Freedom of religion? Not for innocent Muslims

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, it would be like if for some silly reason, he weren't allowed to hold the position because he wasn't born in the USA.

No, it wouldn't be like that either. No matter how many times you try to make it like that. So I'll give you the same advice - try really hard to comprehend the difference - or remain ignorant.

[Smallc]

No, it wouldn't be like that either. No matter how many times you try to make it like that. So I'll give you the same advice - try really hard to comprehend the difference - or remain ignorant.

There is no difference. It's an arbitrary distinction. You simply accept one and don't accept the other, for some reason.

[Guest American Woman]

There is no difference. It's an arbitrary distinction. You simply accept one and don't accept the other, for some reason.

So it's discrimination that permanent residents of Canada cannot become Prime Minister; that one must be a citizen, right? That's discrimination too?

[Smallc]

So it's discrimination that permanent residents of Canada cannot become Prime Minister; that one must be a citizen, right? That's discrimination too?

Haha, you're funny. Actually, a non citizen very much could be PM...or GG. They simply couldn't run and win as an MP.

[Guest American Woman]

Haha, you're funny. Actually, a non citizen very much could be PM...or GG. They simply couldn't run and win as an MP.

Let's say you're right, even though the constitutional conventions involved in selecting the prime minister make the appointment of anyone ineligible for election to the house an obvious infeasibility, and a non citizen "very much could be PM." They couldn't be an MP, so there's your discrimination. It's discrimination that permanent residents of Canada cannot be an MP since they are not citizens. Right?

[Smallc]

Let's say you're right, even though the constitutional conventions involved in selecting the prime minister make the appointment of anyone ineligible for election to the house an obvious infeasibility, and a non citizen "very much could be PM."

You're probably right, but we don't know that for sure. It's unlikely that it would ever even be attempted anyway.

They couldn't be an MP, so there's your discrimination. It's discrimination that permanent residents of Canada cannot be an MP since they are not citizens. Right?

You seriously don't understand that there is a difference between discriminating based on something like place of birth (something that someone can't control and something that has no relevance in terms of citizenship) and discriminating based on citizenship? Really?

Edited May 23, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

You seriously don't understand that there is a difference between discriminating based on something like place of birth (something that someone can't control and something that has no relevance in terms of citizenship) and discriminating based on citizenship? Really?

Why don't you explain the difference to me? Obviously you think qualifications based on country of birth is discrimination while apparently you don't think it's discrimination to require your MPs to be citizens, and I'd like to hear why - since it excludes all of those permanent residents who aren't citizens.

Edited May 23, 2011 by American Woman

[scouterjim]

You're the one who said he's constantly referred to as a Muslim, and he did get elected, so I'd have to say yes.

I'd also have to point out to you one... more... time.... that it doesn't matter whether he would have been elected or not. Not being elected to the position and not being allowed to hold the position are two different things. You can try really hard to comprehend that or you can remain ignorant.

The majority of Americans don't think Obama is a Muslim. It is a small, vocal minority (in particular those who don't want a non-caucasian president) who keep making that claim.

[Guest American Woman]

The majority of Americans don't think Obama is a Muslim. It is a small, vocal minority (in particular those who don't want a non-caucasian president) who keep making that claim.

So you made the comment you did even as you realize it's only "a small minority" of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim; you play it however it suits you - play it up or play it down according to whatever point you'd like to make. Very honest of you.

And now you're claiming it's because they don't want a non-Caucasian president....

[Smallc]

Why don't you explain the difference to me? Obviously you think qualifications based on country of birth is discrimination while apparently you don't think it's discrimination to require your MPs to be citizens, and I'd like to hear why - since it excludes all of those permanent residents who aren't citizens.

Because permanent residents are not citizens. It's quite simple.

[Guest American Woman]

Because permanent residents are not citizens. It's quite simple.

Not so simple as you would like. It's still discrimination against all of the Canadians who are permanent residents of Canada. A non-citizen could be the better person for the job. Why do they have to be a citizen in order to be qualified? Why couldn't a non-citizen living and working and raising their family in Canada do just as good a job as a citizen? Why isn't it discrimination to exclude them?

Edited May 23, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Not so simple as you would like. It's still discrimination against all of the Canadians who are permanent residents of Canada.

But then they aren't really Canadians, are they? They're simply residents of Canada.

A non-citizen could be the better person for the job. Why do they have to be a citizen in order to be qualified? Why couldn't a non-citizen living and working and raising their family in Canada do just as good a job as a citizen? Why isn't it discrimination to exclude them?

Because they haven't taken all of the steps to truly become Canadian. They realistically belong to a country other than Canada.

[scouterjim]

So you made the comment you did even as you realize it's only "a small minority" of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim; you play it however it suits you - play it up or play it down according to whatever point you'd like to make. Very honest of you.

And now you're claiming it's because they don't want a non-Caucasian president....

I never said all Americans call Obama a Muslim. I said he is constantly being accused of being so. I have seen it in the newspapers, on tv, and on other chat sites. My point was that if he WERE a Muslim, he would never have been elected due to fear and prejudice. And yes, there are those who hate him because he is not caucasian. He has, from what I readd on Yahoo a few months ago, received 3 times more death threats than any other president, with many of the threats calling him a Muslim, or telling him a black man should not be president. A minority, but a loud one, are the ones doing this.

[Guest American Woman]

But then they aren't really Canadians, are they? They're simply residents of Canada.

So what? That's my point. What difference does it make? How does citizenship make them better qualified? If your PM doesn't have to be a citizen, if your GG doesn't have to be a citizen, why do your MPs? And why isn't it discrimination? You're not answering the question. You just keep repeating the obvious.

