Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Arnold thing is going to be used to make immigrants hate Democrats

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:39 PM
Original message
The Arnold thing is going to be used to make immigrants hate Democrats
Democrats are going to fight it because they don't want Arnold to run for prez, which the Republicans will sell to immigrants as racism and xenophobia.

Arnold isn't about Arnold becoming president so much as it's about breaking down a traditional democratic coalition: new immigrants.

Mark my words, and strategize accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. You know what I support the amendment
Flame me if you want but I think foreign born people should be able to run, I think someone like Granholm should not be handicapped by her being born in Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. On many levels, I agree. I'd also like to see non-citizens have the right
to vote in local and state elections.

I do think there need to be some limits however. For example, you can't be a dual citizen (which I think Arnold is). And I think you should be required to meet all the requirements from the point at which you're first eligible. For example, you have to be a US citizen, not a dual citizens, from the age of 35 or whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. well, you can't lose my country's citizenship...
I don't know the case of Austria, but for example, if a Costa Rican applies and gets the American citizenship, he or she will still remain a Costa Rican forever because the Constitution does not allow citizenship to be lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. You can't renounce it? Or you can't be denied it? Or both?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. You can't renounce it...
well, I guess you could try to do it if another country requires it, but it doesn't take any legal effect. Once a Costa Rican, always a Costa Rican.

It's in article 16 of the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Yo estaba casado con una tica.
Podra obtener ciudadana del CR aunque me divorcia? Soy un poco tico dentro de mi corazn. :o Pura vida! O resto, o outro parte Brasileiro e New Orleanean. :D

paz de New Orleans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. No, no creo que sea posible...
Si la hubieras solicitado antes del divorcio, seras un costarricense por el resto de tu vida, pero creo que ya es muy tarde.

Saludos, pura vida!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dookus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I support it, too
I think making your position on a major policy issue about one individual is supremely silly.

Forget arnold - the question is should we continue to discriminate in this way against citizens who were born elsewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. I support it, as well (and I know I'll get flamed)

BUT.. IF (a big if here) we Dems are going to be the "inclusive" party, the "we're all equal here" party, then we need to stick by those principles.

I believe the original intent of the framers was to assure loyalty to the country; to avoid take-over moves by individuals loyal to their birth countries. Frankly, it is an idea that has run its course. You will recall that founders also didn't let women hold office or vote. So they were wrong about that issue as well. America becomes the immigrant's home country -- that's why immigrants wanted to come here after all, because they loved America from a distance.

Trust me, Arnold would never get my vote, but he's not a spy or anything, and I can see that he loves this country just as much as I do (a native-born Murkin).

If he wants to run, I support letting him. It's not like he would even win the Repub primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
54. there should be a grandfaher clause
some kind of waiting period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
55. Hellooo,Kleeb. No. Don't mess with this part of the constitution.
Foreign born could really sell us out. Could you imagine anyone having to work with foreign policies with their mother land. Could they possibly be viewed as non partial? Realistically it is like nepotism. Think where you were born would you want to send in troops or give aid?How could you take it out of the equation. You would have to give up citizenship there or you would have to follow rules of each country. There are many more reasons I don't feel like typing. Don't mess with this law. Their is a reason for it. No Animal House rules here please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
57. For Every Ganholm There Are Just As Many Who Might Undermine
the United States. And with MONEY being a prime ingredient to who gets to run for POTUS and be heard, there's no way to screen out or stop yet ANOTHER group of individuals with a nefarious agenda.

Doesn't the US already have enough citizens out to turn us into a Fascist state?

