Prince Harry

[Guest American Woman]

What about discriminatory qualifications?

As I pointed out, there is nothing discriminatory about the qualifications - since one country is not singled out and excluded.

[eyeball]

She does. It just seems its not a powerful enough trick to make you happy. It's you and the rest of us voters - either directly through the ballot box or via our elected representatives in parliament - who are the "first responders" against political misbehaviour, so to speak. The Queen is more akin to a fire extinguisher, used only in absolute emergencies.

Well you're certainly right about one thing, I'm not very happy.

I just can't escape the sense that should we get even more direct in our attempts to bring our government to heel that she'd be turning her extinguishers on us and in a New York minute.

[Smallc]

As I pointed out, there is nothing discriminatory about the qualifications - since one country is not singled out and excluded.

Right....

[Guest American Woman]

Right....

Let me try to help you understand. If the requirement was that the potus must be born in the U.S. or a European country, that would be discrimination. If we said that the potus must be born in the U.S. or anywhere other than an Arab nation, that would be discrimination. As it stands, it's not discrimination - as no specific country is singled out and excluded.

[Smallc]

Let me try to help you understand. If the requirement was that the potus must be born in the U.S. or a European country, that would be discrimination.

So it's not discrimination against people not born in the US in general? I'm not sure how you can actually say that with a straight face.

[eyeball]

So it's not discrimination against people not born in the US in general? I'm not sure how you can actually say that with a straight face.

I have to say AW actually does seem to have a point here, as utterly redundant as it is in the scheming of things.

Edited September 7, 2012 by eyeball

[Smallc]

I have to say AW actually does seem to have a point here, as utterly redundant as it is in the scheme of things.

It creates two classes of Americans. It's discriminatory against people not born in the US.

[Guest American Woman]

So it's not discrimination against people not born in the US in general? I'm not sure how you can actually say that with a straight face.

The same way I'm sure you'd say the requirement that your PM be a Canadian citizen isn't discrimination against all those people living in Canada in general.

[eyeball]

It creates two classes of Americans. It's discriminatory against people not born in the US.

Against all people not born in the US I guess, but if it was against just Catholics not born in the US you'd have a stronger point.

But since when did having a classless society suddenly matter in North America? You're an even more hopeless dreamer than me.

[Smallc]

The same way I'm sure you'd say the requirement that your PM be a Canadian citizen isn't discrimination against all those people living in Canada in general.

Just to clarify, that is not a requirement. It's a requirement to run for office....but then, that doesn't create two classes of Canadians, does it?

[Guest American Woman]

Just to clarify, that is not a requirement. It's a requirement to run for office....but then, that doesn't create two classes of Canadians, does it?

Do you seriously think that you don't have "two classes of Canadians?" The citizenship of those born in Canada is secure, while the citizenship of those born outside of Canada can be revoked.

[Smallc]

Only if they never should have been citizens in the first place:

Revocation means removing someone’s citizenship. People can have their citizenship revoked if they have obtained their citizenship by fraud, false representation or knowingly concealing material circumstances (for example, knowingly concealing information that could have affected their eligibility for citizenship or permanent residence).

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2011/2011-07-27.asp

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when talking about citizenship related rights, speaks of all Canadians...so no, there aren't two classes.

Why is it that I can admit that the selection process for our head of state is discriminatory, but you can't (and ours is much more discriminatory than your's, no one has said otherwise).

[Wilber]

[

Who's dodging it?? I've said repeatedly that "qualifications" and "discrimination" are two different things.

You can argue that it's not a valid qualification that a head of state be born in said state, but that doesn't make it discrimination. We aren't singling out and excluding one country - it applies to all other countries. Speaking of "deliberate obtuseness," do you seriously not understand the difference??

How does one "qualify" to be born a US citizen if one was not born a US citizen? Arbitrarily exempting someone meets just about every definition of discrimination there is.

Do you seriously think that you don't have "two classes of Canadians?" The citizenship of those born in Canada is secure, while the citizenship of those born outside of Canada can be revoked.

Unlike your country, until that citizenship is revoked, they have the same rights as a Canadian born citizen. Unless a Canadian born citizen has dual citizenship somewhere else, they have no other country to be a citizen of. Hence the difference.

The same way I'm sure you'd say the requirement that your PM be a Canadian citizen isn't discrimination against all those people living in Canada in general.