Because they haven't taken all of the steps to truly become Canadian. They realistically belong to a country other than Canada.

So what? A person born outside of the US to one parent who's not an American citizen realistically belongs to that other country too. They belong to both countries and realistically could have just as close ties to the other country as the person in your scenario does to their's. So again. Why is one discrimination while the other is not?

[Smallc]

So what? That's my point. What difference does it make? How does citizenship make them better qualified? If your PM doesn't have to be a citizen, if your GG doesn't have to be a citizen, why do your MPs? And why isn't it discrimination? You're not answering the question. You just keep repeating the obvious.

The obvious should be answer enough. If someone has taken the time and gone through the process to become a citizen, they obviously have a connection to the country. The US discriminates by type of citizenship, which somehow says that one citizen isn't as good.

So what? A person born outside of the US to one parent who's not an American citizen realistically belongs to that other country too.

Do they? Why? If they're an American citizen, they are of America. If they have dual citizenship, they're of more than one country, but they're still an American.

They belong to both countries and realistically could have just as close ties to the other country as the person in your scenario does to their's. So again. Why is one discrimination while the other is not?

Is an American and American, or not?

Edited May 23, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

I never said all Americans call Obama a Muslim. I said he is constantly being accused of being so. I have seen it in the newspapers, on tv, and on other chat sites. My point was that if he WERE a Muslim, he would never have been elected due to fear and prejudice.

So he's constantly being accused of being a Muslim by a "small minority" - Your words - So where does the "fear and prejudice" that would prevent him from being elected come from? - When it's only a "small minority" accusing him of being a Muslim. Surely you realize that a "small minority" doesn't determine who becomes POTUS?

And yes, there are those who hate him because he is not caucasian. He has, from what I readd on Yahoo a few months ago, received 3 times more death threats than any other president, with many of the threats calling him a Muslim, or telling him a black man should not be president. A minority, but a loud one, are the ones doing this.

And a small minority, no matter how loud, doesn't determine who gets elected POTUS.

Why do you think it's fair to judge the whole by a small minority? To speculate as to what might be based on said small minority? And how does loudness figure into it?

[Guest American Woman]

The obvious should be answer enough. If someone has taken the time and gone through the process to become a citizen, they obviously have a connection to the country. The US discriminates by type of citizenship, which somehow says that one citizen isn't as good.

No, it doesn't say that. You seem to think that going through the process to become a citizen gives an obvious connection to the country. You don't think marrying a Canadian and having Canadian babies and raising their family there doesn't give them a connection? Are you saying it's not discrimination because non-citizens don't have a connection to Canada? My daughter's BF's sister is married to a Canadian. They live in Canada. She has given birth to three Canadians. Her home is there. Her job is there. Her family is there. Her life is there. I'd like to know why it's not discrimination that she can't be an MP.

Do they? Why? If they're an American citizen, they are of America. If they have dual citizenship, they're of more than one country, but they're still an American.

Why? Because they and their parent, who is not an American citizen, are citizens of the other country, too. So why should anyone assume that their allegiance to their American roots would be stronger than their allegiance to the other half of their roots? Do you assume that it would be?

You apparently believe you need proof of a person's connection to Canada in the form of citizenship in order for them to qualify for MP, so why is it discrimination to go one step further and require an absolute connection? Why is one discrimination while the other is not?

Is an American and American, or not?

That's not the question, is it? The question is why it's necessary to be a citizen - and the answer seems to be so there's a connection. Now I want to know why, since that's not discrimination, it is discrimination to require a singular connection.

Like it or not, if one is discrimination so is the other. They both exclude a group of people.

Edited May 23, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

But one is much more arbitrary. You're trying to argue equivalency where none exists. Only Canadian citizens can run for office in Canada. In the US you apparently have two classes of citizens when it comes to two offices.

[Guest American Woman]

But one is much more arbitrary. You're trying to argue equivalency where none exists. Only Canadian citizens can run for office in Canada. In the US you apparently have two classes of citizens when it comes to two offices.

The fact that only citizens can run for office in Canada doesn't explain how it's not discrimination against those who aren't citizens.

[Smallc]

The fact that only citizens can run for office in Canada doesn't explain how it's not discrimination against those who aren't citizens.

It's a Canadian offices. Only Canadians can hold a Canadian office.

[Guest American Woman]

It's a Canadian offices. Only Canadians can hold a Canadian office.

Why?

[Smallc]

Why?

You're getting ridiculous.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're getting ridiculous.

Objection overruled....AW is pursuing an interesting line of questioning in this exciting debate. Great logical attack AW!

[Guest American Woman]

You're getting ridiculous.

No I'm not. You can't answer the question other than to say it's a requirement that Canada, as a nation, feels is a valid qualification based on the job criteria. By the same token, we feel being born outside the US when one parent isn't a citizen doesn't meet what we feel are valid qualifications for what the job of POTUS requires - that being commander in chief of our armed forces in time of war - which requires absolute allegiance to our country.

The job of POTUS consists of different criteria than the job of MP; therefore, we have different requirements regarding who qualifies for the job. It's no more discrimination than your job requirements are. Saying "it's a Canadian job so it requires Canadian citizenship" is no more a valid reason for your requirement of citizenship than our requirements are for POTUS. If one is discrimination, so is the other. Just because your discrimination is against a different set of people doesn't make it any less discrimination. - So either both are discrimination or neither is.

[Smallc]

If it is discriminatory, there's nothing wrong with the discrimination. There's a difference between the citizens of a country and simple residents. The discrimination in your system creates two classes of citizens. Ours does the same thing (royals and commoners), but at least we're willing to admit it. You don't seem to be.