Sorry, the only possible way to support this is if there's a 50 year resident requirement... although it could be too easily altered later on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
58. I support it if it was fair, bu the current amnedment proposed is not fair
It is unfair to require one group to be a citizen of the US for 35 years(this would be the case for Citizens born in the US) if another group can qaulify to be President with less than that many years of citizenship. I believe the proposed amendment says some poeple can become President with 20 years citizenship. I think it is unfair to have two standards, why should foriegn borns have a lower citizenship requirement than natural borns. If they made it 35 years of citizenship, I would be fine. If they wanted to lower the age of President to 20, I would not really be fine with it, as I think that might be to young, but I would be OK with 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
George W. Dunce Donating Member (389 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
65. BULLSHIT
It is one of the few things left in this country that can't be outsourced. I am deeply opposed to allowing any person not born a citizen to run for president be they a dem or a repug. We need to wake up on this one folks, would we be the only country to allow this?

"think someone like Granholm should not be handicapped by her being born in Canada."

This is just moronic, she is not from the US PERIOD. You can come here and be anything you want, the American Dream, president should be the one thing reserved for citizens only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UL_Approved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. A Constitutional amendment
This would need to pass 3/4 of states in the U.S. to get through. I seriously doubt that some western states are going to go for this. It would only take 13 states for this to fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. The media could push it through if they wanted to, and they really wanted
to make Arnold Gov, so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. it isn't about steroid boy but
it's about r. murdoch - think about it!! Controlling all that media...taking it even farther rong...no the amendment is about murdoch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Immigrants have other things to worry about.
And, excuse me, but Democrats are not opposing this moronic amendment because of Arnold. What a shallow short-sighted thing to say. What, frankly, a Republican thing to say.

The reason the Founding Fathers put that wise stipulation in the constitution was to prevent the United States from ever being dominated by a foreign power, or ruled by anyone with a loyalty to anywhere else. For instance, this bill would allow RUPERT MURDOCH to become president.

I mark your words. By putting a line straight thru them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Time will tell.
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 06:59 PM by AP
I'm not wrong about much, and I can see how this is playing out.

But if you want to talk about "Republican" arguments, reread your own post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. It wouldn't happen for a looong time anyways
Even if it passed the Congress, it would be past 2008 before such an amendment could be enacted cause the states go very slow on passing constitutional amendments. So no way Arnold is going to run in 2008. Now after that, I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Republicans win just by having the debate. They win if they lose because
they'll tell immigrants (which will make up a huge % of the population) that Democrats are hypocritical: they want you to vote for them when you're a citizen, but don't want to let you run for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fugue Donating Member (846 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. I have a counterproposal
Make the amendment that you have to have been a citizen thirty-five years. The current law is that you had to be born here and be thirty-five years old. This way it's really a tweak: the key is thirty-five years of citizenship.

I'd also consider having lived here thirty-five years. Isn't the pre-citizen residency requirement seven? I don't think that would be a big deal.

I have no idea whether this would realistically put Arnold in the running ever or not. I just think it's the fair thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. I think it should be that you were a citizen ONLY of the US before your...
...35th birthday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. I seriously doubt it
How many immigrants who are working in this country today want to be president -- besides Ahnold?

Not too damn many I'd bet.

Now we just say to those immigrants who are working in this country that if they elect Democrats their children will have better educational opportunities and will be more likely to grow up to be President!

However, if they elect Republicans their children will be stuck in failing schools with poor health-care and working in minimum wage below poverty level jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Foreign born CITIZENS make up a huge & growing % of the population...
...and this amendment will be a great way for Republicans to tell foreign born CITIZENS that the democrats don't care about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
14. Will the repubs sell their principled souls to get Arnold......
he is pro-gay, pro-choice, anti gun, he is a liberal democrat except for business issues.

Msongs
Riverside California

liberal t shirts
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. Immigration issues are a sticky wicket for the GOP....
because many of their nut-case Facist-Right followers are very anti-immigrant.

I believe the GOP doesn't take a more conservative line against immigrants for
the simple reason that they see them as voters. I would love to hear from
people who know more than me about this, but I believe immigrants are
being actively courted by the GOP, who take advantage of immigrant ignorance
of the US political scene to convince them the Republicans are the good guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. But they can't ignore forever that more and more voters are foreign born
and this is a way to deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. You're right
Not only that, but I don't think a majority of republicans agree that the constitution should be changed for this.