Can non US citizens run for public office in the US? That's novel.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Only if they never should have been citizens in the first place: [...]

I've read of citizens who had their citizenship revoked for treason, spying, et al.

Revocation means removing someone’s citizenship. People can have their citizenship revoked if they have obtained their citizenship by fraud, false representation or knowingly concealing material circumstances (for example, knowingly concealing information that could have affected their eligibility for citizenship or permanent residence).

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2011/2011-07-27.asp

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when talking about citizenship related rights, speaks of all Canadians...so no, there aren't two classes.

Why is it that I can admit that the selection process for our head of state is discriminatory, but you can't (and ours is much more discriminatory than your's, no one has said otherwise).

Sigh. Yours is discriminatory and ours isn't, and I've explained why. You can argue whether or not the requirement that the head of state be born in said state a valid qualification, but it's not discrimination since no country/nationality is singled out. Is it reasonable that the head of state must be born in the head of state? One can argue that point. Is it reasonable that the head of state can be born anywhere but Canada? No, that is discrimination. It's not arguable. That is the difference between the two.

As for revoking citizenship, I believe it's been revoked for crimes such as spying against Canada.

[Smallc]

Sigh. Yours is discriminatory and ours isn't, and I've explained why.

And your explanation is, quite frankly, BS.

[Guest American Woman]

How does one "qualify" to be born a US citizen if one was not born a US citizen? Arbitrarily exempting someone meets just about every definition of discrimination there is.

There's nothing "arbitrary" about it.

Unlike your country, until that citizenship is revoked, they have the same rights as a Canadian born citizen. Unless a Canadian born citizen has dual citizenship somewhere else, they have no other country to be a citizen of. Hence the difference.

Not sure what you're saying here, but seems to me you're saying that there is a difference.

Can non US citizens run for public office in the US? That's novel.

I really have no idea as to what you're trying to say.....

[Guest American Woman]

And your explanation is, quite frankly, BS.

Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it's BS. Most jobs have job requirements, based on the responsibilities of the job. That doesn't amount to discrimination. Surely you understand that much.

Edited September 7, 2012 by American Woman

[wyly]

So it's not discrimination against people not born in the US in general? I'm not sure how you can actually say that with a straight face.

pretty clear to me, I was not born in canada but could become PM, I could not ever become potus that's clearly discrimination...

[Wilber]

Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it's BS. Most jobs have job requirements, based on the responsibilities of the job. That doesn't amount to discrimination. Surely you understand that much.

What you haven't explained is how non US born citizens don't meet "requirements based on the responsibilities of the job". One must draw the conclusion you believe non US born citizens are less responsible than US born citizens.

I really have no idea as to what you're trying to say.....

Consider it mutual. Have to give you credit though for getting us to debate such a ridiculous position for so long.

[Guest American Woman]

What you haven't explained is how non US born citizens don't meet "requirements based on the responsibilities of the job". One must draw the conclusion you believe non US born citizens are less responsible than US born citizens.

The duties of POTUS include that of Commander in Chief and the responsibility to put the U.S. above all other countries. Some believe that a citizen who was not born here might have mixed loyalties. It has nothing to do with being "less responsible." Could they have loyalties to their native country also? I know if I were to move to another country and become a citizen of that country, if a conflict were to break out between the U.S. and my 'new' country, I would have mixed feelings, mixed loyalties. It's not incomprehensible that people born outside the country would feel that way. Therefore, the requirement is based on a valid reason, whether one agrees with it or not. It's not just "arbitrarily" part of the requirements - and it singles no country out, as I have repeatedly pointed out. The Canadian head of state can be any religion - or non-religion - except Catholic. By the same token, if our POTUS could be born anywhere but Italy, it would be discrimination. There would be no basis for it.

Consider it mutual. Have to give you credit though for getting us to debate such a ridiculous position for so long.

*I* didn't "get" you to do anything; you acted of your own free will.

Edited to add: And the fact that you think discussing such discrimination is "ridiculous" speaks for you.

Edited September 8, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

The duties of POTUS include that of Commander in Chief and the responsibility to put the U.S. above all other countries. Some believe that a citizen who was not born here might have mixed loyalties. It has nothing to do with being "less responsible." Could they have loyalties to their native country also? I know if I were to move to another country and become a citizen of that country, if a conflict were to break out between the U.S. and my 'new' country, I would have mixed feelings, mixed loyalties. It's not incomprehensible that people born outside the country would feel that way. Therefore, the requirement is based on a valid reason, whether one agrees with it or not. It's not just "arbitrarily" part of the requirements - and it singles no country out, as I have repeatedly pointed out. The Canadian head of state can be any religion - or non-religion - except Catholic.

