Prince Harry

[Guest American Woman]

Well said; and in true AW fashion, as well.

Yep. You said it all. A secular nation requiring/excluding one religion = reasonable, while a nation that requires complete loyalty excluding all foreign nations = unreasonable.

Good thing this board isn't my only experience/reference regarding Canadians.

[g_bambino]

If it's "reasonable," it's not considered "discrimination" in the context that people refer to discrimination...

It is for people who adhere to the definitions of words as given by the English dictionary.

The exclusion isn't for "different religions," it's only for CATHOLICS. Evidently the head of the church can believe in any other religion except Catholicism. That's so reasonable, eh?

The monarch must be "in communion with the Church of England". I don't know if that allows for someone who openly holds another faith to be head or not. However, the main point is: nobody said the bar being specifically on Catholics is reasonable anymore. (Though, that isn't to say a reasonable argument for it couldn't be mounted.)

And the exclusion isn't only in regards to religion, it's excluded by birth.

Indeed. And such is not intended to guarantee a capable individual.

[Guest American Woman]

It is for people who adhere to the definitions of words as given by the English dictionary.

The monarch must be "in communion with the Church of England". I don't know if that allows for someone who openly holds another faith to be head or not. However, the main point is: nobody said the bar being specifically on Catholics is reasonable anymore. (Though, that isn't to say a reasonable argument for it couldn't be mounted.)

Indeed. And such is not intended to guarantee a capable individual.

:lol: *

*Well said, eh?

[g_bambino]

Well said, eh?

Pretty typical for you. So, no.

[Guest American Woman]

Pretty typical for you. So, no.

:lol:

[cybercoma]

I can't imagine someone born in the US having mixed loyalties at all. Inconceivable!

[Wilber]

I can't imagine someone born in the US having mixed loyalties at all. Inconceivable!

Na. A few who would qualify to be POTUS by virtue of their place of birth.

John Anthony Walker

Aldrich Ames

Robert Hanssen

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

George Koval

A very short sample of a very long list of eminent US citizens who would not qualify by virtue of their place of birth.

Edward Teller

Albert Einstein

Madelene Albright

Henry Kissinger

Mario Andretti

Wayne Gretzky

Yo Yo Ma

Sidney Poitier

Don't know how many became citizens but 32% of all Nobel Laureates who earned the prize while working in the US were foreign born.

[Guest American Woman]

Na. A few who would qualify to be POTUS by virtue of their place of birth.

John Anthony Walker

Aldrich Ames

Robert Hanssen

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

George Koval

A very short sample of a very long list of eminent US citizens who would not qualify by virtue of their place of birth.

Edward Teller

Albert Einstein

Madelene Albright

Henry Kissinger

Mario Andretti

Wayne Gretzky

Yo Yo Ma

Sidney Poitier

Don't know how many became citizens but 32% of all Nobel Laureates who earned the prize while working in the US were foreign born.

And what does any of that have to do with mixed feelings of loyalty if there were a conflict situation? Because none of those people you mention have been in such a position. But yeah, not only would Wayne Gretzky make a great POTUS ( ), his first and only loyalty would always, unquestionably, lie with the U.S.

Again. You become an American citizen and there's a conflict between Canada and the U.S. Your undying loyalty belongs with the U.S.? No conflicting emotions/loyalties?

This you see as unreasonable, though - as you defend your totally unreasonable anti-Catholic in a secular nation stipulation.

Edited September 14, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

And what does any of that have to do with mixed feelings of loyalty if there were a conflict situation? Because none of those people you mention have been in such a position. But yeah, not only would Wayne Gretzky make a great POTUS ( ), his first and only loyalty would always, unquestionably, lie with the U.S.

Again. You become an American citizen and there's a conflict between Canada and the U.S. Your undying loyalty belongs with the U.S.? No conflicting emotions/loyalties?

This you see as unreasonable, though - as you defend your totally unreasonable anti-Catholic in a secular nation stipulation.

Gretzky is probably a bad example but I'm sure you could find many others like Andretti who's parents immigrated when they were at a very young age and really know no other country.

