Arnold might lose his Austrian citizenship

[HPL]

According to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/austria.schwarzenegger.ap/index.html), a member of the Austrian Green Party wants to revoke Arnold's Citizenship because he is againest Arnold's support for the Death penalty.

My questions:

1.What are the chances of this happening?

2. Is this a good call on the politicians part or more of a petty blow againest Gov. Arnold for a stance he disagrees with(Yes, I realize the Death Penatly is looked down upon in Europe)?

3. Do you think Arnold would be upset by this?

[Rune]

Taking away citizenship because he differs on a political issue? Oh my. Never did leave their totalitarian baggage far behind, did they? Anyway, the last poll I saw had 40% Europeans agreeing with the death penalty and 60% Americans. Hardly this great insurmountable gulf it’s made out to be.

[roger thornhill]

What export is Austria better known for than Arnie? I can only think of wine with anti-freeze in it and Kurt Waldheim. Those tree huggers mess with Arnie at their peril.

[Rune]

Well Adolf comes to mind. Wasn't the anti-freeze from Italy?

[roger thornhill]

Yes, but didn't want to mention the war and all that. I believe the anti-freeze started in Austria and then kind of took off across the Dolomites.

[Paul in Qatar]

Sounds like the Green Party guy walks with his knees locked.

Doesn't Austria also make those chainsaws?

[richardb]

Are you guys forgetting that some people are making noises about Arnold running for President? Here's a link to one story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/california/2004-11-14-schwarzenegger-pres_x.htm).

If Arnold ever does run, a foreign citizenship will hurt more than help. This gives him the opportunity to ditch the foriegn citizenship in the most favorable light possible (favorable with the American voters, that is). I'm sure it's nice to have an Austrian passport if he ever wants to go back and visit family, but really, what good does it do him?

I think you'll see Arnold play this to his advantage. If he doesn't just ignore the Austrian brouhaha (the Greens are not in power, are they? So who really cares what they think?), he'll use it as an opportunity to give up his Austrian citizenship and "declare his love" for his adopted country.

[GorillaMan]

Wow, quasi-Godwinisation in the first reply. Well done.

Taking away citizenship because he differs on a political issue?
Errrrr, no, it's because he condemned a man to death.

the last poll I saw had 40% Europeans agreeing with the death penalty and 60% Americans
Cite, please - and that's a cite for Austria, not for Europe.

[Cunctator]

Errrrr, no, it's because he condemned a man to death.


Surely it was the court that convicted the man and imposed the death sentence?

[flodnak]

Reading the article, it appears that we have one (1) politician, one Peter Pilz, an MP from a small opposition party, launching this campaign all by himself. This is likely to get Pilz and perhaps the Austrian Green Party in the headlines for a few days, but doesn't look likely to have any practical effect, beyond causing lots of discussion about dual citizenship. (Dare I hope it will help clear up some myths? Probably not, no.) Arnie will almost certainly be allowed to keep his Austrian passport as long as he cares to.

[GorillaMan]

Surely it was the court that convicted the man and imposed the death sentence?
OK, fine, quibble over the language I used....'Arnie took an active role in the use of capital punishment' - will that do?

[calm kiwi]

I thought America was not fond of dual citizenship or is that my arse speaking?

[GorillaMan]

I thought America was not fond of dual citizenship or is that my arse speaking?
That's one of the myths. What appears to be awkward is when people living abroad attempt to claim American citizenship to which they're entitled - but I don't think America's unique in the bureaucratic nightmare of doing such things from afar.

[Brutus]

OK, fine, quibble over the language I used....'Arnie took an active role in the use of capital punishment' - will that do?

No. Arnie didn't pardon the little bastard; that's it. Not quite an 'active role' in my book. Regardless, even if Arnie personally flipped the switch, I don't see why some folks back in Österreich are getting freaked out about. Is this some 'Look! See how unNazi we are now?!?' thing they are playing at?

