... Because one is a citizen of America and the other isn't. How is the difference not obvious?
Both Schwarzenegger and Cruz are citizens of America. If you believe that Arnold always carries the taint of potential Austrian allegiance, why don't you also believe that Cruz also carries the taint of potential Canadian allegiance? Recall that you've agreed that you have no doubts about Cruz's allegiance, so "Cruz does have that taint also" is not a coherent response.
Because his allegiances have been to America since his birth.
And that's the key here.
Now, if you want to argue that a person who has held dual citizenship should not be allowed to be president, and must have only held citizenship in America to be so, I'm willing to listen to that argument. I believe that argument has merit.
However, I disagree that the naturally-born requirement for president should be repealed.
I'm asking you explain WHY that's the key here. Merely repeating it again is not an answer.
Do babies even have allegiances? How is the allegiance of Ted Cruz who was born to American parents and rejects his Canadian citizenship different from the allegiance of hypothetical Ted Cruz who always thought he was born to American parents, but finds out at age 43 that he is technically the biological child of Canadians he's never met, and signs all the papers to make the citizenship he always believed he had official?
Both Schwarzenegger and Cruz are citizens of America. If you believe that Arnold always carries the taint of potential Austrian allegiance,
Which, again, he has because he's a dual citizen...
why don't you also believe that Cruz also carries the taint of potential Canadian allegiance? Recall that you've agreed that you have no doubts about Cruz's allegiance, so "Cruz does have that taint also" is not a coherent response.
No, they're completely different, because Cruz has never not been American. And Cruz also formally renounced all allegiance to Canada.
That said, you are making a good case for not allowing anyone who has ever held dual citizenship from being eligible to become president, even if that person is naturally-born. I'm considering revising my stance.
EDIT: Ok, rescinded.
Do babies even have allegiances? How is the allegiance of Ted Cruz who was born to American parents and rejects his Canadian citizenship different from the allegiance of hypothetical Ted Cruz who always thought he was born to American parents, but finds out at age 43 that he is technically the biological child of Canadians he's never met, and signs all the papers to make the citizenship he always believed he had official
I'm going to revise my stance. Anyone who has held citizenship to a country that isn't America, even if that person is a natural-born citizen, should not be allowed to run for president.
Well, that eliminates George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Barack Obama.
EDIT: And Israel's Law of Return may technically disqualify all Jews.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, that eliminates George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Barack Obama.
Oh come on, obviously the ones that held citizenship before America existed don't count. The naturally-born law doesn't apply to them either.
As to the rest, fair point. Rescinded.
EDIT: And Israel's Law of Return may technically disqualify all Jews.
Wouldn't they have to formally accept such citizenship beforehand?
Which, again, he has because he's a dual citizen...
No, they're completely different, because Cruz has never not been American. And Cruz also formally renounced all allegiance to Canada.
I'm asking you to explain WHY the fact that Cruz has never not been American is what's important. We all understand what the core facts here are. Repeating them doesn't help.
Well, that eliminates George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Barack Obama.
EDIT: And Israel's Law of Return may technically disqualify all Jews.
And James Buchanan and Chester Arthur. As it turns out, other countries are free to set whatever expansive citizenship definitions they want. Disqualifying people on that basis is asinine.
Why should someone who was born in America be able to run for president but someone who immigrated here as a child can't? It isn't like you will be more loyal to your country if you were born here than if you were born in another country and immigrated here.
First of all, it's not about being born in America, it's about being born a citizen of America.
And actually, I think that's the point. The requirements for the president are that a person have American citizenship from birth to prevent that person carrying loyalties to another country.
So someone who has served our country for years in elected office shouldn't be able to become president, even if they immigrated as a child, because they happened to be born a non-US citizen? That hardly seems fair. Also, do you think that this should apply to refugees, who don't have loyalties to their previous countries?
Wouldn't they have to formally accept such citizenship beforehand?
The point is, as Tiax said, other countries can set whatever expansive citizenship definitions they want. A country could in principle say "Everybody on Earth is automatically a citizen!" the way the United States says "Everybody born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Essentially, yes, this is yet another reason the birther movement is stupid. Obama could have been born in Kenya and it wouldn't matter, because he was born a citizen (unless you want to wade into the extra crazy conspiracies about how his supposed parents aren't his real parents; there's some timecube-level insanity out there on this stuff).
Now that I think about it, that actually would follow logically from the premises of the theory. Either that or Ann Dunham flew from her home in Hawaii to Kenya in order to give birth to Barack for some reason.
But honestly I don't think most birthers have thought it that far through.
Actually, there are those who doubt his paternity. Unfortunately, they assume his father was Malcolm X, who was, of course, a US citizen, so they really didn't think this through.
EDIT: And Israel's Law of Return may technically disqualify all Jews.