On the other hand, Nicole Kidman who gives her nationality as Australian and was born to Australian parents in Hawaii would qualify. Hell, she could be POTUS and the PM of Australia. Couldn't be any conflict there, she was born in the good old US of A right.

Fact is, your system excludes Americans who were born elsewhere but have lived almost their whole lives in the US, while it qualifies those who were born in the US but have lived almost all of their lives elsewhere.

It is at least as arbitrary as any other system, including ours.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Wilber

[eyeball]

It is at least as arbitrary as any other system, including ours.

And just as unlikely to be any more accountable to people ruled by them.

As if that mattered.

[guyser]

And what does any of that have to do with mixed feelings of loyalty if there were a conflict situation? Because none of those people you mention have been in such a position.

Would not Albright and Kissinger have mixed feelings and have been in positions of power where their loyalties could well have been questioned?

But weren't?

[Guest American Woman]

Would not Albright and Kissinger have mixed feelings and have been in positions of power where their loyalties could well have been questioned?

But weren't?

If their loyalties could well have been questioned, but weren't, that would add legitimacy to the requirements, as it excludes such people from becoming POTUS. ie: No need to worry about such people, people 'whose loyalties could well have been questioned but weren't,' becoming POTUS.

[Guest American Woman]

Gretzky is probably a bad example but I'm sure you could find many others like Andretti who's parents immigrated when they were at a very young age and really know no other country.

Say it's true about Andretti, are you saying that there should be exclusions based on the age they moved to the U.S.?

On the other hand, Nicole Kidman who gives her nationality as Australian and was born to Australian parents in Hawaii would qualify. Hell, she could be POTUS and the PM of Australia. Couldn't be any conflict there, she was born in the good old US of A right.

She was born in the U.S., but neither of her parents were American. The child of an ambassador to the U.S. born in the U.S. is not a naturalized citizen, and likely the Supreme Court would rule the same about a child born to two foreign parents who were only in the U.S. because of a student visa. Being a citizen due to birth and being a natural born citizen have been defined in Supreme Court cases as two different things.

In other words, you claim has not been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fact is, your system excludes Americans who were born elsewhere but have lived almost their whole lives in the US, while it qualifies those who were born in the US but have lived almost all of their lives elsewhere.

As I said, "born in the US" is enough to make one a citizen, but not a "natural born citizen."

It is at least as arbitrary as any other system, including ours.

If you believe that, I can only conclude that you are willingly blind.

Edited September 15, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

If their loyalties could well have been questioned, but weren't, that would add legitimacy to the requirements, as it excludes such people from becoming POTUS. ie: No need to worry about such people, people 'whose loyalties could well have been questioned but weren't,' becoming POTUS.

The requirements are legitimate because they are the requirements.

Tautology club meets only on the days that tautology club has meetings.

[Wilber]

Say it's true about Andretti, are you saying that there should be exclusions based on the age they moved to the U.S.?

I'm saying that a system that discriminates on the grounds of place of birth with no other considerations is arbitrary.

She was born in the U.S., but neither of her parents were American. The child of an ambassador to the U.S. born in the U.S. is not a naturalized citizen, and likely the Supreme Court would rule the same about a child born to two foreign parents who were only in the U.S. because of a student visa. Being a citizen due to birth and being a natural born citizen have been defined in Supreme Court cases as two different things.

In other words, you claim has not been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As I said, "born in the US" is enough to make one a citizen, but not a "natural born citizen."

Hasn't been rejected by the Supreme Court either. Now you are basing your argument on what you think the Supreme Court might rule.

If you believe that, I can only conclude that you are willingly blind.

No mam, it is you that is optically challenged.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm saying that a system that discriminates on the grounds of place of birth with no other considerations is arbitrary.

So then you've nothing new to add; I've already explained why it isn't arbitrary.

Hasn't been rejected by the Supreme Court either. Now you are basing your argument on what you think the Supreme Court might rule.

No, I'm not. I'm basing my argument on what the Supreme Court has ruled.

No mam, it is you that is optically challenged.

Just more proof of your inability to see outside your realm of vision.