[Rune]

Wow, quasi-Godwinisation in the first reply. Well done.bah.. un-quasi-bullshit. There isn’t anything remotely Godwin in that reply, quasi or otherwise. First off I was referring to the European left's notorious fawning for totalitarian communist regimes, such as Stalin, Mao and Castro and such. Second proposing to strip a man from his citizenship for being unworthy is a proposal worthy of a totalitarian state.

But while we’re on the topic of Godwin, it is striking that, according to Peter Pilz, neither of Adolf Hitler, Eichmann nor Kurt Waldheim or any of the many, many other Austrian Nazis seems unworthy of Austrian citizenship – even post-mortem,.

Errrrr, no, it's because he condemned a man to death.Errrrr, no, it's because Peter Pilz has considered his person and found him unworthy. Meanwhile, hundreds of real murders each year in Austria. None of which are served with a stripped citizenship.

Cite, please - and that's a cite for Austria, not for Europe.Ain’t worth it. MPIMC

[GorillaMan]

No. Arnie didn't pardon the little bastard; that's it.
How is rejecting clemency not an active role?
Is this some 'Look! See how unNazi we are now?!?' thing they are playing at?
Flirting with Godwin once again :rolleyes: You guys do realise that Austria has an abolishionist history going back to the eighteenth century?

[GorillaMan]

First off I was referring to the European left's notorious fawning for totalitarian communist regimes, such as Stalin, Mao and Castro and such.
Yeah, right. "Never did leave their totalitarian baggage far behind, did they?" was referring to Cuba? :dubious:

...even post-mortem...
Excellent. You're criticising somebody for not doing the impossible.

Ain’t worth it. MPIMC
'MPIMC'? And anyway, why not provide a cite, if it's being claimed that there's no significant difference between Californian and Austrian attitudes to the death penalty?

[Rune]

Yeah, right. "Never did leave their totalitarian baggage far behind, did they?" was referring to Cuba? :dubious: Man, this is stupid. You apparently completely missed the whole point and now you insist in stamping further in it, and apparently tell me what I mean. Let me repeat myself “Stalin, Mao and Castro”. Read the whole sentence, will ya. But Cuba is a perfectly acceptable example of a totalitarian regime if you want.

Excellent. You're criticising somebody for not doing the impossible.Oh man, again! No I’m criticising somebody for trying to do the possible.

'MPIMC'? And anyway, why not provide a cite, if it's being claimed that there's no significant difference between Californian and Austrian attitudes to the death penalty?Because it has little to do with the subject. Even were there significant difference, it should still matter nothing. You do not strip a man of his citizenship for a difference of opinion.

[GorillaMan]

This anti-left rant is just idiotic. We could just as easily talk about other European political allegiances and their support for Pinochet. It has nothing to do with the topic.

Oh man, again! No I’m criticising somebody for trying to do the possible.
Errrr, you were criticising the guy for not attempting posthumous revokation of citizenships. That's the impossibility I was talking about.

You do not strip a man of his citizenship for a difference of opinion.
No - but for his actions?

[Harborwolf]

Never gonna happen. For one thing, Arnie is one of the biggest things to come out of Austria. Not sure the populace would go for it.

For another, this is just a stunt by a politician to get his name, and of course the party too :rolleyes: , in the papers.

Gorillaman, do you have a cite that shows a general interest in Austria to revoke his citizenship?

[Brutus]

How is rejecting clemency not an active role?


I don't think he signed some piece of paper specifically rejecting clemency. He just didn't take the active step of granting it. *Shrug* Either way, we have a legal system to deal with criminal matters, and they did.


Flirting with Godwin once again :rolleyes: You guys do realise that Austria has an abolishionist history going back to the eighteenth century?

Cracking wise regarding 'abolishing' various religious and ethnic groups a few decades ago would be out of place, I suppose. Still, I certainly don't blame the Austrians of today that once upon a time many of their ancestors were Nazis.

