Why is an Austrian citizen eligible to run for public office in the US?

[Generic Other]

Arnold is not an American and never will be as long as he insists on holding dual citizenship. Since he feels it necessary to retain his Austrian citizenship, I don't believe he is more than half American. People who refuse to renounce foreign citizenship have suspect loyalties as far as I am concerned. It makes him a security risk. Should such a man be trusted with any sort of security clearance? I don't think it's an unfair question. Should those who hold dual citizenship (from former hostile nations no less) be elected to public office in this country?

As I recall, all the Japanese Americans were asked two loyalty oath questions during WWII: Will you renounce Japanese citizenship and loyalty to the emperor? Will you swear allegiance to and fight for the US? Those who answered "NO" were incarcerated in high security camps separate from their families in the re-location camps. Even the Japanese American community in the other camps shunned them for lack of patriotism. And they were considered enemy combatants. None of them were elected by Republicans to high office.

But Arnold is allowed to answer "No" with impunity in the very state where the Japanese American "NO-NO Boys" were incarcerated. Only now Californians are being asked to elect as governor a man who is not 100% American either by birth or by choice. His dual citizenship makes him half American. He has chosen to retain his foreign citizenship.

I may be of half Japanese ancestry, but I am 100% American by birth and by choice.

Yet, I have spent my life demanding that other Americans (mostly white Republicans) acknowledge that I am as much of an American as they are, not half American by virtue of Japanese blood.

I think all politicians in this country should be willing to voluntarily sign the same loyalty oath Japanese Americans were once forced to sign. All American politicians should be 100% American either by birth or by choice. All American politicians should be willing to renounce their loyalties to another country; otherwise they are suspect.

The half Austrian Arnold Schwartzenegger should not be elected governor of California until he proves he's 100% American by choice.

Our country should not be in the hands of "NO-NO" Boys.

[oneighty]

1. Good argument

180

[Paschall]

2. What?!?

There are thousands of children born to dual national couples who are dual nationals by birth who would disagree strongly with you.

"Suspect loyalties," "security risk," "half American." I think you're on the wrong forum.

[Generic Other]

4. Americans who hold dual citizenship have divided loyalties

Americans who make this choice should not be entitled to run for public office.

Our founding fathers gave up British citizenship. The Tories left the US. They didn't run for positions in the Continental Congress.

[ForrestGump]

6. Somehow I don't think that Founding Fathers

would have had their passports renewed, anyway.....

[dfong63]

24. hear, hear

anyone who wants to be chief executive of one of the United States of America, should be a citizen of the US and no other country.

[IndianaGreen]

51. That's a racist (and anti-Semitic) statement and you should be ashamed!

Many Americans hold dual US-Israeli citizenship. Many of them were Florida residents and voted by absentee ballot from Israel for Al Gore in 2000!

To say that people with dual citizenship have "divided loyalties" is a racist and anti-Semitic statement and you should be ashamed of yourself!

[Bake]

77. Anti-Semitic??

Geez, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Particularly since the subject of the post, Ahhhhnuld, is basically a Nazi. I think you really had to go looking for that.

Bake

[dfong63]

80. so if lots of Jews do it, it must be OK - is that your argument?

[IndianaGreen]

89. It was the Nazis that played the "who-is-a-citizen" game?

It was the Nazis that stripped German Jews of their citizenship on the basis that they had "divided" loyalties!

I am troubled by how quickly some people adopt the language of the rightwing, particularly those that call themselves liberal (perhaps without understanding its meaning).

I have seen the same thing being used against Lieberman. Now, I count myself among the Lieberman bashers, but it is always based on the policies he advocates (not to mention his Bill Bennett style of sermonizing!). I always rejected those that question Lieberman's qualifications for higher office or patriotism based on the fact he is Jewish. How often have we heard Lieberman being referred to as the "Senator from Likud"?

This is also the same "who-is-a-citizen" game that put Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps, one of the most shameful chapters in our history (the more so because the US has yet to fully compensate its victims!).

Stick to the issues! Criticize Arnold for not having a clue as to how to solve California problems. Attack McClintock as a dangerous rightwing extremist. Beware of Ueberroth for he brings a strong resume to the race! Stop this juvenile whining about Arnold's DNA, or his sexual shennanigans 30 years ago. It does not advance the Democratic case one bit, and it makes you all look as foolish as those idiots in Free Republik.

[BiggJawn]

100. Oh, PLEASE...

Nobody here but me has mentioned the names Wolfowitz, Perle, or Fliescher...

Interesting, 2 trying to form (very poorly) US middle-east policy and one just the former cheerleader for the Crappy Product.

[DavidNY]

29. Describing dual-citizens-by-birth that way does strike me as wrong...

but while I have some sympathy for those who became dual citizens by naturalizing in the US and retaining their old citizenship (as Arnold did), their situation is different in a significant way from dual citizens-by-birth, or people who became dual citizens through childhood naturalization in the US or even naturalization as an adult in another country.

Those who are dual citizens by birth-- and, not meaning to invoke the old trope for why one is not a racist or whatever, but several of my closest friends fall into that category-- didn't make any conscious choice to have that status. Their citizenship is just part of their inheritance from their parents, and requiring them to renounce their non-American citizenship would be unreasonably harsh from an emotional point of view just as it would be harsh to require them to sell off a beloved family home where they spent much of their childhood (because it happens to be located across the border in Canada or on a Superfund site or whatever) or a somehow "un-American" family heirloom. A similar argument applies to people who are dual citizens because their parents were naturalized while they (the now-dual-citizens) were children.

Even people who acquire a foreign citizenship as adults, while not renouncing their US citizenship, are Constitutionally protected according to cases like _Afroyim v. Rusk_, because as those cases interpret the Fourteenth Amendment if you're born or naturalized in this country your US citizenship can't be taken from you unless you _intend_ to give it up. And while a voluntary association with a foreign country might be a legitimate consideration in deciding whether to vote for someone, I would hesitate to rule someone out as a candidate because they'd exercised a constitutional right unless they'd done so in particularly loathsome way (like voluntary naturalization in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR or whatever, which would send a message of agreement with the evil leadership just as one might send that message by exercise of one's First Amendment rights).

