Hmmmm - Clinton looks white, anglo and protestant to me, BBB! Ain't Baptists ( I think that is what he is...) Protestant? I am sure they do not honour the Pope, nor believe in transubstantiation!
(The male bit I think we can take as read...heehee)
I am damned if I can find out the rules for PM here - but I am on a mission...
Naturalized foreign-born citizens can certainly become members of parliament...
dlowan<
Here's how the word ethnocentric is defined:
ethnocentric: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior.[/i]
The above definition is taken from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, (c)1999, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, Mass., USA, p, 398.
Hope this helps you!
Yes, WH - but I think the group considered superior is one's own ETHNIC group - and there are many ethnic groups in the USA. People are not formally barred from being president by non-anglo ethnicity - though it seems to be harder to get there for non-anglos - just as here. But it is a small point.
German (and Austrian) Federal Presidents must be German (resp. Austian) citizens and older than 40 (in Autrsia, 45, I think).
Chancellor (PM, would be a simular position to the US president) similar to the above, but without age restrictions.
I think it is fairly typical for countries to require their head of state be a natural-born citizen. It keeps them from having divided loyalties. Sheesh, I was casually looking into my son being able to join the British army and he can't because he wasn't born in the UK or one of the commonwealths... and that was just to join the army as a private.
williamhenry3 wrote:dlowan wrote: I am frankly puzzled by all the "no's".
dlowan<
The word
ethnocentric applies to all the "no's."
Bullshit.
That is a disgusting accusation.
Why would anyone be puzzled by one of two possible responses?
ye110man wrote:since a vice-president can be an immigrant, would the order of succession skip him?
To become Vice-President you must meet the same qualifications as you would for becoming the President - IOW, A VP must also be a born a US Citizen.
Sofia - I am puzzled not that one of two possible options has occurred, but WHY - as I think was abvious.
"Mayflower semen".... that is the funniest combination of words I've bumped into for a while!
Let's narrow the options to a foreign-born and chisled-jaw fellow like Arnold and a black transexual atheist born in the Bronx.
dlowan wrote:Sofia - I am puzzled not that one of two possible options has occurred, but WHY - as I think was abvious.
Contrary to williamhenry's statement, IMO, it has nothng to do with anyone's ethnicity. There are people of every possible ethnicity that meet all of the legal requirements as it sits right now.
A much simpler answer was to why people would say "no" is that change isn't worth the bother it would take to amend the Constiutution. Is this
really the most pressing issue we have to deal with in the US?
OK - let me be clearer - leaving aside the amendment issue - and thinking only in theory - why are so many people against a foreign-born presidential candidate - if say a 20 year residency rule is met?
if i read one of the earlier posts correctly (one of btrflynet's, I believe), 21 years of residency was one of the original requirements. It would be interesting to understand why it changed to a U.S. citizen at birth.
Well, maybe I'd never understand, but it would be an interesting thing to read about.
Hmmm - I guess it changed after there WERE lots of people born there? And after a hated wave of immigration, like the Irish, or the Chinese, or something? If it changed...
Perhpaps one of us (not me) will have a bit of time to look into the question more closely, but I suspect fishin's assumption is further from the truth than is Deb's.
Sofia wrote: Why would anyone be puzzled by one of two possible responses?
Because as those who gave that response noted there is no reason they can cite for it.
dlowan wrote:OK - let me be clearer - leaving aside the amendment issue - and thinking only in theory - why are so many people against a foreign-born presidential candidate - if say a 20 year residency rule is met?
xenophobia.
WH almost had it but messed up with the ethicity. It's just plain old xenophobia.
Craven de Kere wrote:Sofia wrote: Why would anyone be puzzled by one of two possible responses?
Because as those who gave that response noted there is no reason they can cite for it.
What real reason does anyone need? I don't really see where the existing system is broken here. Should we run around amending the Constitution just to prove that it can be done? I mean, this is a nice theoretical discussion and all but who really cares?