The Austrian Greens (granted, 'Green' parties around the world tend to be synonymous with 'Asshats') certainly have better things to do with their time than worry about a emmigrant half a world away. It's not like the death sentence is such a unpopular idea in Europe. (Just with the ruling class).

[GorillaMan]

Not sure the populace would go for it....
do you have a cite that shows a general interest in Austria to revoke his citizenship?
Well, nobody could have a cite yet for that one way or the other, because nobody could have taken a meaningful survey yet. And it's highly patronising to suggest that the Austrian public are so insecure that they wouldn't be able to bring themselves to disown him.

[Menocchio]

And it's highly patronising to suggest that the Austrian public are so insecure that they wouldn't be able to bring themselves to disown him.

It's highly patronizing to suggest that the American populace is so insecure that they won't pressure the president to nuke Vienna in retaliation. Doesn't mean we'll do it.

This is a non-issue unless you (or anyone) can show that support for booting Arnold extends beyond one guy in a party out of power. Harborwolf has given a plausible reason why Austria wouldn't do it. Can you show they want to? Can you rebut Harborwolf's reasoning besides saying that they might (ie show that Arnold is considered an embarassment over there)?

[GorillaMan]

Harborwolf has given a plausible reason why Austria wouldn't do it. Can you show they want to? Can you rebut Harborwolf's reasoning?
I can rebut it on the same level of reasoning: "No they won't"...."yes they will". As I've already said, it's too early for anyone to provide evidence of popular support one way or the other, so nobody can make pronouncements based on it.

[calm kiwi]

Many people imigrate. But if they imigrate and then chosoe to run for govt surely they have picked one nationality.

My child is the proud owner of 2 nationalities, should he choose to run for govt for either then it is time to let go of the other. If he chooses to remain a "Joe Blogs" then let him keep both nationalities.

Becoming part of the government surely means you have chosen a country. That in no way means you can't visit the country you are from. It doesn't mean you can't be proud of where you are from, but if you want to be one of the governing body of another country surely you should give up citizenship to any other country.

[ruadh]

if you want to be one of the governing body of another country surely you should give up citizenship to any other country.

Arnie isn't part of the governing body of another country, though.

[calm kiwi]

He isn't? So California is now part of Austria?

[Polycarp]

Dual citizenship would have to mean that you're entitled to choose both countries, not that you have the privilege of choosing one or the other at some point, and especially not by a "constructive choice" where taking a particular action is later construed as having made a choice.

And in the absence of a constitutional amendment, Arnold cannot become President or Vice President -- there's this odd little clause thrown in by the founding fathers that only "natural born" citizens may become President. (And the qualifications for VP are identical to those for President.)

[ruadh]

He isn't? So California is now part of Austria?

The "governing body" of the US would necessarily be a federal office. Arnie doesn't hold federal office.

[calm kiwi]

America has some odd laws that surely must had excluded some good people (I'm not convinced Arnie was one of them) but in general I believe dual citizenship is a good thing. It allows some to feel part of where they were from and where they are now.

I do think though, that if you choose to take on a political position, you are no longer a citizen of two countries. You have chosen one country.

[calm kiwi]

The "governing body" of the US would necessarily be a federal office. Arnie doesn't hold federal office.

Now see that is what happens when you come from somewhere that doesn't have states. Government is Government.

[ruadh]

So it's ok to "feel part" of two places, but not ok to be in a position to actually improve one of them? How odd.

[calm kiwi]

Why is that odd? How many people proclaim they are 1/2 this and 1/4 this? I have a child with a British born parent and a Kiwi born parent, I look forward to him being able to be a citizen of both.

BUT if he choses to be a member of the government of one then he should relinquish the other. He doesn't relinquish his heritage, just his citizenship. How is that not fair?

[ruadh]

Now see that is what happens when you come from somewhere that doesn't have states. Government is Government.

Yes, I see how coming from New Zealand you might be confused. In a federal system however there are various different levels of government. The level which Arnie is at is not a level that can be described as part of "the governing body" of the country. That would only include offices such as Congressman, President, Cabinet member etc. - not Governor.

