Arnie's Austrian citizenship to be terminated?

[notyoueither]

Incidently, the Austrian Greens should read this

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/w2crs.htm

Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 989 U.N.T.S. 175, entered into force Dec. 13, 1975.

Article 9
A Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds.

The UN is listened to in Austria, yes?

[Atahualpa]

notyoueither: there are two different stories.
a.) You just have one nationality
b.) You have more than one nationality

I guess you cannot easily deprive blabla in case a. Where in case b, he wouldn't be left completely without nationality.

But anyway, try to make up a case that does NOT fit into racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds!

The only thing that I can think of is a person who'd always cut himself with his kitchen knife and the government says they no longer want him, because he would not take much care.



Be careful next time you cut onions
Your government might be just behind you

It's not a threadjack.

I was referring to this safest city and death penalty and gun laws....

[GePap]

Ahnold is a dual citizen- at least on the US side, as it has already been noted he probably should have renounced his Austrian citizenship, and Austria may have laws against its citizens either being officials in a foreign government, or helping to partake in an act considered criminal in the EU (the DP)- so I am sure Austria has the reasons to deny him citizenship, plus of course he will not be left stateless, so its not like it matters.

[Atahualpa]

These qualify as great final words on a topic where too much words have been wasted already

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Locutus
Why, yes. In my book, government-sanctioned murder ranks higher than murder on personal grounds. In one case one man takes another man's life, in the other an entire society participates in the act.

The man has commited no crime yet you want to punish him because of his politics. What does that say about you? As for the morality of the death penality; we've had numerous threads about it here and tons of people have shown studies that it does act as a deterent. Even if you don't like it you have admite that it works.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The man has commited no crime yet you want to punish him because of his politics. What does that say about you? As for the morality of the death penality; we've had numerous threads about it here and tons of people have shown studies that it does act as a deterent. Even if you don't like it you have admite that it works.

Given that there are studies showing no deterent effect, this is a rather lofty aim.

Just match the states with highest crime rates to those with the DP- if the Dp were much of a deterent, then DP states, speically Texas and Florida and the ones most eager to execute should have the lowest murder rates. Not so.

As for your claim that this is about "political opinions", the issue is being a member of a government which has the DP while still a citizen of a member of the EU, which has banned the DP. It is not only then a "political opinion" issue.

[Kontiki]

I don't think anyone should have dual citizenship anyway, so meh.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for your claim that this is about "political opinions", the issue is being a member of a government which has the DP while still a citizen of a member of the EU, which has banned the DP. It is not only then a "political opinion" issue.

What about states like Netherlands that have decriminalized some drugs, while the US has them criminalized? Is that more than a 'political opinion' for a dual citizen of both states?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What about states like Netherlands that have decriminalized some drugs, while the US has them criminalized? Is that more than a 'political opinion' for a dual citizen of both states?

What are you talking about?

I am sure a US citizen can't be an officer in a foreign government, so said person would have to renounce their US citizenship anyways. Besides, what could a Dutch official of US citizenship DO that would break the law of the US? There is no law that says people MUST prosecute a crime anyways, since the legislature makes the laws.

So there isn't even a possible situation in which a simular situation could occur.

[Patroklos]

You can join the American military as a non-citizen, should we revoke their original citizenship for holding a government post?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Besides, what could a Dutch official of US citizenship DO that would break the law of the US?

And what has Arnold done that has broken the law of Austria or the EU? He did not preside over an execution in the EU. And simply being a citizen does not mean he is subject to the law of Austria when not there, or else the US could prosecute citizens for using illegal drugs in states that allow them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You can join the American military as a non-citizen, should we revoke their original citizenship for holding a government post?

Well, shouldn't they? the point of revoking citizenship is supposedly to remove any obligation a US employee would have to a foreign state that might intervene with their duties to the US-if a US citizen becomes a solider of another state, they lose their citizenship. maybe the US shouldn't be letting non-citizens into the Army? But then, its the other state that has to decide what to do with their citizens.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Besides, what could a Dutch official of US citizenship DO that would break the law of the US?

And what has Arnold done that has broken the law of Austria or the EU? He did not preside over an execution in the EU. And simply being a citizen does not mean he is subject to the law of Austria when not there, or else the US could prosecute citizens for using illegal drugs in states that allow them.

Well, Arnold is the Chief executive of a state that has practices banned in the EU-that makes it different than just being a citizen of another state- that is FAR different from a regular citizen being responsible to local laws of the land (the US can;t persecute drug use in Amsterdam, since Dutch law is in force in the Netherlands.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Arnold is the Chief executive of a state that has practices banned in the EU-that makes it different than just being a citizen of another state

Why? This isn't a Parliamentary system. He did not pass the law himself (or had anything to do with it, frankly).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why? This isn't a Parliamentary system. He did not pass the law himself (or had anything to do with it, frankly).

But he has the power to stop it on an individual basis, by pardoning each one as they come up, or to ask for a moratorium like Ryan did.

Beyond even that, the point of an executive is to enforce the law, hence even if he did not write it, he is in charge of carrying it out-hence he is part of the system. The EU or any EU member has every right to say its citizens can't be executives in a state that carries out a practice they have banned.