Posted on 05/04/2007 8:15:43 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
I see the arbitrariness of the cutoff date as meaning that the rule itself is under question, not that it is in fact solid and should remain at day 1. If it was in fact solid, then perhaps we should make restrictions that account for the newfound mobility in society. But that would require an arbitrary cutoff date, hence a contradiction. Thus there should be no restriction at all.
The rule is the rule, they had a good reason to make the rule, it’s visible among the populace that some portion of the logic for the rule still applies.
Which is the point that is under dispute. That statement only begs the question (it is circular logic--you can't use your conclusion to support your premises).
I don't think that word means just what you think it means. Nor was it used in any sense other than is given in Webster's Dictionary as "the quality or power of finely distinguishing." Perhaps you have an emotional attachment to that word and attach other meanings that were not implicitly or explicitly applied. I would be a hypocrite if I demonized someone in that way considering my post #10. And I try not to be hypocritical if I can help it. Nor do I throw poo or call someone a racist or a xenophobe unless it is explicitly obvious and unambiguous. Obviously, neither apply to your post. It's not like I'm a Democrat.
Problem is everybody is different, but just like I said at the beginning laws need to be general. Some people will bond with their place of origin seemingly immediately, some not until they develop more language, some in adolescence, some as adults, some never. There’s no way to make it any rule universally fair, you need to make sure it does what you want it to accomplish as often as possible. That’s why the cut off date is day 1. If you’re not a born US citizen, no presidency, sorry but life sucks sometimes.
No actually it isn’t a point under dispute. Many people never lose their emotional ties with their homeland, they keep that foreign entanglement, which the Founders thought was something to be avoided. There is no dispute on this, it is a simple fact of how people work and how that conflicted with the goals the Founders had for the country. Just because there are exceptions doesn’t invalidate the basic reality that exceptions are exceptional and not the norm. The norm is immigrants tend to still have family they know in their old country and still have a certain emotional bond to the place, that’s a foreign entanglement and not acceptable.
We’re going in circles here. You already know my response is that the arbitrariness is in contradiction with itself and that exceptions cannot be generalized. So we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
On a philosophical note I think it shows that I tend to lean more to the point of view that unless there is an explicit reason for a rule or law, then there should be no law and that you tend to lean more toward the view that there should be overwhelming reasons to changing anything the Founders created (i.e. if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). Both are important points and due to the unique construction of the Constitution, are very rarely in conflict. The best that I can say is if it gets enough support in Congress, let the States vote on it. I would expect there will be a divide in the conservatives in Congress over this issue. I think the Democrats will probably vote on my side just to pander to the immigrant voting bloc. I would consider them to be voting correctly, but for the wrong reasons, and like Kant I would say that their votes would have no moral worth (just so you know that I don’t think that having the Democrats on my side gives me any justification, because it doesn’t nor does it detract from my argument).
Well dual citizenship can also split the loyalty of natural born citizens who are eligible to be the President. Since it isn’t strictly related to immigrants I don’t see this as being a valid point against the ability of immigrants to become President. Additionally, immigrants should have a lower incidence of dual citizenship since taking the citizenship oath almost always requires you to renounce any previous citizenships. As far as I’m concerned, all dual citizens should renounce their non-US citizenship if possible when they announce their candidacy.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It’s a disgraceful that an anchor baby can become POTUS while a child of US military parents who is not born in the US is not qualified to lead his own country...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.