didn't do the other stuff due in ... oh good, 1 hour 38 minutes, and it's about 2 hours' work ... so I'm gone.

[krispos42]

107. Um, yeah, I saw your post later on down the list

and gave myself a smack in the head. Thanks for the info.

Keith Ellison, the black Muslim in Congress, is not a dual citizen. He was born in Detroit, Michigan, and converted in college. He's actually not to far from me, geographically speaking. I'm in Minnesota's 2nd District, he's Congressman-elect from the 5th, so it's been all over the media, local and otherwise.

He's black, he's Sunni Muslim, he didn't change his name to an Arabic-style one... I'm sure the fundies are throwing fits!

Oh, wait, here's one right here.

Some choice bits of that rant:

"He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. "

"Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."

"Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?"

"But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of 'Dianetics' by L. Ron Hubbard."

"But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America."

What's that scraping sound? Ah, yes. Knuckles dragging.

And too bad about the flashlight...

[iverglas]

108. aargh

(1) I meant down to the bottom of the flashlight blurb site I posted back then
-- which is where the stuff about supporting the troops was.

(2) I wasn't suggesting that Ellison was a dual citizenship. I was expressing
amazement that in a country as large and diverse as the US this was the first
time a Muslim had been elected to Congress, and contrasting the situation with
the situation in Canada, where it apparently wasn't even noteworthy when the
first Muslim woman was elected to Parliament because there were already so many
non-standard bums warming the benches there.

This is the present federal Conservative (ugly right-wing) caucus -- more male
than any parliamentary caucus in recent history, but you'll note the brownish faces:



Caucus chair is Rahim Jaffer.

[krispos42]

110. That lady in the front is wearing the drapes?

Ugh.

I see your point, though.

Well, eventually diversity comes up and bites you in the ass, like it did Prager.

And I can still buy the RotoGlo lights and light/radio combinations, just not the separate multifunction charger. Excellent.

[iverglas]

128. Drapes immortalized

Yes, an interesting choice. Overall, our benches tend to be a little more casual looking than yours -- not that the guy in the polo shirt goes to the House looking like that, but the women aren't quite as uniform in their red suits / blue suits. But green satin, I dunno.

Check the one next to her. Ann Coulter before she met the bleach bottle, and short a few brain cells. That's Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, who is busy roaming the world making us look like evil morons.

Next: spot the Nazi. I was surprised how spot-able he is. Hint: not a fat old white-haired guy; when he was leader of the predecessor party, he held one of his first press conferences by gathering the press on a dock and zipping up on a sea-doo in a wet suit. Don't you wish Al Gore did things like that?

Other hint: he's standing beside the bimbo lovely and intelligent Belinda Stronach, daughter of the billionaire neo-Nazi-loving owner of Magna and all its union-busting tentacles worldwide -- on duh!! -- that's not the current Conservative caucus, that's the caucus from the previous short-lived Parliament, before Belinda defected to the Liberals and got a Cabinet position for her efforts, but dumped her new boyfriend, the pointy-faced guy on the right of Prime Minister Steve. He went for a walk on his farm with his dog for the press, musing about the vicissitudes of romance. Now he's Minister of Foreign Affairs. A couple of weeks ago, when a Liberal called to him across the floor to ask whether he wasn't worried about how global warming would affect his dog, he gestured at Belinda's empty seat and said "you've got her". You folks will recognize Belinda, of course:



See what fun you could have if you had more foreigners in the seats of power?

[krispos42]

129. The overly-tan gentleman in the red V-neck and dark jacket?

I don't think they guy in the powder-blue tie would do much jet-skiing, but the other one either spends a lot of time in the tanning booth or likes to be on the water or snow.

Ah, well, I'm expecting that our largely-homegrown Congresscritters should provide plenty of entertainment in the next year or so as the Democrats issue enough subpoenas to take down a small forest. It will be fun seeing Sensenbrenner spinning and evading his rotund posterior before a microphone, for example. And imagine Dubya trying to handle some pointed questioning? He can barely speak coherently with a friendly audience as it is!

[Book Lover]

118. So a person can take our oath of citizenship, renounce their foreign citizenship,

and you still can them a foreigner. Got it. Thanks.

[krispos42]

130. Happy to oblige

I don't make the definitions, but the definitions are there so we know which words to use.

