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.
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).
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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, 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.
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.