People who keep a foreign citizenship when they naturalize in this country, however, are in a bit of a different boat. The naturalization oath includes an explicit renunciation of all other allegiances. It's true that some foreign countries will refuse to recognize that renunciation unless you tell them to (or even if you do), and let you retain your citizenship despite renouncing it when you naturalized. But there's a sense in which someone who takes advantage of that that has taken their naturalization oath with their fingers crossed-- they were almost lying, in a sense, when they said the renunciatory oath. And given how solemn and important and almost sacred to our country naturalization is, I can see holding that sort of near-duplicity against someone. At least, I can see the reasonableness of it a lot more than I can see the reasonableness in blaming someone for how they were when they were born.

[ForrestGump]

3. If he does hold dual citizenship,

he's still American. That makes him eligible for everything short of the Presidency. Personally, I think that perhaps the US-born limit on that office should be removed. It's not like native-born Americans have always done the most brilliant job in the Ovoid Office.

[Generic Other]

7. No, he has chosen to retain his Austrain citizenship

Austria does not normally ALLOW such a thing. I wonder why?

Citizenship is a choice. So, if the US (heaven forbid) decides your other country is an enemy, doesn't that raise questions about your loyalties?

Would you accept a bin Laden family member holding dual citizenship in this country? Then running for office? How about Saddam's surviving family members? Should they be allowed to retain Iraqi and US citizenship? Maybe run for governor of Florida?

How about Nazis we harbored after WWII? Should they have argued to keep their German citizenship rights even as they considered which state they planned to run for office in?

DUers who are born Americans have been being accused of being unAmerican, disloyal, etc. every single day by the right. Yet, some guy who clearly hedges his bets by not wholeheartedly becoming 100% American is accepted as worthy of holding public office?

I am not a rightwinger. But I even I can see the stupidity of this idea. That's why the founding fathers said no foreign born could be president. They believed that a native Brit coming to America would owe more allegiance to England than to America. They did not trust the fealty of such an individual because that person's heart and character were shaped elsewhere.

Americans have always asked immigrants to give up the political ties that bind them to another country. Even Arnold argues for English only legislation.

I am not saying that a person shouldn't have emotional ties to the land of their birth, I am just saying that those who run for public office should be citizens of this country and no other.

[Sapphocrat]

14. Not true re citizenship requirement

Americans have always asked immigrants to give up the political ties that bind them to another country.

The requirement to revoke one's citizenship in another country in order to become a naturalized American was dropped a long time ago. U.S. immigration couldn't care less if immigrants retain their original citizenship (although I am sure they would look askance at those from "enemy" countries).

Nor does an American lose his U.S. citizenship if he adopts foreign citizenship as long as the American is not required to formally revoke his American citizenship.

On edit: Edited subject line for clarity

[Paschall]

19. Gotta link, Sapphocrat

I'm curious about this subject. I believe candidates for naturalization must still take an oath renouncing all foreign allegiances.

Here’s what appears to be current law at the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services

[Sapphocrat]

39. I hear you, Paschall

(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;

Problem is, it's still a grey area (i.e., "entirely all allegiance and fidelity" does not refer specifically to citizenship), and application of this part of the oath to citizenship has been practically invalidated by the U.S.'s own practices.

For example:

Citizenship by naturalization (INA § 337, 8 USC § 1448)

A description of the US naturalization oath is given in Section 337(a) of the INA <8 USC § 1448(a)>. Of particular relevance to the dual citizenship issue is that, as part of the oath, a new citizen must pledge "to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen."

In practice, it is unclear what if any true legal significance this statement has any more. The US does not require a new citizen to take any formal steps to renounce his old citizenship before officials of the "old country"; and when the other country continues to claim a naturalized US citizen as one of its own, current US policy recognizes that such a person may have to use a passport from the other country in order to visit there, and such an action does not put the person's US citizenship in jeopardy.

At one time, the US took the position that anyone who wished to renounce his prior citizenship in connection with US naturalization had an inherent, unquestionable right to do so. Well into the 19th century, many countries had no provisions at all for renouncing citizenship and did not even acknowledge that their citizens or subjects had any such right. This is, no doubt, why the renunciatory clause in the US naturalization oath is not linked to any additional requirement to give up one's old citizenship in accordance with another country's laws; as far as the US was concerned, the renunciatory statement in its own naturalization oath was sufficient, and all other countries had an obligation to respect it. In recent years, the State Department has apparently decided to take a more pragmatic and realistic stance on this issue.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#Naturalization

As for giving up U.S. citizenship, here's a U.S. State Dept link:
http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html

...and some analysis:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#1986

And just one recent (January 11, 2003) example of the U.S. both acknowledging and OK'ing dual citizenship (in this case, for Indians):

No objection from US on dual citizenship: Blackwill
http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/jan/11pbd5.htm

Lots more to read, if you're interested. Obviously, this is a subject near and dear to my heart.

[Paschall]

43. Thanks for the links

Near and dear to mine, as well. I hear ya, too! :thumbsup:

[DavidNY]

33. That's not _quite_ true...

though it's almost right so I know where you're getting it from. The latter part of your statement is true: you don't lose your American citizenship from naturalizing in a foreign country if you don't renounce it and you don't intend to give it up. And the first part of your statement is _practically_ true in that U.S. immigration probably won't come after you if you retain an old citizenship after naturalizing. But as a theoretical matter, we still ask immigrants who naturalize to renounce prior allegiances. The naturalization oath still, as far as I know, starts with the declaration that

"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 laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/teacher/oath.htm

(I'm trying to track down a quote of the oath other than in the "history" section of the BCIS website, but the modern process seems to be described primarily in PDF documents I can't read. That said, they give no indication that this _isn't_ the modern oath.)

So while you can as a practical matter choose not to give up prior citizenships when you naturalize, someone who does that is kind of taking the oath with their fingers crossed.

(Edit: sorry Paschall, I jumped in before I saw that you'd already said a big part of this, and had had more success with the BCIS site...)

[Sapphocrat]

41. Hi, David...

...and welcome to DU! :)

See my reply to Paschall. Seems to me it's about time the oath were updated, as it's sorely out of step with current practice -- although I'll be satisfied to wait 'til after they strike "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance first. :D

[Paschall]

42. No problem, DaveNY

Thanks for adding all that info.