I will happily grant you that Madeline Albright has no characteristics that would cause a person to say "Hey, she's not from this country", like an accent or ethnic clothing or jewelery. In other words, she doesn't look or act "foreign", yet that is what she is.

I do not attach any negative connotations to the fact that she is a foreigner. I have one as a roommate, and work with another. I'm not saying she's a "damn dirty foreigner". But I am quite comfortable for reserving the highest elected official in the country for a native-born American.

[alarimer]

133. I don't either

Foreigners do not get to rule this country. I don't care how good they are otherwise. Changing this amendment opens up a whole can of worms we do not need.

[iverglas]

75. "Foreigners"?

And we have enough foreigners owning and running business in our country as it is.

Something about the concept of citizenship go over your head?

We can't make our own products anymore. We don't make our own computers, clocks, clothing, microwaves, game consoles, watches, toys, televisions, phones, or even the components to make them. We barely make our own cars, machine tools, and heavy machinery.

What the hell has that got to do with anything at all? This is the fault of naturalized US citizens maybe?

[krispos42]

79. Yes, foreigners

I know you are being deliberately obtuse (again), but for the enjoyment of everybody else who views this thread, I'll clarify.

Foreign companies. Companies and corporations that are based in a foreign country, as well as foreign venture-capitalist firms, investment firms, and simply rich foreign people.

Only the last can apply for US citizenship, incidently.

What the hell has that got to do with anything at all? This is the fault of naturalized US citizens maybe?

It is the fault of the idiot politicians that thought it would be a dandy idea to have a massive national debt, owned in a significant part by foreign interests. Interests who, having all this nice interest money on the trillions of dollars in foreign-owned Treasury bonds, did the smartest thing they could with them: bought up American companies. Now those profitable American companies are sending their profits overseas.

It is the fault of the idiot politicians that thought it would be a dandy idea to lower trade barriers, so our industry could be shipped overseas. Now we have a massive trade imbalance, with hundreds of billions of dollars a year moving overseas to foreign companies that are using those profits, to (what else) buy Treasury bonds and US companies.

It is the fault of the idiot politicians who decided that alternative energy sources were a dumb idea, that is was okay to pay oppressive regimes, violent regimes, unstable regimes, terrorist regimes, ungodly amounts of money for oil.

Sadly, almost all of these idiots were home-grown corporatist fundamentalist assholes that can't tell the difference between God and gold. They have sacrificed the concept of the middle class, believing that having only the rich and the poor makes for a more orderly, safer, and more prosperous society, all the while satisfying their lust for power.

I don't blame the foreigners for buying us up. They were handed a golden opportunity by us, and they gladly snatched it up, paying us with our own checkbook.

I don't know; maybe it's because the Japanese and the Koreans and the Chinese and the Dutch and the English and the French and the Germans and the Italians and the Swedes all have common roots that go back far longer than the US and Canada do. Maybe coming from (until recently) the same ethnic, cultural, and liguistic background and history gives them a stronger sense of identity.

I do know this, however. One of the signs of a decaying world power is when high finance begins to take over the economy, when shuffling funds back and forth is more important than actually adding value to raw materials. We're reaching that point.

Another sign is a string of mediocre or downright incompetent national leaders. Well, we've been having those for a few years now, and it's starting to strain everything.

So excuse me if I try to keep our commander-in-chief, and the military, executive, and legislative power he holds, native-born.

[MADem]

84. I'm with you. NT

[iverglas]

90. oh, do try again

and see whether maybe you can stick to the subject.

The subject is:

"Should the constitution be ammended to allow non-American born citizens to be president?"

and you said:

We have 300 million people here
If we can't find decent people to be President from that, we might as well curl up and die.
And we have enough foreigners owning and running business in our country as it is.

There are no "foreigners" anywhere in this vicinity. People who are citizens of a country are not "foreigners" in that country. So your comment about "foreigners" doing this or doing that was either a result of your thinking you were in a different thread or an indication that you consider naturalized citizens to be foreigners.

So you just typed a whole lot of nought for nought, since I was not the least bit concerned with the price of tea in China, or of T-shirts at Wal-Mart.

Just with why you would be referring to citizens of the US as "foreigners".