[Wilber]

So then you've nothing new to add; I've already explained why it isn't arbitrary.

No, I'm not. I'm basing my argument on what the Supreme Court has ruled.

Just more proof of your inability to see outside your realm of vision.

I can see the court ruling on an Ambassador as they are a foreign official living and working on what is technically foreign soil. I don't think it is so clear in Kidman's case but for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.

What if Kidman had been born to US born citizens who immigrated to Australia when she was a year old. She is brought up as a dual Australian/US citizen then returns to the US when she is 40. What then?

You asked if you should put time limits the age a person moved to the US. It's not for me to say what you should do but I would ask, should you put limits on the time a US born citizen can live outside the US before they are disqualified? The fact you do neither makes it arbitrary.

I will continue to say so as long as you cling to your magical illusion that a persons place of birth trumps everything else they have done with their lives. Hardly the American Dream.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

I can see the court ruling on an Ambassador as they are a foreign official living and working on what is technically foreign soil. I don't think it is so clear in Kidman's case but for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.

In Kidman's case, her parents were foreign students living on what is technically foreign soil. Not much difference. They didn't emigrate to the U.S.; they simply had a student visa.

What if Kidman had been born to US born citizens who immigrated to Australia when she was a year old. She is brought up as a dual Australian/US citizen then returns to the US when she is 40. What then?

She's only brought up as a dual citizen if she seeks Australian citizenship. I doubt that is automatically granted to her. The requirements for POTUS do state that the potential candidate must have lived 14 years in the United States, though it doesn't state any specifics about it. I would wager that the Supreme Court might be called upon to make a ruling should such a situation ever arise; but the idea that such a situation might also be problematic could suggest that perhaps the requirements are too broad in that area, not that they are too restrictive in the other.

You asked if you should put time limits the age a person moved to the US. It's not for me to say what you should do but I would ask, should you put limits on the time a US born citizen can live outside the US before they are disqualified? The fact you do neither makes it arbitrary.

Actually, I was asking what you were saying regarding your opinion; I wasn't asking you what we should do. As for the answer to your question, I covered that above.

I will continue to say so as long as you cling to your magical illusion that a persons place of birth trumps everything else they have done with their lives. Hardly the American Dream.

That you choose to interpret it that way is your prerogative, but doesn't make it reality. Frankly, I find that the only qualification for your PM is that he/she has attained 18 years of age rather odd; the head of state has to be the firstborn of the royal family - provided he/she isn't Catholic, while the PM, the one with all the political power, could be any 18 year old born and raised anywhere in the world. I happen to believe in job qualifications for such an important position, and I believe they should be a little more extensive than basically, say, working at McDonald's - but perhaps that's just an American thing.

[Wilber]

She's only brought up as a dual citizen if she seeks Australian citizenship. I doubt that is automatically granted to her. The requirements for POTUS do state that the potential candidate must have lived 14 years in the United States, though it doesn't state any specifics about it. I would wager that the Supreme Court might be called upon to make a ruling should such a situation ever arise; but the idea that such a situation might also be problematic could suggest that perhaps the requirements are too broad in that area, not that they are too restrictive in the other.

So an American born citizen who has only lived 14 years in the country can be POTUS but a foreign born sixty year old US citizen who has lived in the US for 59 years cannot. That is reasonable to you.

If her parents became Australian citizens before she reached the age of majority, she might well have got it automatically but so what. Would her taking Australian citizenship have any bearing on her eligibility if she chose to renounce it and return to the US?

Actually, I was asking what you were saying regarding your opinion; I wasn't asking you what we should do. As for the answer to your question, I covered that above.

That you choose to interpret it that way is your prerogative, but doesn't make it reality. Frankly, I find that the only qualification for your PM is that he/she has attained 18 years of age rather odd; the head of state has to be the firstborn of the royal family - provided he/she isn't Catholic, while the PM, the one with all the political power, could be any 18 year old born and raised anywhere in the world. I happen to believe in job qualifications for such an important position, and I believe they should be a little more extensive than basically, say, working at McDonald's - but perhaps that's just an American thing.