Damn, and I was just about to suggest Winona Laduke for the job. (Her mother's maiden name was Bernstein.)
Oh, also, Indian reservations on the common stance that they're states in and of themselves (though nearly every country in the Americas uses jus soli and thus our citizenship is guaranteed).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I think is funny to believe that being born on a particular piece of dirt makes someone more or less likely to be an incompetent douche. Seriously... what would be the huge issue if someone was president of the US and also happened to really like Canada? You're afraid that somehow a terrorist born overseas is going to come here become a citizen then become president? What is stopping a "natural born" citizen terrorist or Japan fan-boy from becoming president anyway? I know plenty of natural born citizens who would love nothing more than to see the entire government collapse... but according to your special rules they are more qualified to run for president than someone born in Mexico that ran to the US for safety and absolutely loves the USA...
I think is funny to believe that being born on a particular piece of dirt makes someone more or less likely to be an incompetent douche.
The rationale is one of loyalty, not one of competence. The presumption (and its not accurate IMO) is that someone who is a natural born citizen of the US is more likely to be loyal to the US than one who naturalized at some point.
And yeah, it's more about loyalty. At the time the Constitution was written, they were concerned about 'entangling' alliances. Which is, kinda funny, all things considered.
(I would love to see how the conspiracy nuts explain Obama ordering the assassination of Al Qaida brass. Or why he picked Keith Harper, who walked out of the 2003 Durban conference when the Arab states threatened to derail it and that's oh-so-cute for Steve Salaita as well, as ambassador to the Human Rights Council.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I've grown to look at the need for more of a philosopher king aspect, in that perhaps removing the age restrictions to hold office and go with specific accomplishments. Military service, business creation, academic research achievement, and so forth to actually run for some offices. Under the original citizenship requirements for the US, if you fought in the Revolution without being born an American you were made an American. Again, you fought to make something, which made Hamilton able to be president without the soil requirement in the Early Republic. What made Hamilton messed up his chance at office was his stupid publicity handling an affair combined with his ultimate end of fate at the hands of Burr. With regard to the affair he went the inverse of Clinton and told the entire story in a lot of detail, rather than just apologizing and admitting he messed up and moved on. To be honest, I think he was the one guy I would have liked to see president and most likely the one as an immigrant himself that would have set a different paradigm for the US presidency.
I believe that McCain was accomplished enough to run as well as Obama. Cruz I do not believe has the right mentality to be a good leader for the US, too bull headed yet has enough accomplishment. My personal meaning for merit is something between being a good housewife and not raising a band of little heathens that run around and destroys everything they touch to owning a small chain of pizza places. I just frankly want to see people who have done amazing things being mundane to those who have done your typically grand accomplishments.
As for Congress I've grown rather despondent that the current way we select some members of Congress for committee assignments needs to change requiring the despondent choice to create national offices that are selective based on a specific role. For example, having the basic population based representative in the House and the more aristocratic nature of the Senate having a balancing force of paraprofessionals that have voting power and are nationally elected to vote and debate on specific laws and topics for expertise. This would act as a counterweight to the Caesar-fear mongering about the executive branch growth and add more competition into the legislative pool. However, I would also enjoy a reduction in the actual size of the House itself in correspondence.
Bumping this now that Cruz has officially announced he's running for president. Having done a bit of digging around, I'd say there is no question that Cruz is eligible to run even though he was born in Canada. Since his mother was a natural-born US citizen, that's good enough for Cruz.
Bumping this now that Cruz has officially announced he's running for president. Having done a bit of digging around, I'd say there is no question that Cruz is eligible to run even though he was born in Canada. Since his mother was a natural-born US citizen, that's good enough for Cruz.
I am quite sure that to most US voters that will be sufficient as well. What I am waiting for is the reaction from the birthers.
Bumping this now that Cruz has officially announced he's running for president. Having done a bit of digging around, I'd say there is no question that Cruz is eligible to run even though he was born in Canada. Since his mother was a natural-born US citizen, that's good enough for Cruz.
whos the guy that is going to look at Cruz's citizenship history and give him a yes or no on his application to run?
if there isn't even an official within the government charged with checking this stuff, when why does it even matter?
I mean who ever becomes president is still screened by the voters to some extent.
------------------------------
Moving into the broader and earlier Citizen discussion.
even i'm in the camp of people thinking "what does citizenship really matter anymore?" (as in this time and date)
Any independent sovereignty can make a law that says "(people fitting this description)" are considered citizens with or without those peoples concent. It only becomes action if someone tried to do something against "a described person" and used that Sovereignty's laws as justification. Which is going beyond way beyond the steps of "boundary of law" and "recognition of law".