[krispos42]

101. The things I do to make you happy...

Foreign companies. Companies and corporations that are based in a foreign country, as well as foreign venture-capitalist firms, investment firms, and simply rich foreign people.

A foreigner is defined as "a person from a foreign country". A foreign country is defined as a country different from your own.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Madeline Albright are, by definition, foreign. The fact that they are naturalized citizens of the United States does not take away their status as foreigners. They (well, Albright at least) may not 'seem' that foreign, but they are by definition "foreign". So also AstraZeneca is a foreign company.

You, being Canadian, are a foreigner to me, and I, being an American, am one to you.

But, as I stated previously, I was refering to foreigners in the collective corporate sense, such as Toyota or AstraZeneca and Airbus.

[wiley]

142. I hear that!

[MADem]

8. Non-American born citizens get to be SECRETARY OF STATE

See Herter, Christian, Kissinger, Henry, and Albright, Madeleine.

We don't need to be fiddling with the Constitution. If we can't find someone capable who is native born to lead the country, as the framers specified, we're in a helluva fix.

[RedG1]

14. I voted NO but...

would consider "Yes" only AFTER the repeal of the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution...

gawd...I wish the Big Dawg was in his 4th term

[SaveElmer]

15. Yes it is an arcane requirement...

No longer needed...

I can see perhaps establishing a length of period one must be a citizen...but in general I think it is an unnecessary requirement!

[beaconess]

21. It may be arcane, but it does not harm and there certainly is no good reason to go through

the trouble of upending the Constitution. Last time I checked, we weren't facing some kind of crisis because there were no native-born American citizens available or qualified to be President of the United States that requires us to outsource the job to the rest of the world.

There are lots of amendments we could pass that would "update" the Constitution so that it's no longer "arcane," but this would be, in my view, a complete waste of time and resources to consistently fiddle with the Constitution to correct a problem that does not exist.

[SaveElmer]

22. It is unfair and unnecessary...

An increasing number of Americans are not natural born...there is no reason why we should potentially be deprived of their services because of a requirement that is simply not needed. Jennifer Granholm, for example, cannot run for President because of this clause..

There is no crisis because DC residents have no representation in Congress either...yet it is patently unfair and should be remedied!

[iverglas]

81. thanking our stars for little problems ...

Canada, of course, has no requirement that our head of government -- the Prime Minister -- be anything but a Canadian citizen, citizenship being availble by birth or naturalization. The PM need only be elected as a member of Parliament from one of the 301 electoral districts in the country, for which purpose s/he must be a Canadian citizen of voting age. Period.

The office of head of state predates the 1982 constitution, but the 1982 Act provides:

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; ...

-- so if we get tired of having the Queen as head of state, we can make alternate arrangements. She hasn't bothered us yet, so we don't worry too much about what her citizenship is or what colour she dies her hair.

The viceroy these days -- the deputy head of state, as it were; Cheney to Liz's Bush -- is Governor General Michaëlle Jean; she was born in Haiti and apparently had dual citizenship when she was named GG: Canada and France. By marriage, it seems. I don't remember hearing about this at all, but apparently she renounced the French upon request. Quite reasonably, really.

So our current contretemps goes like this:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2006/12/04/2621199-sun.html
(Okay, this is kind of like quoting Bill O'Reilly. Take a deep breath.)

Stéphane Dion is the new leader of the Liberal Party. And he is a citizen of France.

Imagine the shrieks from the media if the Conservatives were to elect a leader who is a dual citizen of the U.S. He would be called a U.S. poodle at best or a spy at worst. Every time he opined on a subject, it would be scrutinized through the lens of Canada-U.S. relations. Everything from military spending to foreign treaties like Kyoto would be looked at through the question: Was the Prime Minister of Canada truly pursuing Canadian interests, or was his loyalty to his other homeland at play?

Even Michael Ignatieff, the second-place finisher in the Liberal contest, never took U.S. citizenship despite 30 years living there. It was chutzpah that Ignatieff, a de facto American, returned to Canada to lead us. But at least he had the sense to remain a Canadian, at least legally.

So what is Dion's excuse? The man wasn't born abroad, as was our other leading dual-citizen, Michaelle Jean. And at least Jean had the taste to renounce her French citizenship (after public outcry) upon acceding to the post of governor general. But Dion was born right here in Canada. Yet he is a dual citizen of France.