Actually, at one time, American citizens automatically lost their US citizenship when naturalizing in a foreign country. That law was changed in part thanks to a lot of grassroots lobbying by US expatriots for whom it represented incredible hardships. Particularly in the case of US citizens married to foreign nationals (as Sapphocrat's story on this thread suggests). Not to mention the hell of a child custody dispute in a foreign divorce complicated by an overlay of restrictive citizenship law.

The burden of proving an American citizen's intent to relinquish US citizenship is now on the shoulders of the US goverment--which is as it should be.

[Paschall]

22. Do you have some proof Arnold still holds Austrian citizenship?

"In general, a citizen of Austria will lose his/her citizenship by obtaining citizenship of a foreign country upon his/her own application or by voluntarily entering the armed forces of a foreign country."

Source: Austrian Embassy in Estonia

[Generic Other]

26. Link

Arnold Schwarzenegger is an Austrian citizen. The leading Republican candidate to replace California Gov. Gray Davis should Davis be recalled on October 7 holds dual Austrian-United States citizenship. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on August 18 that the bodybuilder engaged in the exercise of political string pulling to maintain his Austrian citizenship after becoming an American citizen. Austria generally does not allow dual citizenship, but Joseph Krainer, former governor of Styria, Schwarzeneggers home province, helped the celebrity retain his status as an Austrian.


http://www.onlinejournal.com/blog/blogger.html

[lynndew2]

102. My father worked for TWA

My lil sister who is 100% American could not be president cause she was born in Suadi Arabia. We were there from 1960-64. It doesnt effect me but just to let you know how specific the laws are.

[jagguy]

5. hes a naturalized citizen

makes him the same as you or I with a very few exceptional conditions.

[Generic Other]

9. Except, he also has retained his Austrian citizenship!

He can vote in either country. Oddly enough, he never has. Voted in the US anyway.

[jagguy]

11. that is his right

its in the rulebook.

[dfong63]

25. it's also my right,

... and the right of other voters, to question whether his loyalty to the state that he wants to govern, is undivided.

[Generic Other]

32. Thank you!

I feel truly outnumbered here.

[corarose]

101. Your not outnumbered

Arnold has not voted even one time in one of our elections. He holds a citizenship because he is married to an American. If he were a true American he would vote. Then again allot of natural born Americans don't vote. But, I find it odd that he is so hyped up on politics and he has never voted before in the USA.

Sure our forefather's held dual citizenships but America was just getting started and mostly everyone was from another country except the Indians.

[uptohere]

78. sure its your right

but there is little conflict between the interests of Austria and those of California. Thats the reason for the ban on the chief executive spot, there CAN be a conflict there. States cannot make policy with other countries.

[dfong63]

82. i disagree

... there is plenty of room for conflict between CA and Austria. CA is in competition with every country in the world for jobs and economic development, for one very obvious thing. let's say some movie might be filmed in either Austria or CA. or say there's an Austrian firm bidding on a state contract. or say some trade bill comes up, relating to the EU which could have a strong impact on Austria. or a resolution in the legislature condemning or sanctioning Austria because of Haider.

i say if Arnie wants to be elected to the exalted post of governor of one of the United States of America, then he should be willing to demonstrate that his loyalty is undivided, by giving up his citizenship in any other country or countries. to fail to do so, would be an insult to America and particularly to California.

[uptohere]

91. you are welcome to disagree but...

... it could be a plus to have him to bring about trade with Austria. Governors here are forever going on junkets to other countries looking for trade opportunities and its a plus when they bring some home.

I don't buy the movie thing. You don't assume the additional expense of location shooting unless you need to and Cali is no substitute. Thats why they did go there to shoot Sound of Music.

State contracts have rules that leave the gov out of the picture.

States cannot make trade bills relating to other countries, thats a federal thing.

And at the end of the day, he did demonstrate his loyalty with his very presense here and citizenship. He didn't need to become a citizen but he did it anyway.

I don't really care one way or another as I don't live in California but I think there are far more serious questions surrounding the Terminator than his legal status.

[AntiCoup2K4]

65. If he truly has never voted, that alone concerns me far more

...than any questions of "loyalty" because of dual citizenship. If the man has shown absolutely no interest in participating in the political process before now, why does he think he can just walk into the Governor's mansion of the largest (by population) state in the Union. Why would he want to, if he never gave a shit before?

Whose agenda is really behind this? I believe we can all guess the answer, and it ain't his in-laws!

[dfong63]

83. what i read was that

he did vote, but only in about half the elections in which he could have voted.

[LittleApple81]

8. We should all be citizens of the world.

Don't you think that you have to respect, defend, and participate in a society not because of accident of birth but because of belief in what the society stands for? Patriotism because of an accident of location at birth is used to justify really stupid ideas (remember the fatherland?)

[Generic Other]

12. I agree with you BUT politicians in the United States should work for us!

The left has been villified for being unAmerican. And a guy like Arnold who is unwilling to fully commit to this country is lauded by the rightwingers.

Yep. That's the America I know and live in.

[LittleApple81]

16. I don't like Arnold, but not because he has dual citizenship. In my

book he is a clod in any language or country.
But I don't think that his dual citizenship is the problem. His problem is that he is a Republican clod.

[FlaGranny]

54. And what if Arnold, as governor of California,

has to submit bids to a contract for the state, and one of the bidders is a buddy from the old home town. Or what if two companies, one Austrian and one American, want to set up home offices in California, and how about the Austrian one gets a better deal? Haven't I heard somewhere on this board at some time or other something about the appearance of impropriety. America should not be run like a corporation, where the CEO can be from anywhere. Do they allow a legal citizen (resident) of Georgia to become governor of New York, or be allowed to vote in both states? Theoretically, Arnold could be elected to public office in Austria AND California.

[redeye]

62. Not both at the same time...

...and besides, there's no difference between that and an American giving preference to a corporation from his hometown or to an American corporation over an Austian one.

[AntiCoup2K4]

66. Using the state residency probably isn't the best example...

Since right now there's a NY senator from Arkansas (ours) and a NC senator from Kansas (theirs)

[FlaGranny]

71. True, but they took up legal residency and they had to choose

one state over the other, i.e., gave up voting and candidacy rights in the other state.