-a point that will make more sense to this discussion
-If you ever explore plate tectonics or fields of geography you'll learn specifics of earth surface changing constantly, thats a quick summary to get to my more exact point I want to make. "Laws saying a citizen needs to be born with in and on soil or surface within a boundary as defined by a map" looks pretty out dated/useless/or even scary thing to base such a law off of, when you get to know about all of the little intricate steps necessary for geography/Geographic rules that go into keeping a maps, locations, location updates, and so on all up to date that other laws have a "legal map" to even work off of.
-Alternatives?
Countries have already tried Geneology. pick your world history for success or failure story on the concept. With the rise in genetics, bar coding and labeling people has been proven to be a viable future, despite only being most commonly seen in science fixition, but usually this seem to ultimate leads to to similar ends as Geneology.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
whos the guy that is going to look at Cruz's citizenship history and give him a yes or no on his application to run?
if there isn't even an official within the government charged with checking this stuff, when why does it even matter?
When somebody is accused of breaking federal law, the federal court system hears the case and decides it. In short: somebody has to sue Ted Cruz. I suspect in this case, a judge would quickly dismiss it on the grounds of "he was born a US citizen" or maybe just wave their hands and call standing. But a trickier test case might work its way up to the Supreme Court and get us an actual definition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
whos the guy that is going to look at Cruz's citizenship history and give him a yes or no on his application to run?
if there isn't even an official within the government charged with checking this stuff, when why does it even matter?
When somebody is accused of breaking federal law, the federal court system hears the case and decides it. In short: somebody has to sue Ted Cruz. I suspect in this case, a judge would quickly dismiss it on the grounds of "he was born a US citizen" or maybe just wave their hands and call standing. But a trickier test case might work its way up to the Supreme Court and get us an actual definition.
whos the guy that is going to look at Cruz's citizenship history and give him a yes or no on his application to run?
if there isn't even an official within the government charged with checking this stuff, when why does it even matter?
When somebody is accused of breaking federal law, the federal court system hears the case and decides it. In short: somebody has to sue Ted Cruz. I suspect in this case, a judge would quickly dismiss it on the grounds of "he was born a US citizen" or maybe just wave their hands and call standing. But a trickier test case might work its way up to the Supreme Court and get us an actual definition.
Anytime a "listed requirement" such as this in ted cruz's instance has to be checked and the only ones who would do the checking is in the course of making a suet against someone, It seems like a gap of oversight on the governments part.
-edit- here a few answers to what i was looking for.
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Anytime a "listed requirement" such as this in ted cruz's instance has to be checked and the only ones who would do the checking is in the course of making a suet against someone, It seems like a gap of oversight on the governments part.
Perhaps if it were a simple matter of fact-checking, but currently, determining whether someone is a "natural-born citizen" is an open question of constitutional interpretation. Joe Random Bureaucrat at the FEC is not authorized or qualified to to this. It really is a job for the United States Supreme Court.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not that there is much I can really say (except that I, for one, dislike Cruz due to his desire to gut everything and make the rich richer, but that's just me), but I can ask why something such as "natural born citizen" is in our Constitution, but yet, has never once been challenged for an official ruling as to what it's supposed to mean in regards to politics.
But then again, I think his base must have thought they needed a laugh track to go along with the potential X number of people thinking about running?
but I can ask why something such as "natural born citizen" is in our Constitution, but yet, has never once been challenged for an official ruling as to what it's supposed to mean in regards to politics.
Because everyone who has ever been elected president has been a natural born citizen (under any reasonable interpretation of the word), so there has never been an occasion for the courts to precisely define the term.
Both Schwarzenegger and Cruz are citizens of America. If you believe that Arnold always carries the taint of potential Austrian allegiance, why don't you also believe that Cruz also carries the taint of potential Canadian allegiance? Recall that you've agreed that you have no doubts about Cruz's allegiance, so "Cruz does have that taint also" is not a coherent response.
I'm asking you explain WHY that's the key here. Merely repeating it again is not an answer.
Do babies even have allegiances? How is the allegiance of Ted Cruz who was born to American parents and rejects his Canadian citizenship different from the allegiance of hypothetical Ted Cruz who always thought he was born to American parents, but finds out at age 43 that he is technically the biological child of Canadians he's never met, and signs all the papers to make the citizenship he always believed he had official?
No, they're completely different, because Cruz has never not been American. And Cruz also formally renounced all allegiance to Canada.
That said, you are making a good case for not allowing anyone who has ever held dual citizenship from being eligible to become president, even if that person is naturally-born. I'm considering revising my stance.
EDIT: Ok, rescinded.
One's American and one's Canadian, obviously.
EDIT: And Israel's Law of Return may technically disqualify all Jews.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As to the rest, fair point. Rescinded.
Wouldn't they have to formally accept such citizenship beforehand?