Dion's mother is a French citizen, and it came to him genetically. Kind of like blue eyes.

So that's who pisses and moans about this kind of thing up there. The far right wing. The public, on the whole, really couldn't give a shit. Some people on the street have voiced negative opinion about the dual citizenship when approached by TV cameras, more have indicated they find it kinda vaguely cool.

I would have been very unhappy about the de facto USAmerican Ignatieff as head of government, but not because of any citizenship or, for pity's sake, "loyalty" issue. And no one could have squawked about that; his passport and bloodline are pure maple leaf/syrup. (Well, his great-uncle was the last Czar's minister of education, but no matter, Iggy was born here with only one citizenship.) It's his values and attitudes that I find abhorrent, and the fact that they lined up just a little too closely with George W. Bush's made him not cosmopolitan, but a traitor -- not by accident of birth, but by choice.

Just like our current PM, who doesn't have a foreign bone in his body, and is still a disloyal piece of shit and can't be trusted to act in the interests of this country for an instant.

Kinda like George W. Bush. Speaking of accidents of birth.

Should Dion renounce his French citizenship? I really couldn't care less.

[iverglas]

92. dang, put this in the wrong place -- should be general reply to opening post

and too late to edit. Just in case I confused thee whose post I replied to. ;)

[iverglas]

116. and just so's anyone interested knows

I did not vote in this poll. I never vote in DU polls on issues of US domestic policy (and yes, friends, that includes firearms policy polls).

I get voice, but no vote, is how I figure it.

[terrya]

17. No.

I don't want to live in an America that has a "President Schwartznegger".

No thanks.

[90-percent]

19. however

the foreign born are still eligible to be President of the Country of their birth.

What's so unfair about that?

-85% jimmy

[beaconess]

20. This really isn't about Ahnuld . . .

The people who support such a measure, of course, think this will mean that Austrian-born Ahnuld could become president.

But I'll bet when they realize that this would also mean that Mexican-born Ernesto or Nigerian-born Khofi or Chinese-born Mai Ling could become president, this push to amend the Constitution will just fade away.

[Book Lover]

23. Pardon me. Please read my and others' posts here supporting this idea.

I would happily vote (that is, if I were permitted to vote directly instead of being required to vote for an elector, but that's another thread...) for any citizen, regardless of birthplace, who is best qualified to be the chief executive of the administrative branch of the federal government. Ernesto, Marianna, Henri, Mai, Fred ... I don't care what your forename is; I just want the best candidate to do the job.

[eliphaslevi]

29. Olympics

The Presidency would probably look like the Olympics with different countries sponsoring various candidates. How would we know where their allegiance lies?

[Book Lover]

33. Reasonable statement

A) Please see my post #27 where I discuss the relative merits of birthplace against residency.

B) I would also say that a native birth does not preclude a foreign nation from buying off a candidate in any case. For instance, we know that the Bush family and the family running the government in Arabia are very close both personally and business-wise. How do we know the Bushes' true allegiance?

C) Once a foreign-born person becomes a citizen, they are required to forswear any allegiance they had to their country of birth. One could say that that addresses your concern about where one's allegiance lies.

on edit: Replaced a wrong word.

[MADem]

86. No, they aren't. They can remain dual nationals, you see. Ahnuld is one, for example.

I posted some of the regs upthread...

[iverglas]

94. have you read the oath taken -- and the post you replied to?

The post you replied to said:

Once a foreign-born person becomes a citizen, they are required to forswear any allegiance they had to their country of birth.

The oath (or affirmation) says:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

[MADem]

104. And the Supreme Court has trumped that oath by their rulings over the years.

Dual nationality is NOT impacted.

And doggone, that oath is NOT federal law. Try again.


http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship_(United_States)

[iverglas]

106. you do love to change the subject

IT WENT LIKE THIS:

Person A: How would we know where their allegiance lies?

Person B: Once a foreign-born person becomes a citizen, they are required to forswear any allegiance they had to their country of birth. One could say that that addresses your concern about where one's allegiance lies.

You: No, they aren't. They can remain dual nationals, you see.

You're not even in the same room, let alone the same conversation.