You're welcome ;)

[GorillaMan]

BUT if he choses to be a member of the government of one then he should relinquish the other. He doesn't relinquish his heritage, just his citizenship. How is that not fair?
I think this is a very odd attitude, too. What's the automatic problem with them retaining the other citizenship?

[Cunctator]

OK, fine, quibble over the language I used....'Arnie took an active role in the use of capital punishment' - will that do?

Well, I agree with Brutus. I think it's quite an important quibble. As governor he may, not must, grant clemency. The court took the active role in the use of capital punishment. The governor chose not to take an active role in overturning the court's sentence.

[calm kiwi]

Yes, now you ask...I am simple.

To me government is government. I don't have the experience of levels of government to know differently.

I still think that f you choose to represent one country then you have chosen that country above the other.

It doesn't mean you have given up your heritage but citizenship involves more then that.

[calm kiwi]

I think this is a very odd attitude, too. What's the automatic problem with them retaining the other citizenship?


No problem for Joe Citizen, but surely there can be conflicting interests for govt representatives?

[GorillaMan]

The court took the active role in the use of capital punishment. The governor chose not to take an active role in overturning the court's sentence.
He had a clear opportunity to prevent the execution, in the form of a clemency petition, which he rejected. That's an active role.

It doesn't mean you have given up your heritage but citizenship involves more then that.
What else does it involve?

[GorillaMan]

No problem for Joe Citizen, but surely there can be conflicting interests for govt representatives?
It would be a conflict of interests if they had a role in governing two countries. But merely being a citizen of another country doesn't give any such conflict.

[Harborwolf]

Well, nobody could have a cite yet for that one way or the other, because nobody could have taken a meaningful survey yet. And it's highly patronising to suggest that the Austrian public are so insecure that they wouldn't be able to bring themselves to disown him.

Whoa there GorillaMan. Wasn't trying to be patronising at all. Just asking a question. Relax a bit eh?

What I was saying is that, last I heard, the general populace of Austria still probably likes the guy. Countries tend to be fond of their biggest celebritites just as much as small towns are.

All you've said is that he failed to grant clemecy to a death row inmate. I didn't know that Austria was so sensitive about such things.


Thus far, one person wants to have the Governators citizenship revoked. As far as I know, it takes more than one person to get such a thing done. When more than one person is pushing for this to happen, I'll believe it.

[calm kiwi]

It would be a conflict of interests if they had a role in governing two countries. But merely being a citizen of another country doesn't give any such conflict.

Doesn't it?

The example given is Arnie and America. What happens if it is Mohammed and America?

[ruadh]

Calm Kiwi surely you are not suggesting that Muslims cannot be loyal Americans :dubious:

[GorillaMan]

Yes, in this case, Arnie does appear to have ended up with a conflict of interests. But your suggestion was that all people in government should automatically reject dual citizenship, which is something different altogether.

[calm kiwi]

Calm Kiwi surely you are not suggesting that Muslims cannot be loyal Americans :dubious:

Not at all!

I am suggesting that HOLLYWOOD stars seem less threatening then Mohammed-from-Iraq, surely it is all about perception?

I can imagine your more nationalistic Austrians wanting to get rid of Arnie. I can respect their not wanting to have someone so obviously commited to a foreign country as a citizen.

He has showed his loyalty as a citizen is about being an American.

If Austria removes his citizenship does it mean he has no Austrian heritage? He has chosen where his loyalty lies though.

I can imagine your more nationalistic Americans not wanting Mohammed to be a senator, while holding dual America/Iraqi citizenship.

[calm kiwi]

Yes, in this case, Arnie does appear to have ended up with a conflict of interests. But your suggestion was that all people in government should automatically reject dual citizenship, which is something different altogether.

I liked my suggestion.

Live as Joe Bloggs anywhere with dual citizenship. Go for an elected position...then you just chose a citizenship (ok..........only in my world).