We choose to select our top politician according to their achievements, not where they were born. I don't have an opinion on how you choose to select your head of state. Too bad it isn't mutual.

BTW working at McDonalds would be a qualification as long as one was born in the US.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

So an American born citizen who has only lived 14 years in the country can be POTUS but a foreign born sixty year old US citizen who has lived in the US for 59 years cannot. That is reasonable to you.

What part of "such a situation might also be problematic" translates to "reasonable to [me]?"

If her parents became Australian citizens before she reached the age of majority, she might well have got it automatically but so what. Would her taking Australian citizenship have any bearing on her eligibility if she chose to renounce it and return to the US?

I don't get what you're asking here in light of what I've already addressed.

choose to select our top politician according to their achievements, not where they were born. I don't have an opinion on how you choose to select your head of state. Too bad it isn't mutual.

Say what? You've been expressing your opinion about the qualifications for POTUS for some time now - in countless posts.

Odd that there are no qualifications for the PM, while there are several for Senators:

Canada’s written Constitution provides several requirements for becoming a Senator. Appointees must be 30 years of age or older, a resident of the province (or territory) for which they are appointed, and a natural born or naturalized subject of the Queen. [...] Senators must also own property in the province they represent.

Edited September 15, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

What part of "such a situation might also be problematic" translates to "reasonable to [me]?"

I don't get what you're asking here in light of what I've already addressed.

Say what? You've been expressing your opinion about the qualifications for POTUS for some time now - in countless posts.

Odd that there are no qualifications for the PM, while there are several for Senators:

Canada’s written Constitution provides several requirements for becoming a Senator. Appointees must be 30 years of age or older, a resident of the province (or territory) for which they are appointed, and a natural born or naturalized subject of the Queen. [...] Senators must also own property in the province they represent.

Look, I'm not an American so I have no idea what is right for Americans. I merely point out that your birth requirement is arbitrary. The rightness or wrongness is for you to decide.

I guess it is OK for you to throw stones at the way our head of state is picked but yours is sacred and untouchable.

[Guest American Woman]

Look, I'm not an American so I have no idea what is right for Americans. I merely point out that your birth requirement is arbitrary. The rightness or wrongness is for you to decide.

And I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your thinking.

I guess it is OK for you to throw stones at the way our head of state is picked

Dramatic much? Criticism is akin to "throwing stones?"

but yours is sacred and untouchable.

Defensive much? You're the one who can't handle my having an opinion about Canada; you're the one who thinks your system is sacred and untouchable. Where did I ever so much as insinuate that my system is sacred and untouchable? I've never once indicated that you have no right to an opinion - that would be you outright telling me that I have no such right, so don't put your emotions on me.

Edited September 15, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

And I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your thinking.

Dramatic much? Criticism is akin to "throwing stones?"

Defensive much? You're the one who can't handle my having an opinion about Canada; you're the one who thinks your system is sacred and untouchable. Where did I ever so much as insinuate that my system is sacred and untouchable? I've never once indicated that you have no right to an opinion - that would be you outright telling me that I have no such right, so don't put your emotions on me.

There's the difference in a nutshell. I point out inconsistencies in your system. It is not for me to decide whether they are flaws. It's not my system. You on the other hand have judged us already and found us flawed. That is what I find arrogant and condescending about your posts. You are a republic by choice. We are a monarchy by choice. You don't seem to respect that.

[Guest American Woman]

There's the difference in a nutshell. I point out inconsistencies in your system. It is not for me to decide whether they are flaws.

You have every right to be critical, and you have been.

It's not my system. You on the other hand have judged us already and found us flawed. That is what I find arrogant and condescending about your posts. You are a republic by choice. We are a monarchy by choice. You don't seem to respect that.

That you find any outside criticism of your system to be "arrogant and condescending" is your problem, not mine. It's also your problem that you make it out to be anything other than what it is.

I respect your country very much. I've said so time and again. That doesn't mean I have no criticism about anything.

[g_bambino]

[T]he head of state has to be the firstborn of the royal family - provided he/she isn't Catholic...

Untrue. Many monarchs weren't the first born.