ALLEGIANCE and CITIZENSHIP are not the same thing.

[MADem]

111. You can swear that oath all day and all night, and still retain your dual citizenship

Are you dull of comprehension? Did you not understand that the Supreme Courts rulings TRUMP that oath, that the oath is just a bunch of words with NO force of law behind them? That the only way one can lose citizenship in the US, once granted, is through a very SPECIFIC renouncing of said citizenship or an aggressive and deliberate act of Congress?

I guess you don't know that, otherwise you'd understand that the "foreswearing of allegiance" doesn't mean jackshit when it comes to naturalization law or granting of citizenship. It's a ceremonial bit of fluff with no weight behind it.

And duhhh, of course allegiance and citizenship are not the same thing (golly gee, so clever you are, to note the difference). But you don't have to sincerely forswear one to get the other. No matter how many times you recite that little oath. Capisce?

[iverglas]

113. okay: 'STREWTH

That the only way one can lose citizenship in the US, once granted, is through a very SPECIFIC renouncing of said citizenship or an aggressive and deliberate act of Congress?

My good dog, your point wasn't even about losing U.S. CITIZENSHIP, it was about divesting one's self of the other citizenship ...

I haven't got a clue what point you think you're making here.

THE ISSUE IN THIS PARTICULAR BIT OF THE THREAD *WAS NOT* CITIZENSHIP. It was ALLEGIANCE.

YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE INSERTING DUAL CITIZENSHIP INTO THE DISCUSSION.

NO ONE ELSE WAS TALKING ABOUT DUAL CITIZENSHIP.

A PERSON WHO TAKES THE OATH OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND BECOMES A CITIZEN BY NATURALIZATION *IS NOT* NECESSARILY A DUAL CITIZEN.

THE ISSUE WAS THE *ALLEGIANCE* OF A *NATURALIZED* CITIZEN, *NOT* THE ALLEGIANCE OF A DUAL CITIZEN.

I really, really can't think of many more ways to do this.

Naturalized citizen.
Dual citizen.

Different sets.
Overlapping sets, yes.
Identical sets, no.

Did that help?

[MADem]

115. No, you're shouting, acting like a jerk, and in your own little world. NT

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[tritsofme]

28. Wow, look at all those JOOOOOOOOS

They just control everything don't they?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[tritsofme]

34. Sorry, but you fell for a bunch of anti-Semitic bullshit!

The "Rothschild" Connection


"Most of the owners of the largest banks in America," wrote the late Sheldon Emry, an early leader of the racist and anti-Semitic ‘Identity" church movement, "are of Eastern European ancestry and connected with the Rothschild banks."

In the literature of bigots, the name Rothschild is a trigger for the most explosive of anti-Semitic tremors, and it usually sets off a litany of other Jewish names. In his recent book Called to Serve, Col. James "Bo" Gritz, the 1992 Presidential candidate of the extremist Populist Party, charged that "eight Jewish families control the FED" (Federal Reserve System).

In 1983, the charge that Rothschild banks and other international banking concerns, mostly with Jewish names, controlled the Federal Reserve was published (probably from earlier sources) in the newsletter of a local Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) — not an extremist group. The article stated that the Federal Reserve System "is not a Federal entity but a private corporation owned in part by the following: Rothschild banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers bank of Paris, Israel Moses Seif banks of Italy, Warburg bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Bros. bank of New York, Chase Manhattan bank of New York, Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York, Goldman Sachs bank of New York."

In fact the Federal Reserve Bank of New York —the largest and most significant of the Fed’s 12 banks — lists the banks in the Second Federal Reserve District that are members and stockholders in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. With the exception of the Chase Manhattan Bank, the institutions cited by the NARFE newsletter as allegedly owning and controlling the Federal Reserve system ("Rothschild ...Lazard Brothers ...Israel Moses Seif ...Warburg ...Lehman Brothers ...Kuhn, Loeb ...Goldman, Sachs") were not members of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/print.asp

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[tritsofme]

73. Sorry, I just never thought I'd have to defend the ADL

While on a progressive board like DU.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[MADem]

67. Well, it ain't StandardS and Poors, which could be impacting your research

http://www2.standardandpoors.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=sp/Page/HomePg&r=1&l=EN&b=10

It's Standard and Poor's.