[ruadh]

So what about people who don't go for elected positions, but are still extremely politically active in their adoptive country, say taking a paid position for a political party in the adoptive country's Parliament?

[GorillaMan]

Live as Joe Bloggs anywhere with dual citizenship. Go for an elected position...then you just chose a citizenship (ok..........only in my world).
OK, what about countries that don't require citizenship for you to be elected? (Any Commonwealth or Irish citizen can enter UK elections...)

[calm kiwi]

So what about people who don't go for elected positions, but are still extremely politically active in their adoptive country, say taking a paid position for a political party in the adoptive country's Parliament?

I thought I already said that. If you CHOOSE to take an ELECTED position in another country then you have chosen that country.

[calm kiwi]

OK, what about countries that don't require citizenship for you to be elected? (Any Commonwealth or Irish citizen can enter UK elections...)

Yeah I know. Some Kiwi Lordy-Lord type has been in the house of commons for years.

I think dual citizenship is a wonderful thing.

I believe running for election should mean commiting yourself to one place though.

Hey I am often wrong, I'm just stating my opinion.

[furlibusea]

When Govenor Scwartzenhager became a U.S. Citizen he took the same oath (http://www.us-immigration.com/information/citizenship_tutorial/oath.html) I took. That oath said that he relinquished all ties to other countries.

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;

The United States does not recognise duel citizenship and therefore, by the laws of the country he is a Govenor in he does not have Austrian citizenship. Even though Canada still considers me a Canadian citizen, the United States does not, and would refuse me a US passport if I carried A Canadian one. Normaly when another country agrees with us we don't call them Nazis.

[ruadh]

I thought I already said that. If you CHOOSE to take an ELECTED position in another country then you have chosen that country.

You did, but I'm not clear why you're limiting it to elected positions. Appointed political positions often involve as much if not more political work than elected positions.

[GorillaMan]

...and would refuse me a US passport if I carried A Canadian one.
How would they even know what foreign documentation you posessed?

[ruadh]

Even though Canada still considers me a Canadian citizen, the United States does not, and would refuse me a US passport if I carried A Canadian one.

The emphasised part of your post is incorrect. You'd be required to show your US passport to US officials, but they wouldn't stop you from carrying a foreign one.

[ruadh]

Oops. well, I tried to emphasise part of your post, but I forgot it all comes out in italics anyway :smack:

[calm kiwi]

You did, but I'm not clear why you're limiting it to elected positions. Appointed political positions often involve as much if not more political work than elected positions.

Hmm I suppose that is dependent on where you are from? Maybe? I can't think of what kind of positions you are thinking of.

I say elected postions because they are elected. If someone applies for a job and gets it, then YAY to them. There are few elected jobs (ok few elected jobs HERE).

Maybe we are just not understanding each others systems?

[RickJay]

Yes, I see how coming from New Zealand you might be confused. In a federal system however there are various different levels of government. The level which Arnie is at is not a level that can be described as part of "the governing body" of the country. That would only include offices such as Congressman, President, Cabinet member etc. - not Governor
Well, that's not what the Constitution of the United States says. The state governments are part of the United States, their powers specifically laid out. They aren't independent agents. It's a FEDERAL system, not a country that's just had these "state" things spring up out of nothing.

[ruadh]

Hmm I suppose that is dependent on where you are from? Maybe? I can't think of what kind of positions you are thinking of.

It could be anything from an unelected member of Cabinet, to the political advisor doing most of the legwork for a Parliamentarian, to the General Secretary of a political party. These aren't McJobs, they involve an enormous commitment.

[calm kiwi]

Well, that's not what the Constitution of the United States says. The state governments are part of the United States, their powers specifically laid out. They aren't independent agents. It's a FEDERAL system, not a country that's just had these "state" things spring up out of nothing.

Well maybe that is where differences arise. I doubt that Austria is one of the states of America.

Austria is a country. It may have different criteria.

[GorillaMan]

You'd be required to show your US passport to US officials, but they wouldn't stop you from carrying a foreign one.
So in this case, am I right in thinking that the US doesn't actually care whether you hold another citizenship, as long as you've got everything correct for your American citizenship?

