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.
You don’t have to be born there, you just have to be a natural-born citizen. There is a difference.
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.
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.
I don’t understand this. Can you please enlighten the stupid.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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! 
). 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”.
Thank you for your succinct, patient reply.