[redeye]

34. No, they shouldn't

They should work for everyone. When nations cared only for themselves, we got WW1 and WW2.

[ForrestGump]

64. And this last little adventure, 'Iraqi Freedom'

[Sapphocrat]

10. Two problems with that

First is a question: Are native-born Americans who hold dual citizenships "traitors" in your book?

Second: The problem is not Schwarzenegger's dual citizenship. The real problem concerning his loyalty lies with his leaving open the possibility of running for office in Austria. (No links for you; this was discussed on KGO last week.)

If you really want to question his motives, question that -- and the fact that he has refused to renounce his friendships with Kurt Waldheim and Jorg Haider.

[Generic Other]

15. Those who hold dual citizenship are not traitors

but they are choosing to be citizens of more than one country. Fine. I say go for it. I just don't want to vote for you. I want you to represent my interests, not another country's interests.

I have not said I think those who have immigrated and chosen to become Americans are not 100% American. Naturalized citizens are America's strength. We are most of us descended from such people. Most have been willing, even eager to pledge their loyalty to this country and to renounce all others when they came here.

They gave up titles, rank, office when they decided to become Americans. Why would any refuse to give up citizenship in another country? Perhaps there are valid reasons.

There are also valid reasons for not allowing foreign nationals to participate in US elections.

[Sapphocrat]

27. 50% v. 100% and "valid reasons"

I have not said I think those who have immigrated and chosen to become Americans are not 100% American.

But first you said:

Since he feels it necessary to retain his Austrian citizenship, I don't believe he is more than half American.

So you mean if an immigrant retains citizenship from his country of birth, he is no more than half American -- but if he revokes his original citizenship, he is 100% American?

I'm not trying to harass you (challenge you yes; harass no) -- I just want to make sure I understand your P.O.V.

As to why one would refuse to revoke one's original citizenship, I guarantee you there are indeed valid reasons. Here's mine:

I'm an American. I was born here. I would never revoke my U.S. citizenship under any circumstances. However, archaic and discriminatory federal law makes it impossible for me to sponsor my foreign-born partner for immigration to the U.S. She, however, as an Australian citizen, has the right to sponsor me for immigration to Australia. There is -- short of both of us migrating to Canada -- no other option, unless we want to spend the rest of our lives living apart.

Now, would you expect me to revoke my U.S. citizenship in order to take advantage of the offer of domestic stability from a more compassionate country?

And if, by some miracle, my partner were able to immigrate to the U.S., would you expect her to revoke her citizenship in a far more compassionate -- and progressive -- country?

Now, let's say I move to Australia and attain citizenship there, so we can live together without my having to be "approved" every time I set foot in Australia. What if I wanted to run for public office in the U.S., yet was forced to revoke my Australian citizenship in order to do so? Perhaps you find that perfectly acceptable, but as I would no longer be able to live with my life partner, what you would be doing is asking me to get a divorce.

Perhaps then you would shrug and tell me it's my choice -- wife or country. In which case, the conversation would have to end, as I would consider such a requirement too unreasonable to be entertained.

My situation is just one example, and has no significance for anyone other than the two people it directly affects (and our families). Yet that is the point: Each of us who holds or is working toward holding dual citizenship has a reason which is entirely "valid" -- and in most cases, free of ulterior motive -- to us.

I understand your thinking, and at one time I thought as you do -- until I found myself in a situation that opened my eyes to yet another example of reality running smack up against hard-and-fast rules.

Laws are, in spirit, meant to improve the quality of life. In practice, that is seldom the case. And when you're helpless to reverse a law that unfairly targets you, you work with whatever means are (legally) available to you.

[Generic Other]

31. None of my relatives were allowed these options

I guess they got caught up in the Chinese and Japanese Acts which prevented them from attaining US citizenship at all. I guess I consider it an all or nothing proposition because I have never been allowed to consider it any other way. If any of my Japanese American relatives had insisted on retaining Japanese citizenship, they would have been loaded onto the boat back even if they had been born in California.

Maybe I just have a bad feeling about always being accused of disloyalty to this country when other Americans (particularly white ones) are automatically accepted no matter what they do. I agree that Australian/American citizenship does not sound at all threatening. And I am not questioning your loyalties. But it is true that such a situation could be problematic.

I could see the greedy Bush cartel backing an interested Saudi prince with dual citizenship in an election run against a targetted Democrat. And for the right price I doubt if the GOP would care which country gained political advantage. But I don't see why Americans wouldn't call them on it.

[Paschall]

38. What happened to your relatives was a crime

And I believe it has been recognized as such by the courts. Please be careful what you wish for. I, for one, don't want these crimes committed again in the future.

[Sapphocrat]

46. Neither were mine, GO...

...allowed these options, that is. (For the record, mine weren't forced into concentration camps -- only restricted to their homes after curfew.)

Maybe I just have a bad feeling about always being accused of disloyalty to this country when other Americans (particularly white ones) are automatically accepted no matter what they do.

That pains me to hear. Can I ask where you live? Do people actually accuse you of disloyalty because you're Asian? Sorry if that sounds like an idiotic question; it's just that living in an area (S.F.) where being Asian (or Indian, or Hispanic, or you-name-it) is so not an issue, I tend to forget about the (big) pockets of moronic bigots in this country.

Anyway, in the end, wouldn't you like to see these options available to people who do have perfectly valid reasons for wanting dual citizenship? Sure, every case would have to be judged on its own merit -- but it is now anyway. We just need a more rational and humanitarian process.

Otherwise, entire groups of people are pigeonholed out of ignorance... and I don't have to explain that to you.

What happened to your relatives ranks in my book among the worst atrocities ever committed by the U.S., and it is something of which any conscionable American should feel deeply ashamed.

The concentration camps were an extreme reaction to suspected "disloyalty." I don't ever want to see that -- or anything even remotely near such a crime -- happen to anyone in this country again.

(Never mind that we're dangerously close to concentration camps again. I'm speaking in idealistic terms, after * & Co. are gone.)