I personally don't think there would be a problem if foreign born citizens could run for president - if they have lived here for atleast 35 years, basically the same requirements as they are now.

It's not a pressing issue though. I don't think republicans will gain too much traction with immigrant communities through this. This amendment will go nowhere and has less of a chance of passing than the FMA - which will actually have more of an impact with immigrant communities - some of which happen to be very conservative socially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. My point is that this won't be so much a debate about whether the foreign
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 07:03 PM by AP
born can become president -- Republicans will be happy to lose that fight.

It will be used to make the foreign born more likely to support Republicans and less likely to support Democrats.

They will see Arnold as the Republican poster boy for the inclusion of new immigrants into American culture. It will allow the Republicans to sell the party as something it absolutely is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. I find myself wondering how many immigrants.....
especially brown-skinned ones, feel they have much in common with
Ahnold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
38. Anecdotaly speaking, I think many do.
Which is why I think that the movement to change the consitution is more about getting foreign born citizens to vote Republican than it is about changing the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. besides, mexican immigrants already hate Arnold because
he will not let illegals have drivers licenses in CA unless the licenses are a different color or otherwise marked to distinguish them from licenses of legal residents. Imagine that, expecting illegals to actually have to follow the law before they can get a drivers license.

msongs
riverside CA

PS - I have to be a legal resident of California to get a DL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. That's actually not true. Lots of immigrants like him and overlook
the drivers license thing. In fact, I believe Arnold came up with a proposal to give them their licenses but with some mark on them to make it clear they're not citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. just referencing the story in today's LA Times. plus
talking with the parents at the school where I teach. they feel betrayed by Arnold after having voted for him.

His killing the licenses for illegals has won him great hatred in mexico..the country of mexico that is.

Msongs
Riverside CA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. I would be for this constitutional ammendment - don't assume democrats
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 07:05 PM by Clarkie1
are against this concept (not because of Arnold).

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. OK. I agree. A lot of Democrats will be fine with it. But I bet state...
...parties will be against it. I also think it will lose. And I think Republicans will sell that loss as a product of Democrats hating immigrants and Arnold (remember -- the media creates these perceptions, and will definitely use a loss to hurt Democrats and help Republicans).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Bone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
41. A lot of legislatures are GOP controlled now, so we could use it
against THEM on a STATE level if a Republican Legislature kills it, and I BET some of them will. Think Northern Red States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
25. Ok ok As a NATURALIZED Citizen can I have a word here
Thank you.

First off the reason why this was put in by the founding fathers was to prevent the domination of this country by a foreign power

That said, AP is right, the Repukes are gonna spin this in such a way that it will take away many recent imigrants from the party

Look people while you'all discuss this reality is that many of our recent immigrants are NOT your traditional group that joined the Democrats by instinct

I know some of my fellow immigrants and THEY ARE Repybkicans, they would have been members of the elites of the nations they came from to begin with, and IDENTIFY with Republicann values, (whatever those are)

So he does have a point, and I can see how this will be spun

Moreover, anybody care to read the citizenship exam? Granted many native born muricans will NOT pass it, but READ the questions carefully ... I have been thinking about this and no I don;t want to be President, though I coudl do a beter job than the bozo in the WH... but this can be spun

Now one thing that Democrats have to realize is... the danger the founding fathers warned against is REAL, for other reasons. Not becuase I am going to be a sell out to England (their fear) but because many of my fellow new immigrants have not internalized the principles of this republic... nor do they truly undersand the meaning of enemeies borh foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Why thank you Nadin. You made my point better than I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
29. Karl Rove will mold Ahnuld
as the candidate for 2008. I'll bet money on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonbeam_Starlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. Dems need to act like they are ALL for it
(even if they have qualms about people like the Gropenator) and then, when it doesn't pass in Congress because of republican run states, people will see who really was against it.