I'm asking you to explain WHY the fact that Cruz has never not been American is what's important. We all understand what the core facts here are. Repeating them doesn't help.
No, they both end up American.
And James Buchanan and Chester Arthur. As it turns out, other countries are free to set whatever expansive citizenship definitions they want. Disqualifying people on that basis is asinine.
So someone who has served our country for years in elected office shouldn't be able to become president, even if they immigrated as a child, because they happened to be born a non-US citizen? That hardly seems fair. Also, do you think that this should apply to refugees, who don't have loyalties to their previous countries?
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually, there are those who doubt his paternity. Unfortunately, they assume his father was Malcolm X, who was, of course, a US citizen, so they really didn't think this through.
Damn, and I was just about to suggest Winona Laduke for the job. (Her mother's maiden name was Bernstein.)
Oh, also, Indian reservations on the common stance that they're states in and of themselves (though nearly every country in the Americas uses jus soli and thus our citizenship is guaranteed).
On phasing:
The rationale is one of loyalty, not one of competence. The presumption (and its not accurate IMO) is that someone who is a natural born citizen of the US is more likely to be loyal to the US than one who naturalized at some point.
Is Alberta part of Canada? I'm pretty sure it isn't.
And yeah, it's more about loyalty. At the time the Constitution was written, they were concerned about 'entangling' alliances. Which is, kinda funny, all things considered.
(I would love to see how the conspiracy nuts explain Obama ordering the assassination of Al Qaida brass. Or why he picked Keith Harper, who walked out of the 2003 Durban conference when the Arab states threatened to derail it and that's oh-so-cute for Steve Salaita as well, as ambassador to the Human Rights Council.)
On phasing:
I believe that McCain was accomplished enough to run as well as Obama. Cruz I do not believe has the right mentality to be a good leader for the US, too bull headed yet has enough accomplishment. My personal meaning for merit is something between being a good housewife and not raising a band of little heathens that run around and destroys everything they touch to owning a small chain of pizza places. I just frankly want to see people who have done amazing things being mundane to those who have done your typically grand accomplishments.
As for Congress I've grown rather despondent that the current way we select some members of Congress for committee assignments needs to change requiring the despondent choice to create national offices that are selective based on a specific role. For example, having the basic population based representative in the House and the more aristocratic nature of the Senate having a balancing force of paraprofessionals that have voting power and are nationally elected to vote and debate on specific laws and topics for expertise. This would act as a counterweight to the Caesar-fear mongering about the executive branch growth and add more competition into the legislative pool. However, I would also enjoy a reduction in the actual size of the House itself in correspondence.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
I am quite sure that to most US voters that will be sufficient as well. What I am waiting for is the reaction from the birthers.
whos the guy that is going to look at Cruz's citizenship history and give him a yes or no on his application to run?
if there isn't even an official within the government charged with checking this stuff, when why does it even matter?
I mean who ever becomes president is still screened by the voters to some extent.
------------------------------
Moving into the broader and earlier Citizen discussion.
even i'm in the camp of people thinking "what does citizenship really matter anymore?" (as in this time and date)
Any independent sovereignty can make a law that says "(people fitting this description)" are considered citizens with or without those peoples concent. It only becomes action if someone tried to do something against "a described person" and used that Sovereignty's laws as justification. Which is going beyond way beyond the steps of "boundary of law" and "recognition of law".
-a point that will make more sense to this discussion
-If you ever explore plate tectonics or fields of geography you'll learn specifics of earth surface changing constantly, thats a quick summary to get to my more exact point I want to make. "Laws saying a citizen needs to be born with in and on soil or surface within a boundary as defined by a map" looks pretty out dated/useless/or even scary thing to base such a law off of, when you get to know about all of the little intricate steps necessary for geography/Geographic rules that go into keeping a maps, locations, location updates, and so on all up to date that other laws have a "legal map" to even work off of.
-Alternatives?
Countries have already tried Geneology. pick your world history for success or failure story on the concept. With the rise in genetics, bar coding and labeling people has been proven to be a viable future, despite only being most commonly seen in science fixition, but usually this seem to ultimate leads to to similar ends as Geneology.
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Who would have standing in a case like this?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not my area of specialty so there may be nuances to the standing question here that I'm not aware of.
Anytime a "listed requirement" such as this in ted cruz's instance has to be checked and the only ones who would do the checking is in the course of making a suet against someone, It seems like a gap of oversight on the governments part.
-edit- here a few answers to what i was looking for.
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_filing.shtml#where_do_I_get_forms
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2i.pdf
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But then again, I think his base must have thought they needed a laugh track to go along with the potential X number of people thinking about running?
Because everyone who has ever been elected president has been a natural born citizen (under any reasonable interpretation of the word), so there has never been an occasion for the courts to precisely define the term.