[dfong63]

85. in a word, yes

I'm an American. I was born here. I would never revoke my U.S. citizenship under any circumstances. However, archaic and discriminatory federal law makes it impossible for me to sponsor my foreign-born partner for immigration to the U.S. She, however, as an Australian citizen, has the right to sponsor me for immigration to Australia. There is -- short of both of us migrating to Canada -- no other option, unless we want to spend the rest of our lives living apart.

Now, would you expect me to revoke my U.S. citizenship in order to take advantage of the offer of domestic stability from a more compassionate country?

isn't that what "loyalty" means?

you have to make choices about what's more important to you.

current citizenship laws don't force you to make that choice; but you should expect to meet a higher standard if you want to run for a high political office. it's just like a lot of other stuff with Arnie. it might not be illegal, but we have a right to expect a higher standard of behavior from our elected leaders.

[Generic Other]

18. Actually, I never thought of that possibility!

So when will we see something like that happen? Would Arnold run for Chancellor of Austria on a lark while guv of Cali?

As long as I am on the subject, does Lieberman hold dual citizenship?

[Paschall]

30. I was wondering who would be the first Jew...

...mentioned on this thread. I was kind of betting on Richard Perle. I lose.

Sheesh. :eyes:

[Generic Other]

40. Sorry, but it is one of the questions I have about Lieberman

I have heard he holds dual citizenship, but I might be wrong.

I did not mean to offend anyone or call anyone a traitor based on race, religion or place of national origin. I humbly beg forgiveness for having raised such a question.

It just seems to me that Arnold's candidacy flies in the face of the rightwing America First (Lafayette, we hate the French) GOP who constantly question Democrats' loyalties to this country; yet, their candidate has such a major conflict of interest.

Which flag does this Republican wear in his lapel?

I would ask this question of any US politician.

[Paschall]

47. Your original remark about "divided loyalty"...

...was a dead giveaway that at some point, someone would mention a Jew on this thread. But a similar criticism was aimed at John Kennedy, for his Catholic "allegiance" to the Pope, who is after all the head of a foreign state.

[Generic Other]

72. I am trying to keep church and state separate

When I ask about citizenship, I am not referring to religious affiliation but the issue of whose constituency will be represented when conflicts of interest arise.

And I realize that such questions have been asked of people based on their religious faith. They are being asked of Muslims all across the US today.

I say if we are going to profile and incarcerate people who have done nothing to suggest disloyalty other than having different religious beliefs, then we should be posing similar questions to politicians about their conflicting loyalties--to other countries, corporations or any other powerful interests.

I don't think it is antisemitic to criticize Lieberman's warhawk positions on the Middle East particularly if he really does have the right to vote in two countries on issues of vital concern to both.

I criticize Bush, but it doesn't mean I am anti-Texan.

[Sapphocrat]

49. As it was discussed on KGO...

Would Arnold run for Chancellor of Austria on a lark while guv of Cali?

Presumably, he could run for president (I believe it's president) of Austria and rule in absentia while "governing" California!

Pretty shocking idea to me. I can't vouch for the validity of this at all, mind you -- one has to take talk radio at face value, and I know next to nothing about Austrian politics.

I would think holding public office in a foreign country would preclude one from holding public office in the U.S., at least simultaneously, but U.S. law never fails to surprise me.

[polmaven]

86. If Orrin Hatch has his way

Arnold will be able to run for president right here. Faux reported today that he is considering filing a bill to amend the Constitution to eliminate the native-born requirement!

SCARY!!!!!!!!!

[DavidNY]

95. I actually like the Hatch idea (also supported by Barney Frank)...

If you come to this country at a young age and live here for a long time (proposed amendments have requirements varying from 20 to 35 years, I think) then I think you should be able to run for President. It doesn't seem fair to distinguish so dramatically between two people who grew up here just because one was born a couple of years before his or her parents immigrated to the U.S. and another was born a couple of years after. And where someone really hasn't become "American" enough, they just won't be elected even if they are permitted to run.

From a practical point of view, too, Arnold wouldn't be the only-- or even the main-- beneficiary of such an amendment. His moderate social positions and personal history pretty much rule out his ever winning a national Republican primary, and his accent makes him seem "foreign". Jennifer Granholm, the popular governor of Michigan, would on the other hand have a good chance-- and she's a Democrat. (She was born in Vancouver and came to this country at quite a young age.) I'll take that trade.

[treefrogjohn]

13. The governor of Michigan is Canadian born

and she is a rising Democratic star. Of course she could never be President by law.

[Generic Other]

17. Is she a Canadian citizen? Or a US citizen?

Her place of birth isn't what's in question. It's whether she's committed to being a US citizen rather than a Canadian national which concerns me.

[Generic Other]

20. You all favor OUTSOURCING American political offices?

Okay India. Got any dual citizens wanna run for governor of California? You don't even have to leave New Delhi!

[redeye]

36. I am

The more internationalized politics become, the weaker national boundaries are, and the weaker national boudnaries are, the better.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Generic Other]

23. I am a McCarthy Klansman?

There are American born citizens in my family who were incarcerated re-location camps during WWII. They had no piece of paper claiming they were citizens of another country.

[Trek234]

28. And I'm sure they would be proud

Seeing you spout things like "is not an American and never will be as long as he insists on holding dual citizenship. "

"People who refuse to renounce foreign citizenship have suspect loyalties as far as I am concerned."
"It makes him a security risk"
"Should those who hold dual citizenship (from former hostile nations no less) be elected to public office in this country? "
<BS about Japanese americans and there loyalty>

"I think all politicians in this country should be willing to voluntarily sign the same loyalty oath Japanese Americans were once forced to sign." (I'm wrong to call you McCarthy?)
"All American politicians should be 100% American either by birth or by choice. " All people of Europe should belong to the German master race. Not that far of a leap from what you say.

"until he proves he's 100% American by choice."

This is the same bull shit Hitler spouted 50+ years ago. It was BS then and it is BS now. You are just putting a kindler, gentler spin on it.

[redeye]

37. You're wrong

He isn't putting a kinder, gentler spin on that; he's saying it in exactly the same way Hitler did in the 1920s and 1930s.