Eh? That'll work like a charm, no worries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pink-o Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. you, my friend
are absolutely right!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. Another choice is to have a serious debate about why the constitution is
the way it is and then see where the chips fall.

But if you're relying on the media to be honest about the facts then call me when the space shuttle has landed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obviousman Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
31. Here's the trap
Either let Arnold run, or lose the imigrant vote. We're in a tough position, but personally, I couldn't stomach him as president. Liberal bashing would take on a whole new dimension
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
32. I honestly dont care what they think
as long as I know why Im against it is all that matters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prodemsouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
33. If Bush had signed the immigration bill that was passed earlier.. he
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 07:18 PM by Prodemsouth
would have been primaired on his right or face a right leaning independent. Immigration was a chief complaint about Bush in the American Conservative Mag..its why the endorsed Kerry rather than Bush.. To go off subject a bit here look at how unenthusiastic the elite conservatives were becoming about Bush toward the end of the election cycle..should tell you something.
Immigration can be a double edge sword for conservatives- this is why Bush signed this bill so late- so a right leaning opponent would not have a chance to orgainize a challange against him in 04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
35. I don't. Frankly, if you're going to tinker with the C, you should
have a better reason than a fat headed dimwited son of a Nazi SS man wanting to be the Prez. But that's just me.

RV, who finds this blasphemy. Put a fucking Equal Rights (For women and gays) Amendment in there and maybe we can chat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
36. I would be for it..
as long as, as one senator suggested (forgot who), we don't do it with a specific person in mind (Ahhnold). So we give it a clause that it isn't to take effect for twenty or so years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
37. I prefer to have Reverend Moon denied his chance, thanks
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 08:19 PM by jpgray
Let's only have our home-grown nutjobs in the office of the presidency.

edit: If there were a long residency clause, I don't care if you are naturalized or not. I am just uncomfortable with presidential carpetbaggery. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
40. Then we should nominate Madeline Albright - ASAP
She is one excellent woman who is more than up to the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
42. Not dual nationals (like Arnold) and must have been a citizen at 18
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I like that. That should be the way to talk about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawladyprof Donating Member (628 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #42
52. Well, I am a dual national myself
And the fact that I have not renounced my UK citizenship (and Arnold his Austrian citizenship) should be a bar to the presidency. And the person should have renounced it years before his or her candidacy. Now, of course, I would not renounce my UK citizenship but seeking to obtain (which I can) it for my children. They will be dual nationals too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
46. Well, two can play at this game.
"Hey Arnold, yes or no, do you love the USA more than Austria or not? If we went to war with Austria, would you hesitate to nuke the fuck outta every living creature in Tirol? Was denks Du? SCHNELL! ANTWORT JETZT!"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
50. Go ahead and pass it.
But only if there's a clause saying it cannot take effect until say 20 years after the passage. That way it's not done for the benefit of a particular person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. This is the best position we could take...
Remove the idea that it is being done for Arnold, or Jennifer Granholm, or anyone else. Make the effective date so that there would be no immediate benefit to anyone today. This is a respectable way of bringing about a change without alterior motives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dem2theMax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
51. I'm against the amendment. I do agree with you that the repukes
would/will use this against us.

And I have a very simple question about this issue for any immigrant anywhere, in any country.