[SaveElmer]

26. No President Schwarzenegger is not a good enough reason...

And is the very same argument we decry Republicans using to avoid giving DC residents representation in Congress...

[Telly Savalas]

41. But there seems to be a powerful concern at DU

that Arnold would sell us out to Austria.

It's a pretty solid argument. If we have scary foreigners like Gov. Granholm as president, she'll sell us out to foreign interests. Solid upstanding native born citizens like George W. would never sell us out in this fashion. Right?

[Hippo_Tron]

47. I agree 100%, the constitution is about more than any one person

The argument that we shouldn't amend because Arnold might be elected is just like the GOP saying that DC can't have representation in congress because they will elect scary black people.

[LisaL]

60. Yea, I agree. As much as I hate the idea of President Arnold,

I don't think he is a good enough reason to not allow naturalized citizens to run for president.

[talk hard]

30. hell no

that would be the Golden Ticket for Schwarzenegger

[abburdlen]

31. Yes

A neighbor has two fantastic kids, both smart as a whip, both have their heads on straight (as much as preteens can have their heads on straight) both of them could almost do anything they put their minds to except of course one day be president. Both of those kids were adopted from China when they were infants.
I can see setting a requirement that one needs to be a citizen for 35 years but only allowing natural born citizen to be president seems completely outdated.

[annarbor]

35. I voted yes...

My state's governor (Michigan) is Jennifer Granholm. She was a great Atty General and has done a great job as our Governor. Problem is...she was born in Canada, but has lived here since she was a child. I think that a consideration should be made for those candidates that have spent the MAJORITY of their lives here in the states and have made contributions to society such as hers.

I must admit that it saddens me that she cannot seek the highest office this country has to offer, simply because she was born in Canada.

Ann Arbor

[KKKarl is an idiot]

36. No

That coming from a foreign born citizen. I agree with all the people who said no.

Has anyone one these boards been brought up in a big city with a big city football team to support like say the Giants of NY. When you moved to lets say Seattle after you turned 25 years old did you suddenly become a Seahawks fan. No!!!! You probably remained a Giants fan & always will be because that is your first love. That is the way it could go for any foreign born citizen. No one wants to work out intentions, so it is best if this law is left alone.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. What if you moved here when you were 5 years old not 25?

You've basically lived here your whole life and by all means you have just as much interest in the country as anyone who was born here. Why should you be disqualified from being president?

[IndianaGreen]

38. We have Jennifer Granholm, who would make a good Veep

but she was born in Canada. All Western democracies allow a naturalized citizen to run for President, but they do require a stiff residency requirement. We can do the same!

To those that worry about Arnold, don't fret about it! The GOP will never nominate a pro-choice candidate, whether his name is Arnold or Rudy.

[MasonJar]

42. Not if Schwartzenegger or however one spells it gets to run.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Absolutely, I think it is discrimination that we don't

Immigrants have just as much interest in this country as natural born ones if not more. Perhaps there should be a requirement that they've lived here for 20 or 30 years, but I don't see why someone who comes to the country as a child and has lived here all of their adult life is any less qualified to be President than someone who was born here.

The natural-born citizen clause was written during a time when our leaders were unsure of our nation's survival and worried about us being re-conquered by Britain. If you want to take a more cynical view of history, the clause may have been put in there to keep Alexander Hamilton from becoming President.

I guarantee that the results of this poll would be the exact opposite if not for Arnold.

[MissMarple]

49. This is probably not the best time for controversial Constitutional changes .

Just a thought....

[MADem]

70. Yep, you're quite wise....the laws of unintended consequences

While we're torturously screwing with those citizenship requirements to enable a steroid-addled, toothy and rather cretinous weightlifter and film star to achieve his personal quest for "Pow-aaaaaaah," or altering the rules so that a bright and beautiful Canadian import can make us all feel better just by looking at her, let's just DENY those brown, black and yellow "anchor babies" citizenship, eh? That'll teach those 'furrin' infants to have the nerve to be born here! And it'll teach their sneaky mothers, too!!!

You know that's what the tighty righties want to do...!!!

[JNelson6563]

50. I am torn

Sure, there are assholes like Ahhnold but there are others, like Jennifer Granholm of Michigan. She was born in Canada and moved here as a toddler.

Julie

[xchrom]

53. i had to vote yes.

certain insecurities i might have not withstanding -- it's just irrational.

in this day and age -- with practically no privacy to speak of -- if we can't rationally determine if a person might have split loyalties -- then we need to pack the experiment up and go.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

58. I voted yes, but I would have it if someone has been a citizen for 20 years or so they can run

[LisaL]

59. I think it should.

I think naturalized citizens should not be a second rate citizens, and that should include running for president.

[beaconess]

62. Why is this an issue? Is there foreign-born person out there we're dying to have as president

who isn't eligible, but must become president now?

We have so many pressing issues in this country. I just don't see why devoting the time and energy trying to amend the Constitution to solve a problem that doesn't exist is a good use of our time.

[LisaL]

64. There is one who is probably dying to run on the republican side.

[treestar]

68. Yes, the 18th Century reason for concern

No longer really applies.

Especially if the person came to the US as a child; it functions as a technicality.

[Joe Bacon]

72. No! No! No! No! Don't let Arnold get his steroid ass in the door

The only good thing about Steroid boy's re-election is that he is term limited as Governor. I do not want that asshole in the White House!

[BlueGirlRedState]

99. Another mom of a Chinese-born daughter

I can't believe the prejudice I'm reading on the Democratic Underground against MY DAUGHTER who happens to be 9, adopted when she was 9 months old. I'm stunned to read what so many of you have written here -- did I stumble onto the Free Republic by mistake?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

123. Not a chance. See my post below. (nt)

[trogdor]

114. Let me qualify that.

If someone acquired U.S. citizenship prior to reaching the age of majority, I say he or she ought to be eligible for any office in the land. Such people are the rough equivalent of native-born, so I have no problem whatsoever with a President who migrated here as a child. Otherwise, there is a very good reason it was written into the Constitution that only native-born citizens are eligible to be President.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

122. That would absolutely cripple our foreign policy.

How can we possibly be perceived as being even-handed in foreign policy concerns internationally if our President has VERY distinct and clear ties to another country? Can you imagine if we had a South Korean or, worse, an Israeli-born President? How could we possibly deal with North Korea or any of the Middle Eastern countries with any degree of credibility? Answer: We couldn't. It wouldn't be possible. And quite frankly, if you can't do one of the largest parts of the job, you aren't qualified for that job. Period.

[Telly Savalas]

141. It's hard to imagine that even a randomly selected person

born in South Korea or Isreal could conduct U.S. foreign policy any worse than Bush or Reagan, and to suggest otherwise is xenophobic bullshit. Period.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

124. The last time this was brought up, it was by people

who wanted Henry Kissinger to run for president.

:scared:

[Crunchy Frog]

125. Yes, with some caveats.

I would not want a situation in which Ahnold, or Rupert Murdoch could become president. I think the person should at least have grown up in this country. But, someone who has been in this country from early childhood, like Jennifer Granholm or somebody adopted from China as an infant, should be eligible.

That's just my opinion. Not going to argue with anyone about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

126. If the electorate want a three legged mongoose to be president, the Constitution shouldn't stop them

Anyone who can win an election fairly should be president. The notion that what landmass you were born on makes a difference to your ability to run a country is a daft one.

[Comicstripper]

127. Of course it should be ammended

and, frankly, I'm a little perplexed. I don't think there ought to be term limits, either, or age limits. If a fourteen-year-old Brazillian girl can capture the majority of the electoral college, she's doing something right. That's democracy (ideally). I just don't know why we would want to limit our options.

[Mass]

132. Amazing example of xenophobia on DU.

I agree with you, but I am so surprised that so many people here are so adamant to restrict the right of other citizens. Nice example of progressive ideas.

After the American people somehow elected Bush twice to be president, it is so obvious that you NEED to be born on the American soil to be president. :sarcasm:

Somebody tells me why Schwartzenegger would be somehow less qualified than Reagan or Bush? (not saying he is more). It is not even a case of mangling English more than Bush. Except for an Austrian accent rather than a fake Texan accent, it is not obvious that Arnold's English is worse that *'s.

[slackmaster]

134. Yes, people from other countries only want to be our friends

[Mass]

135. Because Bush is our friend?

BTW, the hypothetical person we are talking about would be an American citizen. In some cases, it is so silly that it would be the difference between somebody who is born here from immigrant parents (potentially undocumented) and somebody who came here at 1 month.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

137. I can assure you, people here in Britain don't look like that.

And I'm mildly amazed by the comparison.

For what it's worth, though, if a Martian could win an election I think it should be allowed to be president by the constitution.

[slackmaster]

138. It's a slippery slope, Donald

Start letting Britons or French-born people run for President, next thing you know it will be Martians.

[iverglas]

139. you caught my stuff about Canada here?

http://www.gg.ca/gg/bio/index_e.asp

Michaëlle Jean was born in Port au Prince, Haiti. As a young child in 1968, she and her family left her country and sought refuge in Canada.

... She received a Bachelor of Arts in Italian and Hispanic languages and literature, and continued her studies towards a Master of Arts in comparative literature at the University of Montreal. From 1984 to 1986, she taught at the Faculty of Italian Studies at the same university. During the 1980s, she pursued linguistic and literary studies at the University of Perouse, the University of Florence and the Catholic University of Milan, all of which cited her for excellence. She is fluent in five languages: French, English, Italian, Spanish and Creole.

As she pursued her studies, Michaëlle Jean worked for eight years, from 1979 to 1987, with Québec shelters for battered women. She has taken in, supported and accompanied hundreds of women and children in crisis, while actively contributing to the establishment of a network of emergency shelters throughout Québec and elsewhere in Canada. She was also involved in aid organizations for immigrant women and families, and later worked at Employment and Immigration Canada and at the Conseil des Communautés culturelles du Québec.

... Michaëlle Jean has won numerous honours for her professional achievements, including: the Human Rights League of Canada's 1989 Media Award for her report titled La pasionaria, on the struggle of an immigrant woman in Québec; the Prix Mireille-Lanctôt for her report titled Partir à zéro, dealing with spousal violence; the Prix Anik for best information reporting in Canada for her investigation of the power of money in Haitian society; the inaugural Amnesty International Canada Journalism Award; the Galaxi Award for best information host; the 2001 Gemini Award for best interview in any category; and the Conseil de la Langue Française du Québec's Prix Raymond-Charette.

... Michaëlle Jean is married to Jean-Daniel Lafond.

-- she got French citizenship as a result of her marriage to him.

She gave up her French citizenship when she was appointed to the office of Governor General of Canada.

EEEEK! A foreigner! How could she POSSIBLY know what it means to be Canadian???

http://www.stephanedion.parl.gc.ca/biography.asp?lang=en

Stéphane Dion, who was born in 1955, is married and has one daughter. He is the Member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent/Cartierville. He was first elected to the House of Commons on March 25, 1996 by-election, and re-elected in the June 2, 1997 and November 27, 2000 general elections.

After obtaining a bachelors degree and a masters degree in political science from Université Laval in 1977 and 1979 respectively and a doctorate in sociology from the Institut d’études politiques de Paris, Stéphane Dion taught political science at the Université de Moncton in 1984 and the Université de Montréal from 1984 to January 1996. He specialized in the study of public administration and organization analysis and theory.

During the same period, Stéphane Dion was also a visiting professor at the Laboratoire d’économie publique in Paris, senior research fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., co-director of the Canadian Journal of Political Science, and research fellow with the Canadian Centre for Management Development. Between 1987 and 1995, he published a number of books and articles on political science, public administration and management.

Stéphane Dion was sworn in as President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on January 25, 1996, positions he held until December 12, 2003. In that capacity, to supported the Prime Minister of Canada, federal ministers, and the provincial and territorial governments in working together in a manner that is mindful of their respective responsibilities, to serve Canadians.

-- He holds French citizenship because he was born in Canada to a French mother. He is the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

EEEEK! A dual citizen! How could he POSSIBLY be trusted to be loyal to Canada if he becomes the next Prime Minister???


I would soooo much rather have George W. Bush ...

[Bill McBlueState]

143. Absolutely

The way most of our recent Presidents have turned out to be such zeroes, we need to do whatever we can to widen the applicant pool.

Snarkiness aside, I'll add my voice to those of other posters who are appalled by the xenophobia in this thread.