[Generic Other]

44. The majority of Japanese Americans signed the loyalty oaths

They renounced Japan. They shunned those who would not. They did not deserve to have their loyalties questioned after signing such a document. They should not have had to sign such a document if they were born in the United States or citizens of this country, but they did in order to prove they did not have divided loyalties.

California has always passed two kinds of laws--one for Asians, Mexicans and Indians--another for white men like Schwarzenegger.

Why should Mr. Universe get a free pass that none of those groups ever got? He doesn't believe non-citizens working in our country even deserve benefits. Why would anyone give him any slack?

[Sapphocrat]

58. I would agree with this statement...

California has always passed two kinds of laws--one for Asians, Mexicans and Indians--another for white men like Schwarzenegger.

...if you could show me a relevant example; i.e., when was the last time a dual citizen ran for governor of any state? - and - when was a dual Asian-American, Mexican-American, Indian-American, etc., ever prevented by law from doing what Schwarzenegger is doing?

Yes, of course California (and the entire country) has a lot to make up for historically. But it's not fair to cite race as an issue in this instance; you're mixing eras, and bad laws that no longer exist.

I'm the last person on earth to defend Arnold (he's even made me hate a Kennedy!), but to imply that he's being given a free pass just because he's a white European doesn't cut it. He's being given a free pass because people are starry-eyed and stupid. It's movie-star power, that's all -- and if Jackie Chan were running, I'd bet the house he'd get the same glorified treatment just because he's a movie star.

[Paschall]

35. French born members of my family...

...lost their jobs in the French civil service when the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy government came to power because their (deceased) parents were foreign nationals. (The point at issue, by the way, was nationality and not religion; the people I'm speaking of were catholics.) But I don't think either of our personal histories has any bearing on the question at hand.

[Generic Other]

53. In other word some betrayed their own countrymen for the sake of Germans

Is it because the French refused to believe that people of a different nationality were truly French by choice? Or were they mistrusted because they retained citizenship in another country?
To me these are two different things entirely.

If they were born in France, they were French citizens as far as I am concerned.

[Paschall]

104. Neither

They were born in France, were French by birth, and had never held citizenship to any other country. But one of their parents had been a foreign national. So their "blood was not pure French."

You might have considered them French--they certainly considered themselves French. But the Nazis and Vichy thought otherwise. And they were booted out of their jobs in the French civil service where they were seen as "security risks."

The fear of "divided loyalties" is a mighty thing. After all, even if Arnie were only an American citizen, just how far could we trust him to be fully loyal to the country when all his family is Austrian? Isn't that the same reasoning that ended in the persecution of your Asian relatives?

[karlschneider]

45. Take it up with congress. Non citizens can even be in the US military.

The last casualty whose name has escaped me was a Cuban, he was due to be naturalized in a couple of months.
Maybe they will grant it posthumously.
:eyes:

[Kbowe]

48. No person holding dual citizenship should ever be elected to public

office in the US. Period! If they don't think enough of the US to give their alligience to the US only then they sould not hold office. That goes for anyone.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Generic Other]

56. So not all Jews in America hold dual citizenship?

I really am ignorant on this subject. And afraid to ask any questions.

I would be interested in knowing how many Americans hold dual citizenship, and the breakdown of numbers. I was born on an American military base abroad. My father was a GI and my mother a foreign national. My birth certificate says I am granted American citizenship as long as my father acknowledges my birth, but that he could renounce me up to the age of 18 and I would lose that citizenship. He didn't. And I didn't. I was raised as American. I have no claim to citizenship in the country of my birth. I have renounced all such claims.

So, can I run for president of the United States? Am I native born? A naturalized citizen? I never went through a process to gain citizenship. My mother did. Where do I fit? Am I a woman without a country?

[Sapphocrat]

63. Guess what?

I would be interested in knowing how many Americans hold dual citizenship, and the breakdown of numbers.

The State Dept. doesn't keep records -- at least not public records. Last time I searched (in vain) was close to two years ago, and there was nothing to find.

Ditto on expatriate records (the number of U.S. citizens living abroad). Estimates run anywhere from 1.5 million to over 15 million. Quite a spread.

Why they don't keep records is anyone's guess; the U.S. is very concerned with collecting income tax from you, no matter where you live (yes, for the rest of your life), but has no reliable method in place for keeping track of your whereabouts.

The closest they can come is keeping track of passport renewals at U.S. consulates in other countries. American ex-pats who want to disappear just never renew their passports -- and in ten years, poof! they're off the radar screen. (No, I am NOT suggesting anyone do this!)

Got way off-topic here, but it's an interesting curiosity: The U.S. is highly ignorant about information it wants very, very badly.

As for your citizenship, the way I understand it, you're as "native" an American as I am.

[fujiyama]

76. If I'm not mistaken

John McCain was born on a military base and he's obviously considered native born.

I would check with the INS...My guess is you would be considered native born, the only advantage of which is being able to run for president.

[FlaGranny]

57. I don't know how you took

that as antisemetic?

We don't allow AMERICANS to vote in two different states, but it's okay to vote in two different countries?

When I moved from one state to another I found out it is completely illegal to hold onto any voting rights in my previous state if I wanted to vote in my new state. No way would I be allowed to be Governor of Wyoming and Utah at the same time. Why does it become okay if we're not talking about states, but about countries? Is there less of a conflict of interest between countries than states?

[redeye]

61. There's a difference

Ideally, nations sohuld be like states; i.e., you are a citizen and can vote for the government of a global state, plus you're a reisdent of a certain region, state, county, whatever, and can vote for the governments of those additional levels.

Failing that, however - and naturalization requirements as they are today satisfy the criterion of "failing that" - people should be allowed to vote in as many countries as possible in order to erode national boundaries more quickly.

BTW, would you hold it against me if I were to be on the ballot for, say, Oakland mayor because I was born in NY?

[FlaGranny]

69. Of course, not, but I'd hold it against you

if you wanted to be mayor in both cities - if you could actually do it legally; because if I lived in NY and you raised my taxes, but you lowered taxes in Oakland, I might think you were showing favoritism. ;-)

[yoghurt]

68. Re: Thank you for your anti-Semitic statement, wise guy!

Where is the anti-semitism? You keep bringing this up, but I don't see anyone else doing so -- not even as a subtext. Not everyone holding citizenship between two countries one of which is the USA is US-Israeli. You can be US-Austrian for example. Nor is Israel exactly equalivalent to Jewishness in terms of race or religion.

