When is a citizen not a citizen?

[Svartalf]

Legally, they are, through right of soil, or are they? Are they culturally Merkin? Are they integrated in the country,n or are they a foreign minority given national rights through well meaning but mistaken laws?

[Forty Two]

Legally, they are, through right of soil, or are they?

Not right of soil, right of birth.

Are they culturally Merkin?

Yes, to the extent of a common Merkin culture, which is actually a bit different than being, say, culturally English, or culturally Swedish, or culturally Italian. Merkin culture is not as based on race or color. An good example to make the point would be Japan. Very homogeneous. A Somali couple moving to Japan and having children there does not make the kids ethnically Japanese. Japanese nationals, yes, but not ethnically Japanese. Similarly, Japanese "culture" is tied to a good degree with ethnicity. American "culture" however, has traditionally embodied many "cultures." That's why the Amish in Pennsylvania Dutch-land are just as "American" as the denizens of Chinatown or Little Italy or Greenwich Village in Manhattan, or the residents of the Louisiana Bayou.

Are they integrated in the country,n or are they a foreign minority given national rights through well meaning but mistaken laws?

Depends on the individual whether they are integrated.

[Svartalf]

Right of soil, I'm French through right of birth and Canadian by right of soil

[laklak]

There's no such thing as "American Culture". We don't even have a national cuisine. We just steal it from everybody else, after we bomb the fuck out of them.

[Forty Two]

There's no such thing as "American Culture". We don't even have a national cuisine. We just steal it from everybody else, after we bomb the fuck out of them.

We don't have a national cuisine, but we have American cuisines that are regional in the US. Creole and Cajun, Kentucky Burgoo, for example. These are American cuisines. The classic Thanksgiving Dinner is uniquely American, too. New England Clam Chowders and Lobster dishes. Southern Barbecue.

[Brian Peacock]

Acknowledging the ethnicity of citizens is a side issue to the main point about the impact of ethnicity on citizenship - which all of us apart from Mr C seem to think counts for nowt.

The 'natural-born' citizenship of presidents and vice-presidential candidates required in the US constitution highlights the core of this issue - in what does citizenship reside; in blood, in soil, or in both?

It seems to me that the constitution is no longer well served by that fuzzy and much argued-over term 'natural-born' which, one presumes, was inserted into the constitution to mitigate against the prospect of the nation falling into the hands of a foreign agent or power - particular during at historical period when the authority of capricious monarchs still held great sway in the domestic and international affairs of nation.

This clause seems quite sensible from that perspective, in democratic terms: the peoples of America should be governed only by people from America. As a freshly-minted, independent nation the writers of the constitution, mindful of the malign machinations of many monarchs, not to mention the corrupting control-freakery of cardinals, didn't want the political system to be subject to the undermining influence of alien gelt or arms. At at time, when the peoples of the rest of the Euro-centric world were mostly subjects of a monarch rather than affirmed citizens of a republic founded in suffrage, and when things like international communication and travel involved physically covering huge distances by sail, horse, and shoe, 'natural-born' mostly likely implied something quite specific: to be a 'natural-born' American was to be bestowed with citizenship of the republic from birth either by being born within the republic's borders or, taking something from the Jewish tradition of indisputable ancestral heritage, by having a mother who was herself a citizen. This makes 'natural-born' a two-fold qualification, and one that still holds today: citizenship is by both blood and by soil.

It seems to me that people like Mr C are not only being disingenuous, but also running contrary to the constitution, when they seek to deny US citizenship by soil on the basis of blood.

In its historical context things no doubt seemed quite clear, but the world is a different place now, particularly in terms of movement, residence, and communication. Perhaps it's time to replace the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for presidential candidates with just 'citizen' and for the US political system be opened to any and every citizen equally, such that any 'natural-born' or 'naturalised' resident can fully participate in democracy and qualify for the highest office -- perhaps with a clause for that latter that they have to have been a citizen of the republic and met all their obligations to the state, like paying their taxes etc, for a certain period of time, say 10 years. After all, being a 'natural-born' citizen does not bestow one with any particular virtues, attributes, or capacities any more than being the first-born son of a monarch does.

[Brian Peacock]

There's no such thing as "American Culture". We don't even have a national cuisine. We just steal it from everybody else, after we bomb the fuck out of them.

We don't have a national cuisine, but we have American cuisines that are regional in the US. Creole and Cajun, Kentucky Burgoo, for example. These are American cuisines. The classic Thanksgiving Dinner is uniquely American, too. New England Clam Chowders and Lobster dishes. Southern Barbecue.

Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell are as American as apple pie.

[pErvinalia]

When they're brown. [/thread]

[Scot Dutchy]

There's no such thing as "American Culture". We don't even have a national cuisine. We just steal it from everybody else, after we bomb the fuck out of them.

We don't have a national cuisine, but we have American cuisines that are regional in the US. Creole and Cajun, Kentucky Burgoo, for example. These are American cuisines. The classic Thanksgiving Dinner is uniquely American, too. New England Clam Chowders and Lobster dishes. Southern Barbecue.

Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell are as American as apple pie.

Cuisines to be proud of.

[Sean Hayden]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+true+size+of+the+netherlands

[Forty Two]

Acknowledging the ethnicity of citizens is a side issue to the main point about the impact of ethnicity on citizenship - which all of us apart from Mr C seem to think counts for nowt.

The 'natural-born' citizenship of presidents and vice-presidential candidates required in the US constitution highlights the core of this issue - in what does citizenship reside; in blood, in soil, or in both?