[ruadh]

Well, that's not what the Constitution of the United States says. The state governments are part of the United States, their powers specifically laid out. They aren't independent agents.

I didn't say that they were independent agents. Of course they are part of the United States, but they are not part of the body which governs the country called "The United States". Which part of the Constitution says otherwise?

[calm kiwi]

It could be anything from an unelected member of Cabinet, to the political advisor doing most of the legwork for a Parliamentarian, to the General Secretary of a political party. These aren't McJobs, they involve an enormous commitment.

Of course. But they are not elected jobs. They are not postions obtained from the majority vote.

As I said, I kudos to anyone who gets a job........from cafe waitress to under-secretary. But I still think if someone choses to put themself up for election, they have chosen a country and at that point they should give up any loyalty to any other country.

[ruadh]

So in this case, am I right in thinking that the US doesn't actually care whether you hold another citizenship, as long as you've got everything correct for your American citizenship?

That's basically it. This page (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/) will tell you all you want to know, and more, about US policy vis-a-vis dual citizenship.

[GorillaMan]

Of course. But they are not elected jobs. They are not postions obtained from the majority vote.
I presume your insistence on only talking about directly-elected positions eliminates such insignificant figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell,....

[ruadh]

But they are not elected jobs. They are not postions obtained from the majority vote.

You haven't clarified why that makes a difference.

[astro]

The vast majority of Austrians are incredibly proud that he is one of theirs, and as Gov of CA is head of one of the most powerful economic entities on earth. He has about as much chance of getting his Austrian citizenship revoked as the earth falling into the sun.

[calm kiwi]

I presume your insistence on only talking about directly-elected positions eliminates such insignificant figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell,....

You presume correctly (though that Rumsfeld is a tosser). Once elected surely the elected one can employ anyone he/she feels can do the job.

[GorillaMan]

You presume correctly (though that Rumsfeld is a tosser). Once elected surely the elected one can employ anyone he/she feels can do the job.
So you don't think that there's any possibility of a conflict-of-interest if an appointee has dual citizenship, whereas if they were elected then there would be?

The vast majority of Austrians are incredibly proud that he is one of theirs, and as Gov of CA is head of one of the most powerful economic entities on earth.
All of the articles I've been looking at for information on this thread suggest this isn't quite the case any more.

[calm kiwi]

You haven't clarified why that makes a difference.

Because as a Kiwi I can apply for a job anywhere. I will always be a Kiwi.

If chose to apply for citizenship elsewhere and then ran for an elected position, I would like to think the people who voted for me felt confident I put their interests above New Zealands. Relinquishing my New Zealand citizenship would be the clearest and most obvious way to prove that.

[calm kiwi]

So you don't think that there's any possibility of a conflict-of-interest if an appointee has dual citizenship, whereas if they were elected then there would be?

Are you suggesting that their is no possibility of conflict of interest with non dual-citizens? Are you suggesting that those we elect should not be held to a higher standard then some who was just hired to do a job?

[GorillaMan]

If chose to apply for citizenship elsewhere and then ran for an elected position, I would like to think the people who voted for me felt confident I put their interests above New Zealands. Relinquishing my New Zealand citizenship would be the clearest and most obvious way to prove that.
OK, sure, that would be one way to show your priorities. But your earlier posts said that all people who are elected to a government position should give up any other citizenship - which suggests that this is the only way to demonstrate any allegiance at all. That's what we're challenging.

[ruadh]

If chose to apply for citizenship elsewhere and then ran for an elected position, I would like to think the people who voted for me felt confident I put their interests above New Zealands. Relinquishing my New Zealand citizenship would be the clearest and most obvious way to prove that.

Aren't they showing that they feel confident in you just by electing you? Why do you feel the need to take a step they haven't even asked you to take?

[calm kiwi]

I know.

I said it was the clearest and most obvious way to show it.