And if person chooses to be a dual US-whatever citizen, I think that it is fair to judge that person as a candidate on that basis. Part of what I look for is the relationship of a candidate to other people and organizations -- family, friends, what party you belong to, how you relate to your religion (or lack thereof) and other religions (or lacks of one), &c. These are all valid factors.

It makes more sense to consider citizenship and company a person chooses to keep than choosing a candidate on the basis of which has better hair, wears brown suits or whom you figure you'd more like to have come over to your house, drink a beer and watch a football game with.

It is fair to consider dual citizenship as a factor in choosing a candidate to vote for. Since the relationship to a country can be nuanced and complex, I hope that some consideration is given regarding that complexity. Dual citizenship is a valid factor (and certainly not automatically disqualifying) and I hope the candidate can explain how it relates to them.

[dfong63]

88. it's those who cry "anti-semitism" at the drop of a hat,

... who should be ashamed here.

when we are having a philosophical discussion that makes no distinction based on race or religion, and a standard of behavior is proposed that has much philosophical and practical merit, but that is currently violated in disprortionate numbers by one particular segment of the population - that last fact does not make the proposal discriminatory.

to decry dual citizenship is no more "anti-semitic", than it is "racist" to decry drug dealing.

[fujiyama]

75. By public office

do you mean everything on down to city council chairman, mayor, state representative?

I myself wouldn't vote for someone with dual citizenship to the likes of US senator or US represenative, but at the state level, your not exactly working on international issues so I'm not sure how it'd be a big problem, though there could be issues with business deals and whatnot where there could be questions about conflicts of interest.

[redeye]

50. The short answer...

...is that the symbol of the USA is the eagle and not the swastika.

The medium answer is that citizenship is a field in the passport or identity card and nothing more, and that loyalty shoudl always be to all people and not to any group of them - even the groups of Americans, or Californians, or non-white males born north of 37° N between 7/1972 and 3/1984.

[IndianaGreen]

55. The correct answer has nothing to do with the recall election

We reject nationalism in all of its permutations!

There is only one nationality: we are citizens of planet Earth.

There is only one race: the human race.

There is only one loyalty: the loyalty to all members of the proletariat in all corners of the world!

There is only one goal: to topple capitalism and establish Socialism throughout the world!

Capitalism cannot reform itself … No universal selfishness can bring social good to all

-- W.E.B. Dubois

[redeye]

59. Correct me if I'm wrong...

...but here is the first time I've used the word "recall" in this thread.

Anyway, you're wrogn about the proletariat. History shows us how the workers can provide labor and even capital (assuming they extort it from the rich), but they can't provide enterprise. That's something only some form of capitalism can provide - call it rape, but this rape is the only way to cause pregnancies and ensure the continuation of the species in the analogy.

So, no, there shouldn't be calss loyalty. There should be exactly two loyalty: loyalty to oneself, and loyalty to one's relatives and friends; there should be one kind of compassion: compassion for the species. In a sense class loyalty is more foolish than national loyalty because while both class and nationality are largely determined by accidents of birth, the world won't end if, say, all non-Americans vanish tomorrow, but there'll be anarchy if all workers, or if all entrepreneurs vanish.

Class peace is an important aspect of progress, and cooperation between labor and enterprise is crucial if the economy and hence society is to move forward.

[Generic Other]

60. PNAC says they want to do this too

Well not exactly...

Because I picked on Arnold's dual citizenship does not mean I do not want to be a part of an international community or the brotherhood of man...I come from WOBBLIE country.

I just think that in a time when we are questioning the loyalties of all Muslim Americans, when we are detaining them without even due process, when the left is being accused daily of being less American than the right, less patriotic, that a guy Arnie wouldn't get more flack from people like O'Reilly and Fox.

The oath that Arnold took when he applied for citizenship seems very clear. I think Paschall posted it earlier.

Oh well. I've stated my argument. You all have told me I'm off base, so I'll go back to bed and start over.

[robbedvoter]

67. Pulled strings to retain Austrian citizenship? That should play well

with the flag waiving Amurka Firsters. Ya mean a namby pamby European nation? Ain't Yurup the enemy? I'd like to post this on the appropriate forums.
I am demoralized by how paralyzed DU-ers are by all the strawmen wingers throw here.
"You are a hypocrite if you object to his orgies" - not if it's abusive.
"You cannot touch his daddy's nazism - yes if Arnie mixes with hate groups TODAY (US English)
"So what of he's a furriner"
"So what if he said he'd raise taxes"? So what? So what?

Some of these thigs are objectionable per se, some won't make him popular with freepers. And may I remind you that Whistle Ass looked pretty moderate in 2000? Fight damn it!

[Sapphocrat]

70. And don't forget...

There's a story floating around (sorry, you'll have to Google, I need to go out) about a Japanese bureaucrat losing his job because he let Arnold into Japan without his passport (Arnie said he lost it), and without filing the paperwork for a waiver.

I believe the blame was on the Japanese official and not on Arnie, but it might be worth digging into.

[sushi]

73. I have dual citizenship

for practical reasons. Two different passport makes travelling easier. It's rubbish to question the loyalty of a person with dual citizenship. One can have only one passport and be a bad person!

[dfong63]

84. so your dual citizenship is "convenient",

... but IF you want to be governor of CA, and if you're unwilling to sacrifice a bit of personal convenience, then what does that say about your priorities? the gov is a public servant, and should be prepared to demonstrate his/her commitment to putting the interests of the state of CA first.

[Paschall]

105. Big caveat: The 'personal convenience' of dual citizenship...

...never includes--as far as I know--hidden sources of personal enrichment. (American citizens don't also have to be Swiss to open a secret bank account in that country, or in Luxembourg, Guernsey, or any of the many Caribbean tax havens.)

I would very much like it, dfong63, if you carried your passion about "sacrifice" and "public service" to the question of corporate campaign contributions. And then I'll be more than willing to discuss divided loyalties with you! How many candidates do you think you'll find who'd be willing to "demonstrate their commitment to the people" and give up that "convenient" soft money, huh?