In citizenship it's being born in the US, or outside the US to American parent(s) where the person is temporarily outside of the country, or via application for naturalization. Being a "natural born" citizen is a heightened requirement only for President. I.e., not all citizens can be President.

It seems to me that the constitution is no longer well served by that fuzzy and much argued-over term 'natural-born' which, one presumes, was inserted into the constitution to mitigate against the prospect of the nation falling into the hands of a foreign agent or power - particular during at historical period when the authority of capricious monarchs still held great sway in the domestic and international affairs of nation.

It would help if it were clarified.

This clause seems quite sensible from that perspective, in democratic terms: the peoples of America should be governed only by people from America. As a freshly-minted, independent nation the writers of the constitution, mindful of the malign machinations of many monarchs, not to mention the corrupting control-freakery of cardinals, didn't want the political system to be subject to the undermining influence of alien gelt or arms. At at time, when the peoples of the rest of the Euro-centric world were mostly subjects of a monarch rather than affirmed citizens of a republic founded in suffrage, and when things like international communication and travel involved physically covering huge distances by sail, horse, and shoe, 'natural-born' mostly likely implied something quite specific: to be a 'natural-born' American was to be bestowed with citizenship of the republic from birth either by being born within the republic's borders or, taking something from the Jewish tradition of indisputable ancestral heritage, by having a mother who was herself a citizen. This makes 'natural-born' a two-fold qualification, and one that still holds today: citizenship is by both blood and by soil.

It never meant being born abroad with a mother who was herself a citizen. If it did, the birthers would never have had a case. Nobody disputed Obama's mother was a US citizen, so even if he was born in Kenya, he'd be natural born. But, the argument was never "doesn't matter, mom was US citizen" - the argument was that he was born in the US.

The argument was, in past disputes, was that natural born citizenship meant born in the US, plus having parents who were US citizens. Never has it been alleged to mean born outside the country with a US citizen parent.

It seems to me that people like Mr C are not only being disingenuous, but also running contrary to the constitution, when they seek to deny US citizenship by soil on the basis of blood.

Well, I think that's more of what goes on in the civilized world. In uncivilized Merka, we have birthright citizenship, without regard for blood. The civilized world often requires more than mere birth on the soil.

In its historical context things no doubt seemed quite clear, but the world is a different place now, particularly in terms of movement, residence, and communication. Perhaps it's time to replace the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for presidential candidates with just 'citizen' and for the US political system be opened to any and every citizen equally, such that any 'natural-born' or 'naturalised' resident can fully participate in democracy and qualify for the highest office -- perhaps with a clause for that latter that they have to have been a citizen of the republic and met all their obligations to the state, like paying their taxes etc, for a certain period of time, say 10 years. After all, being a 'natural-born' citizen does not bestow one with any particular virtues, attributes, or capacities any more than being the first-born son of a monarch does.

Well, I don't doubt a need to constitutionally define, with some clarity, what is meant by a citizen eligible to run for president, but I would not agree with just "citizen." We now live in a world of dual and even multiple citizenships. And, there are ways to be a US citizen without ever having set foot here.

As long as we have a nation, it's important that the President of the nation be solidly attached to the nation. Ensuring that candidates for President are born in the United States goes a long way to doing that. It might be better to say that to be President you have to be born in the United States and not have been absent from the US for more than X period of time, and/or have two American citizen parents, to provide a close, familial tie to the country. That's just one option. There are probably others.

[laklak]

We culturally appropriated BBQ from the Caribe islanders, and the rest of Southern cooking from the slaves. Hard tacos are the worst, because they're unabashedly Tex-Mex and the Texans STOLE Mexico from the Spanish who stole if from the Incas (or Aztecs, I can never keep them straight because they're all brownish and fuck it they're all dead now anyway). Creole was stolen from Africans and Cajun from the French. Burgoo is basically Irish stew. As for New England clam chowder, the "England" bit is a dead giveaway.

No, we have no national cuisine or identity, and everything we do is a pale imitation of the original. We should be ashamed of ourselves and dress in sackcloth and ashes, and pay reparations to everybody.

[Collector1337]

When their parents are Somali?

I think the point you're trying to make is that US children born of Somali stock are not real Minnesota Americans.

Well, they aren't.

For the context to this bollocks see here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1709712

So what qualifies a personal as being American, British, French, Dutch, Australian, or even Somali? Clearly, one's nationality is more that a simple matter of being born in a particular geo-social-political region or fulfilling some kind of official nationality test if born beyond the borders of that region.

Is someone who's parents were born in a different country not actually a citizen of the country they themselves were born in? What about the grandchildren of immigrants, are they proper citizens, and if not: how many generations have to be born in a country before the last of them can be considered a proper citizen? Is it like the Bible says; the nationality of the father shall fall upon the backs of their children, yea, unto the seventh generation?

That's funny you can't differentiate between a US citizen and a Minnesotan.

[Brian Peacock]

Whooosh!

[Brian Peacock]

We culturally appropriated BBQ from the Caribe islanders, and the rest of Southern cooking from the slaves. Hard tacos are the worst, because they're unabashedly Tex-Mex and the Texans STOLE Mexico from the Spanish who stole if from the Incas (or Aztecs, I can never keep them straight because they're all brownish and fuck it they're all dead now anyway). Creole was stolen from Africans and Cajun from the French. Burgoo is basically Irish stew. As for New England clam chowder, the "England" bit is a dead giveaway.

No, we have no national cuisine or identity, and everything we do is a pale imitation of the original. We should be ashamed of ourselves and dress in sackcloth and ashes, and pay reparations to everybody.

But that is your food culture - a fusion cuisine for a fusion nation. The US is culture-rich: you got that stuff in spades, all over - even in Wisconsin.