Arnie's Austrian citizenship to be terminated?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I haven't answered it because it is irrelavent. Any state has the power to remove citizenship of anyone for whatever reason they want. So what? The point is why is this being brought up like this? Because they want to make a political point.

It's like saying does the US have or have no the power to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That question is irrelevent, the question that matters is why (what is their reason for pushing it). To continue to analogy, if you want to believe that politicians are really outraged by gay marriage rather than playing it up for political gain in the 'red states', go ahead, but you'd be really naive to believe so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I haven't answered it because it is irrelavent. Any state has the power to remove citizenship of anyone for whatever reason they want. So what? The point is why is this being brought up like this? Because they want to make a political point.

It's like saying does the US have or have no the power to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That question is irrelevent, the question that matters is why (what is their reason for pushing it). To continue to analogy, if you want to believe that politicians are really outraged by gay marriage rather than playing it up for political gain in the 'red states', go ahead, but you'd be really naive to believe so.

Yes, I do believe that most pols are genuinely outraged by gay marriage- I have no reason to question most of them, given that I can see why someone would hold such a position even thought I find it wrong. You show no proof other than cynicism to say so, and as much as you may repeat it to yourself, it does not make for valid or worthwhile debate, now does it?

As for your first part, of course its obviously yes, hence, this is a NON issue- thought there is a significant difference between a regular law and changing the constitution, now isn;t there?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I do believe that most pols are genuinely outraged by gay marriage- I have no reason to question most of them, given that I can see why someone would hold such a position even thought I find it wrong. You show no proof other than cynicism to say so, and as much as you may repeat it to yourself, it does not make for valid or worthwhile debate, now does it?

I can't believe you are actually that naive! Hey, a politician said so, so I should believe them! Have you learned nothing about politicians from your time on this world? Hey, there are Republicans out there that say they are outraged by lack of family values and leave a string of divorcees, or Democrats who say they are outraged by how low taxes the rich pay and then are found to use tax loopholes to reduce the amount they give the IRS.

thought there is a significant difference between a regular law and changing the constitution, now isn;t there?

In terms of whether the government has the power to do so? No, not really. Government has power to do either.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I can't believe you are actually that naive! Hey, a politician said so, so I should believe them! Have you learned nothing about politicians from your time on this world? Hey, there are Republicans out there that say they are outraged by lack of family values and leave a string of divorcees, or Democrats who say they are outraged by how low taxes the rich pay and then are found to use tax loopholes to reduce the amount they give the IRS.

Given I actually work with politicians, and FOR a politician, I think I have had a bit more direct experience of this than you- yes, a lot of time politicians do things for political advantage, but a lot, if not most of the time they do what they do because they actually believe what they say.

As for personal hypocrasy, that applies to EVERYONE, politicians or NOT. People have a good way of shoving inconvinient facts, even personal ones, from their beliefs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


Well the US can prosecute you for using illegal drugs in states that allow them. Even if you are in a foreign country, you mustnt violate the laws of your home country.
Ofc, in reality this hardly happens and only applies to such laws which involves don'ts concerning an individual.

If e.g. prostitution (the execution of the business) was illegal in the states, you can still go to prostitutes in other states, where it's legal. But if "going to prostitutes" was illegal, you could not (legally).

I am pretty sure you can be tried in your home country when you for example had sex with minors in a third world country.
IIRC there was such a case with a german once.

It hardly [ever] happens? It never happens because you're on crack and are inventing things. Extraterritorial laws are extremely uncommon. A Yank may not be prosecuted at home for smoking dope in Rotterdam, no American court has jurisdiction.

There are some explicitly extraterritorial laws though, but that has to be stated in the law. Child sex tourism and mercenary actions are two areas where such laws exist. Incidently, in Canada the laws require our prosecutors to ask the nation the crime took place in for permission to prosecute, due to issues of sovereignty.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I haven't answered it because it is irrelavent. Any state has the power to remove citizenship of anyone for whatever reason they want. So what? The point is why is this being brought up like this? Because they want to make a political point.

No they don't. Not since the late 40's.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

[Dinner]

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

Bull. It says states cannot deprive people of their nationality and makes no special exceptions for dual citizens.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dissident
You guys would probably just cower in fear if you were in cities such as Detroit or south central LA.

I admit it is racist as hell but the general rule of thumb still applies. If you are in a city and you look around and everyone is black then the odds are good that you are in a dangerous neighborhood. I can't say what really causes it but as a general rule it pretty much holds true. I wish it wasn't.

This generally isn't true in the rural areas nor in the suburbs but in cities... I guess it's because most of the cheapest housing for the poorest segments of society cluster in urban areas.

[notyoueither]

Crime and race is a very strange thing. Go North over the 49th parallel, and you should not feel the same stress in minority neighbourhoods.

There have been studies comparing Detroit and Toronto. They are not far away from each other; similar cities in many ways, with similar concentrations of minority populations, yet crime rates that are miniscule in Toronto compared to Detroit.

The same goes across the board. There is a national news cast in the background as I type this. The story is about a string of muggings in Vancouver. When was the last time muggings made national news in the US?

There is something different, and for your sakes I wish we could find it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No they don't. Not since the late 40's.

Power and legality are two different things.

[notyoueither]

True that, but I thought GePap and the average Euro would pay more attention to legality than they have displayed so far.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Bull. It says states cannot deprive people of their nationality and makes no special exceptions for dual citizens.

Except that as Doc pointed out, Ahnold already renounced his Austrian citizenship, or shyould have. If he doesn't want it, he does not deserve it.

Besides, htis would not be an "arbitrary" act either.

[notyoueither]

Actually, GePap, American customs of citizenship have been overtaken by developments since the 2nd great war.

It is thought wise that states no longer have such far ranging powers to control their populations. That may be why the Yanks fail to enforce some of the laws they still have on the books.

Who the hell are you, or any government, to tell a person what they may or may not do so long as they are conducting themselves in a legal and peaceful manner?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Except that as Doc pointed out, Ahnold already renounced his Austrian citizenship, or shyould have. If he doesn't want it, he does not deserve it.

Besides, htis would not be an "arbitrary" act either.

I can say I renouced my citizen ship a thousand times but it isn't legally binding unless I write the US government telling them. If Arnie didn't do this to the austrian government then it is no more legally binding then those losers who said they'd leave the US if W got reelected. Also the US doesn't officially recognize duel citizenship but it does acknowedlge its existance.

[notyoueither]

American laws on citizenship are tricky now, since enforcing them would cause problems with multiple international treaties that the US is a party to.

Here's the short course, states may no longer go about willy nilly deciding who are citizens and who are not. The Nazis did that. It is now considered to be poor form.