As I think the residents of California might agree: They have nothing to fear from Austria, but lots to fear from Enron and its ilk.

[Yupster]

74. Next thing you know, we'll have

the Hapsburg Court in Sacramento.

[Blue_Chill]

79. I agree with you Generic

I have no problem with naturalizd citizens at all. *BUT* I wouldn't want a citizen of another nation to hold office in the US.

[IndianaGreen]

90. Yeah, we have done so well with "real" Americans as Presidents!

Get a fucken Texan rancher, who is really not from Texas nor has cattle in his ranch, as the true test of what constitutes a "citizen."

Most dual-citizenship cases are the result of law, not of choice. If you don't like it, change the law. While you are at it, explain to me why you want to pursue an inquisition against Americans of dual citizenship while ignoring the many people that are in this country illegally!

Hypocrite!

[Generic Other]

92. An illegal alien can't run for public office, can they?

They are technically not supposed to be here, thus invisible.

This may be a dumb thing to say, but I believe that if an illegal is legally hired to work in the US, he or she should be entitled to apply for citizenship. The fact that someone is hired by a US citizen suggests sponsorship and should be viewed as such. If I hire illegal workers, I should be required to help them fill out their paperwork, to guarantee they will be provided employment. If I am unwilling to sponsor them as new immigrants, I should not be allowed to hire.

As for the dual citizenship thing, I have heard some arguments in favor of it that seem reasonable to me. But my gut reaction comes not so much from a heightened sense of nationalism as it does from a feeling that within a decade, the majority of jobs, money, and land in this country will be under foreign control and Americans will be displaced people in their own country.

I don't suppose it will matter much who runs things when it's all been outsourced. For those already at the bottom, nothing will really change much whether it's Smirk from Texas or Rev. Moon from wherever. The rich and powerful multinational corporations will still own it all. And they will do whatever the hell they want with our country. That much I'm certain of.

[IndianaGreen]

94. That's not what the law says, my dear Generic Other

I am sorry if I have sounded brusque before, it is only because I see red flags everywhere when people speak so casually about citizenship, and I hear the same language the rightwing has used before against immigration.

Don't confuse being against immigration, which is inherently racist, with being against illegal immigration. No nation can survive without having an orderly process for immigration. If you don't believe me, check the Canadian requirements for an immigration visa. Even Israel, a country in which I can become a citizen by simply stepping off the plane in Tel Aviv, will require some proof that I am Jewish before they issue me the proper documentation (preferably before I leave the States).

One can come to the US on a work permit with a sponsor. This does not entitle the individual for eligibility for American citizenship. In order to become a citizen, a foreigner must apply for permanent residency and wait 5 years before applying for citizenship.

Exceptions: the most notable exception is the waiver of a portion or the whole of waiting period by serving in the US Armed Forces. One need not be an American citizen in order to enlist, but one must be a legal permanent resident.

There have been exceptions whenever an amnesty has been declared by the US Government in order to encourage illegal residents to apply for permanent status.

[ibegurpard]

81. I am a dual citizen as well.

I was born in Canada to American parents. I was never forced to choose one or the other.
I can think of LOTS of reasons to criticize Schwarzenegger but that's not one of them.

[Tracer]

87. Arnold May Have Dual Citizenship, But ...

... he CHOSE to make his home, family and career here in the United States. (Not that I would vote for him if I lived in CA). You must realize that people make choices in their lives, and their life choices count for more than the accident of their births.

I have dual citizenship also. From Ireland.

I am automatically (as someone whose parents were born in Ireland) an Irish citizen. I have an Irish passport in addition to my US passport.

What do I consider myself?

An AMERICAN!

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

93. He has dual citizenship.

There is absolutely no legal problem with Arnold running. Sure it may be ridiculous, it may lead to a horrible political result, it may make our country look quite stupid (although it's safe enough to say we've done a lot of that)... but he has every right to. As a dual citizen, he has the same rights you or I have to run for political office. California's election laws are very lax, and Arnold is not abusing any sort of law. I don't think there should have to be any loyalty oath to sign, because it's just a paper promise. What good does it do if Arnold signs a pledge stating he is loyal to his country? There could always be the chance he signs it and then does the exact opposite. His actions should speak for his loyalties, not a signature on another document. Who says you can't be loyal to two countries, anyway?

[MoonGod]

96. Doesn't Madeline Albright hold dual citizenship?

I could be wrong on this one, but I was under that impression. I even remember some were bringing up her name to replace Vaclav Havel when he stepped down (including Havel himself).

If so, then you had somebody that was 4th in line to the presidency with dual citizenship. If you're willing to accept that and not Arnie's dual status, then you need a hypocrisy check.

That being said, this may be a point that is much more relevant to many of the right-wing voters that Arnie is angling for. My personal values don't conflict with the idea of a dual-citizen governor, but if others can't reconcile it, then so be it... as long as it keeps Arnie away from Sacramento.

[DavidNY]

97. Madeline Albright wasn't 4th in line for the Presidency...

because she was not a natural-born citizen of the US, having been born in Czechoslovakia. (So the line of succession just skipped right over her and went straight from then-Senate President pro tem Thurmond (!) to the Treasury Secretary.)

As for whether she had dual citizenship, I don't know. You're right that her name was mentioned as a possible candidate for office in the Czech Republic, but that doesn't mean she _was_ a citizen-- just that she could have become one easily. Many European countries (Germany, Ireland and various former Yugoslav republics spring to mind as places with different versions of this) have laws under which people whose parents or grandparents were citizens can under some circumstances apply for citizenship and be granted it quite quickly, without the usual residency requirements that would apply for someone with no connection to the country. Under many such laws, though, a person in that position isn't a citizen of the country in question unless they _apply_ to be one.

[carpetbagger]

98. Refugees from the Nazis carry special privileges.

I don't know if she had/has dual citizenship, but if she did, it would have been under the pre-WWII government that no longer exists. We have a special relationship with with those folks. In fact, veterans of their army, as well as the Polish army, from WWII can get care in our VA if they have become US citizens.

[Generic Other]

99. "much more relevant to many of the right-wing voters"

Ouch.

[MoonGod]

103. Ouch? How do you mean?