Really didnt want to step in here but.....

Catholics are a no no because when it was amended to exclude them it was done to counter the other Empire, that being Rome.

Being Catholic meant you had allegiance to the Pope and placed the papasy above the Kingdom.( The Pope is above all others)

So....if being born in another country is a concern, as you say, then being a Catholic meant one had the possibility to be loyal to another empire and that was the concern that brought the No Catholics rule to fruition.

I think in both cases it seems rather silly anymore, but old rules die hard.

Would Schwarzenegger show allegiance to austria in a dispute?

[Wilber]

The duties of POTUS include that of Commander in Chief and the responsibility to put the U.S. above all other countries. Some believe that a citizen who was not born here might have mixed loyalties. It has nothing to do with being "less responsible." Could they have loyalties to their native country also? I know if I were to move to another country and become a citizen of that country, if a conflict were to break out between the U.S. and my 'new' country, I would have mixed feelings, mixed loyalties. It's not incomprehensible that people born outside the country would feel that way. Therefore, the requirement is based on a valid reason, whether one agrees with it or not. It's not just "arbitrarily" part of the requirements - and it singles no country out, as I have repeatedly pointed out. The Canadian head of state can be any religion - or non-religion - except Catholic. By the same token, if our POTUS could be born anywhere but Italy, it would be discrimination. There would be no basis for it.

The same theory could also apply to our PM and GG. We do not share your fears and our history has found them to be unsubstantiated.

See, William III and George I

*I* didn't "get" you to do anything; you acted of your own free will.

Edited to add: And the fact that you think discussing such discrimination is "ridiculous" speaks for you.

Yes we did.

The ridiculousness I refer to is your refusal to admit there is discrimination in your system. You just can't abide the idea.

Canadians have no obligation to explain or justify how we choose our head of state to you, Several have tried but you just aren't interested. That is why I consider you arrogant.

[Guest American Woman]

Really didnt want to step in here but.....

Catholics are a no no because when it was amended to exclude them it was done to counter the other Empire, that being Rome.

Being Catholic meant you had allegiance to the Pope and placed the papasy above the Kingdom.( The Pope is above all others)

So....if being born in another country is a concern, as you say, then being a Catholic meant one had the possibility to be loyal to another empire and that was the concern that brought the No Catholics rule to fruition.

I understand how the "no Catholics" exclusion came about, but Canada is a secular nation.

I think in both cases it seems rather silly anymore, but old rules die hard.

Would Schwarzenegger show allegiance to austria in a dispute?

I don't think it's all about how Schwarzenegger would feel, as different people have different feelings; some may feel a certain allegiance to their homeland, while some might not. Would you not feel any allegiance to Canada if you were to move elsewhere and become a citizen? I would have mixed feelings at best. I cannot imagine ever not caring about the U.S. if I left, as my family would still be in the U.S., for one thing.

I don't think it's an unreasonable condition, which doesn't necessarily mean I'm in complete agreement with it, nor would I think the Catholic exclusion unreasonable if Canada were an Anglican nation - but it's not, so there's no basis for it at all, which makes it discrimination.

Edited September 8, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

The same theory could also apply to our PM and GG. We do not share your fears and our history has found them to be unsubstantiated.

Good for you, and keep presenting it as "fears" if you must.

The ridiculousness I refer to is your refusal to admit there is discrimination in your system. You just can't abide the idea.

Yes, I refuse to "admit" something that's not true.

Canadians have no obligation to explain or justify how we choose our head of state to you, Several have tried but you just aren't interested. That is why I consider you arrogant.

Try to get this through your head. I KNOW how you choose your head of state. This mindset that you have that I don't know how you choose your head of state and/or that I don't care how you choose your head of state is pure hogwash.

Edited September 8, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Good for you, and keep presenting it as "fears" if you must.

What is it if it isn't fear?

Yes, I refuse to "admit" something that's not true.

No, because if you did, you would have no argument.

Try to get this through your head. I KNOW how you choose your head of state. This mindset that you have that I don't know how you choose your head of state and/or that I don't care how you choose your head of state is pure hogwash.

Then deal with it.