Are Americans, or citizens of any other country, allowed to come to your country of birth and run for President, Prime Minister, whatever?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Michael_UK Donating Member (285 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. In the UK
As far as I'm aware, you have to be 21 and a british citizen to be an MP (and to lead a party)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_House_of_Commons

The following are barred from becoming members:

Members of the House of Lords
Lunatics
Those holding some offices of trust and profit under the Crown (including judges and civil servants, but not including Ministerial positions)
Members of a legislature of a non-Commonwealth nation
Those convicted of treason and not pardoned
Those found guilty of electoral malpractice during the past ten years
Those serving a prison sentence of one year or more
Undischarged bankrupts

There's nothing (as far as I can tell) that stops a person born in America, with British citizenship being an MP. Gisela Stuart MP was born a german and married a brit. She could theoretically become Prime Minister

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohioan Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
53. Republicans will think this is great til a Haitian native decides to run
They've put a white face on their "let an immigrant be president" crusade - ironic in light of their usual ploy of making everyone assume that all immigrants are brown and, therefore, undesirable.

But the minute a Haitian or Dominican or Nicaraguan decides this exception applies to him/her, suddenly we'll be back to square one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justathought Donating Member (42 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
59. I disagree with changing the laws to let immigrants
who come and gain citizenship in our country be allowed to run for president. I have seen immigrants who have renounced there country and adopted our country. I have seen the hatred they have for this country and its laws...but love the advantages of welfare they get as a result of being an adopted citizen. Some I have come across screamed...and I mean literally screamed....because they felt they were being discriminated against because they came from Afghanistan. The incidents I saw were farther from the truth then what was being projected by these immigrants.

I say give them their rights as new U.S. citizens, but don't let them get into the most powerful position in our country to change laws to fit their needs. I refuse to where a burka if anyone of these people were voted in as a president. Some will say it would never happen....I say don't give an opening for it to happen.

If you are born and raised in this country as a result of your parents obtaining U.S. citizenship, I say yes, if you come from another country and gain U.S. citizenship and scream discrimination despite the benefits you receive from this nation....I say no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
60. One way or the other - it will happen
personally - I look for the next "terrorist" attack to be in California - than Arnold will get to be a hero - and all the brainwashed will demand that he be President.... it may be destiny

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. I agree with that. Arnold is custom made to be governor when there's a...
...terror attack in CA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
auburngrad82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
63. We paint the GOP as anti-American and anti-democracy
They are systematically attempting to disassemble the Constitution of the United States by making it a toothless shell of it's former glory.

They are trying to write the first discriminatory amendment against gays. This hasn't been attempted since a southern politician attempted to pass a constitutional amendment banning marriages between blacks and whites in 1916.

They are trying to overturn a woman's right to adequate healthcare upheld by the Supreme Court in Rove vs Wade.

They are attempting to bring back a caste system by changing overtime laws and fighting an increase in the minimum wage. This will make the difference between the Haves (and Have-Mores in Bush's words) and the Have-Nots to be as wide as it was 100 years ago.

They are trying to bankrupt the government by running up huge deficits that can most accurately be called "baby taxes" since our children and grandchildren will be stuck with the bill.

Now the are willing to change the US Constitution simply so they are can try to get a member of the Hollywood Elite into the White House. Not only is he a very well-to-do member of the Hollywood Elite but one whose families has ties to the Nazi party, one who is pro-abortion and one who wants to permit gays to marry.

The moral bankruptcy of the GOP becomes more obvious every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. All they're trying to do is make the rich even richer without having to...
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 12:49 PM by AP
...work hard or behave responsibly to get wealthier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hiphopnation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
66. Fuck it
I support it. Dems would also have their pick of foreign born candidates with more chutzpah; really inject some fervor into the party.

I don't think it's realistic that the constitution will be amended in time for Arnie to run anyway. It would be a monumental effort even if we're talking 2012 or '16. You're talking a massive campaign to convince people it's worth it. I see no sense in vehemently opposing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
67. I think the U.S. Constitution does not need to be changed one bit.
Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 04:55 PM by w4rma
<period>

That is the consitent and winning argument. Don't debate the amendment just oppose all amendments. It's a distraction from real issues anyway.

The founding fathers had very wise reasons for putting this restriction on candidates for President. I'm not inclined to disagree with them. And whats more noone who supports changing the Constitution is putting up any arguments against our founding father's reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC