Constitutional xenophobia
Ugh. I’ve just read Matt Hutaf’s offensive article about the fact that “foreigners have no business running our country.” Of course, his definition of “foreigner” includes a person who moved to America with their parents, aged 5; was brought up in America; went to school in America; went to college in America; took up American citizenship; has a career in America; married an American; and is raising an American-born family in America. Damn those immigrant traitors!
[...] ;S NOT ABOUT ARNIE
Filed under: Blogs The Americas — Peter @ 2:19 pm
Rob took exception to this article, where Matt Hutaff puts for [...]
Rob, this is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with you.
I think restricting the US presidency to persons born with in the territories is a good thing. There is a specific sense of natural allegiance to the country of one’s birth. Heads of state who were born in other countries may be prone to conflicts of interest in protocol and war.
This specification was written with the avoidance of the pollution of American politics with the inbred crowned heads of 17th & 18th century Europe in mind.
Such filters, albeit not as stringent, apply here. I would have to divest of my US citizenship were I to run for public office in Australia.
Status quo for me, thanks.
-weez
The US position is unreasonable and ill considered. The country of your birth is not your choice and hence is a terrible criteria. The hypothetical is tempting – born in the USA, lived in a foreign country most of their life, eligible. Born in a foreign country, lived all of their life in the USA – ineligible. Logic escapes.
The Australian position is reasonable. Giving up your US citizenship is a move not lightly taken, it lets everyone know that you are truly committed. It is far better to base eligibility to hold office on something like this than the truly meaningless country of birth.
…served America in a theatre of war, contributed decades of community service in America [not the type a magistrate hands down], discovered a cure for cancer in America…
While the same foreigner’s younger sibling, born in America, can run for President.
I suspect New Zealand, like Australia has already had some:
John Watson, 3rd Prime Minister of Australia, born Chile
George Reid, 4th Prime Minister of Australia, born Scotland
Andrew Fisher, 6th Prime Minister of Australia, born Scotland
Joseph Cook, 9th Prime Minister of Australia, born England
Billy Hughes, 11th Prime Minister of Australia, born England
Paul Keating, assembled in Transylvania
Good to see you getting behind the Arnie for President campaign Rob.
Peter, I’ve written about this before. It’s a restriction that makes no sense.
Weez, I’ve written a response to The Simon and if it’s not published there I’ll whack it up for you to have a gander at.
Oh, and NZ has had foreign-born PMs.
Walter Nash (1957-1960): England
Peter Fraser (1940-1949): Scotland
Michael Joseph Savage (1935-1940): Australia
Sir Joseph Ward (1928-1930): Australia
William Massey (1912-1925): Ireland
Thomas MacKenzie (1912): Scotland
William Hall-Jones (1906): England
Richard Seddon (1893-1906): England
John Ballance (1891-1893): Ireland
Harry Atkinson (1876-1877): England
Robert Stout (1884-1887): Scotland
Frederick Whitaker (1863-1864, 1882-1883): England
John Hall (1879-1882): England
Sir George Grey (1877-1879): Portugal
Sir Julius Vogel (1873-1875, 1876): England
Daniel Pollen (1875-1876): England
William Fox (1856, 1861-1862, 1869-1872, 1873): England
George Waterford (1872-1873): England
Edward Stafford (1865-1869): Scotland
Frederick Weld (1864-1865): England
Alfred Domett (1862-1863): England
Henry Sewell (1856): England
So, quite an extensive list.
And it’s worth noting that you have to do more than merely renounce your dual citizenship to run for office. You must take every possible step to demonstrate you owe no allegiance to the other country. That means giving up any pensions you might be entitled to, or if they refuse to end your citizenship you have to take extraordinary measures to prove you don’t want it.
weezil
i can’t believe you believe such xenophobic trash. i was born in malaysia, of chinese ancestry. so what’s my ’specific sense of natural allegiance’ eh? some malay demagogues back in malaysia would say ‘china’ , and you say ‘malaysia’. what a load of bollocks. maybe to the typical brainwashed moron incapable of thinking for himself one’s natural sense of allegiance is to one’s country of birth (or maybe one’s ‘race’?) To the rest of us, we can make up our own minds. i have no intention of going back to malaysia, no intention of *ever* wanting australia to emulate some of the political practices in malaysia. of all countries, the US which was a country created anew, the first country born of an idea rather than irrational and irrelevant notions of blood and soil should get rid of this antiquated law.
I am reminded of a story from Ayn Rand’s (yes, that Ayn Rand) biography by Barbara Branden. In the first election she was involved in on first coming to America she campaigned for Wendell Wilkie as president in public venues. Once a street heckler demanded ‘who the hell are you to talk about America? You’re a foreigner!’ Calmly she answered ‘That’s right. I chose to be an American. What did you do, besides having been born?’ The crowd was on her side and burst into applause. That’s why I have a lot of time for Rand despite the inherent looniness of some of her ideas. She *understood* what true philosophical evil was – tribalism and atavistic collectivism that denies the individual capacity for self-creation and expression.
Most people dont believe me when I tell them that I was born in Singapore. I think that if I ever ran for anything no one would be able to tell the difference. But not all immigrants make themselves first and foremost Australian (or American). But then again a lot of them do. If an immigrant runs for office I say let the voters decide if the candidate is loyal to their new country or not. I think thats a fair enought concern. It would probably be exploited by the other side in the campaign anyway. In Arnie’s case I think he has demonstrated quite well that he is American.
“If an immigrant runs for office I say let the voters decide if the candidate is loyal to their new country or not.”
Spot on.
Of more concern to me is the fact that the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, and I can’t vote in that election. Until recently, the President would dialogue with the larger world through treaties, discussions and the United Nations, so the rest of us had some impact – some vague form of representation. Now of course the President has shown clearly that he can develop a delusion that someone else’s country is dangerous, and blow the joint up and a majority of voters would think that is just peachy thank you very much.
I want another rule. Candidates for the Presidency of the United States must live abroad for at least five years, and not be a member of an army at the time.
I could go further. There is an argument that the President must be born outside the United States. That would go some small way to ensuring that the prez would be a bit more objective, and recognise that the US is not in any sense “special”.
Can I have the plans to assemble Paul Keating? I want to build an army of Keatings to fight the next election. I would even move to Transylvania.