To the best of my knowledge NZ has no such "proof of loyalty" in order to run for election. All I was saying is that in my opinion it should be so.

I wouldn't like to elect a quasi-NZer wo made us the next state of Australia :D

I believe if you have commited yourself to a country enough to approach the people for their vote, then you should give up any other citizenship.

You can still cheer for them when the cricket/rugby etc etc is on. You can still speak fondly of the past in the old land.

BUT if you want their populace to vote for you then you are one of them.

[calm kiwi]

Aren't they showing that they feel confident in you just by electing you? Why do you feel the need to take a step they haven't even asked you to take?

They don't ask for that step?

Some places do. Isn't it America who says a non-citizen can't be president?

[ruadh]

We're talking about dual citizenship, not non-citizenship. And America doesn't say that a dual citizen can't be president.

[GorillaMan]

Do you think that the rejection of other citizenships should be done before or after somebody is elected?

[calm kiwi]

Yes we are.

But doesn't America say you must be born there to be president?

I can't understand why 'President' means you have to be born there yet 'Governor' means you can have dual citizenship?

Surely the discrepency is illogical.

Surely being a citizen is more important, no matter where you were born. Isn't it about loyalty and dedication to ones home, either chosen or born?

And once you pick who you belong to shouldn't you stick with it? Can you not have fond memoroes of where you came from without being a citizen?

[calm kiwi]

We're talking about dual citizenship, not non-citizenship. And America doesn't say that a dual citizen can't be president.

Ok, I didn't know that.

[calm kiwi]

Do you think that the rejection of other citizenships should be done before or after somebody is elected?

When someone decides to run for election.


Now ask me if I would ever give up my citizenship :D

[wolf_meister]

furlibusea
I'm surprised it took 51 posts for someone to cite the oath one takes to become a US Citizen:

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;

I am not some right-wing conservative 150% US Patriot. (Just look at how many Dubya Bashing and anti-John Wayne postings I have made). However, I would think that somebody who has become fabulously wealthy (in this country), and powerful (Governor of California) that they would have the courtesy to relinquish their dual citizenship. Actually I was naive enough to think that once you took that oath, your previous citizenship was automatically revoked. Guess I was wrong.

This definitely could work against him politically, especially if he tries to be President. (Yes I know it would require a Constitutional amendment - but it seems repealing the natural born citizen requirement has been gaining momentum). Anyway, when he says that he would "protect and defend the Constitution of the Unites States", etc. how much creedence could we put in those words? Heck, he said he'd renounce his allegiance to Austria when he became a US citizen - but he didn't.

[GorillaMan]

I can't understand why 'President' means you have to be born there yet 'Governor' means you can have dual citizenship?

Surely the discrepency is illogical.
It sure does. But as far as I can see (and I don't think I'm alone), the illogicality is the retention of the antiquated emphasis on place-of-birth. Obviously it made sense for a young and struggling country, to prevent Old-World usurpers from causing mischief. But now, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[ruadh]

I can't understand why 'President' means you have to be born there yet 'Governor' means you can have dual citizenship?

You don't have to be born there, you just have to be a natural-born citizen. There is a difference.


Isn't it about loyalty and dedication to ones home, either chosen or born?

Certainly. But is it impossible to be loyal when you hold another country's citizenship? I don't think it is. In fact, I can say from personal experience that I know it isn't.

[MaddyStrut]

I tend to agree with Calm Kiwi that there are some government positions where you should be a citizen of only one country. However, I wouldn't make the distinction at elected vs. un elected. Rather, I'd say make the distinction at the level where you have a significant influence on foreign policy.

I don't mean to suggest that everyone who has dual citizenship is incapable of making unbiased decisions, just that the possibility is there and it's not trivial. Besides, even if the official in question does remain unbiased, there's always the appearance of impropriety which can cause problems itself.

[calm kiwi]

You don't have to be born there, you just have to be a natural-born citizen. There is a difference.


I don't understand this. Can you please enlighten the stupid.

[ruadh]

A natural-born citizen is someone who was born into US citizenship. This usually means someone born in the US, but it can also mean someone born abroad to US citizen parents.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

That's one of the myths. What appears to be awkward is when people living abroad attempt to claim American citizenship to which they're entitled - but I don't think America's unique in the bureaucratic nightmare of doing such things from afar.

Our immigration and citizen procedures may require the person to renounce any former nationality or allegience, but there's no way we can force the home country to recognize that. Ergo, dual citizenship.

Regarding this particular case one should recognize that Arnold didn't condemn this man to death, the jury did. So he has offended the Austrian Greens by an act of omission--that is by refusing to intervene in an execution that was decided by others--and not an act of commission. A quibble perhaps, but he would in effect be penalized for refusing to override a legally binding decision made by a group of his fellow American citizens, who were legally empowered and compelled to make that decision. That's really overreaching in my book.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

furlibusea

I am not some right-wing conservative 150% US Patriot. (Just look at how many Dubya Bashing and anti-John Wayne postings I have made). However, I would think that somebody who has become fabulously wealthy (in this country), and powerful (Governor of California) that they would have the courtesy to relinquish their dual citizenship. Actually I was naive enough to think that once you took that oath, your previous citizenship was automatically revoked. Guess I was wrong.

.

As I mentioned, maybe it wasn't up to him. Perhaps Austria does not permit its citizens to renounce citizenship under any circumstances. On the other hand, that the politicians in question could even conceive of revoking anybody's citizenship is rather a chilling one for obvious reasons. Could stripping away citizenship of natives become a new method of punishing and subjugating such undesirables as drug users?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

He isn't? So California is now part of Austria?

It's not, but being governor of California in no way makes Arnold a member of the
Federal government. The government of individual states in the U.S. is completely separate from the Federal government. It was the state law against murder that this defendant was condemned for violating.

Of course, there is a Federal law against murder, but I believe this only comes into play if it can be made a Federal case, and there are restrictions on whether that can be done depending on the context. Most of the laws that we follow in our day-to-day lives are state laws, and it's state laws that are enforced by the policemen and -women on our streets.

[calm kiwi]

Is it ok to hijack this thread, now it's on its way down the page? I could take it to GQ but I will try here first.

It's not, but being governor of California in no way makes Arnold a member of the Federal government. The government of individual states in the U.S. is completely separate from the Federal government.

Coming from a country without states, I don't understand this (ok where I come from is not the reason, I just don't know! :D ). Is America really 50 little countries who cooperate sometimes? How self ruling are states? And if they really are self ruling why have a federal govt at all?

If I should run off to GQ with this please let me know.

(I apologise for wandering into GD. I'm really far too thick to be here...it's just a good place to read and learn and I had had too much wine :) )

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Coming from a country without states, I don't understand this (ok where I come from is not the reason, I just don't know! :D ). Is America really 50 little countries who cooperate sometimes? How self ruling are states? And if they really are self ruling why have a federal govt at all?

If I should run off to GQ with this please let me know.

(I apologise for wandering into GD. I'm really far too thick to be here...it's just a good place to read and learn and I had had too much wine :) )

You can't exactly call California or New York "little". :)

U.S. states are not quite like their own countries, being subject to various restrictions. They can't enter into international diplomatic agreements, issue money, or wage war. They also can't enact laws which violate federal laws, or impose restrictions on their own citizens in violation of the federal Constitution. This works both ways. For example, a state cannot bar African Americans from voting by reason of race, because the Constitution prohibits that. On the other hand, several states have legalized the medicinal use of marijuana, and the federal Department of Justice says that they can't do that, because the federal law banning all use of marijuana trumps state law.

But in other ways, the state-as-country notion holds true, especially in the legal area. The state prosecuted the murder defendent, Beardslee, and the name of the case would have been something like "California vs. Beardslee" or "The People Of The State Of California vs. Beardslee".

[calm kiwi]

Thank you for your succinct, patient reply.