Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

She would if she started that tourism business from a location within the United States assuming a four year stint at uni. The math actually works out quite well.

Why not? She was born here.

You need to be a resident for 14 years.

Mannahnin wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I could take the baby to Japan and raise it there monolingually in Japanese for 18 years, then send it to university in Bulgaria. The mature adult could start a tourism business aimed at Turks, and would be eligible to become President of the USA at the age of 35.

No, she wouldn't.

...unless she moved here at some point and resided here for at least 14 years. Which could be anytime after having grown up in a totally different culture with a totally different language.

Kilkrazy's point is well made.

Since you changed this before I responded...

Your math is off.

18 years in Japan + 4 years university + some time in Turkey + 14 years > 35 years.

Now now. For the sake of Kilkrazy's family planning, lets push her to take lots of summer courses and graduate early!

AP courses Baby!

Just cause she started a tourism business aimed at turks doesnt mean it has to be in Turkey... Could be run out of the USA.

ShivanAngel wrote:Just cause she started a tourism business aimed at turks doesnt mean it has to be in Turkey... Could be run out of the USA.

18+4+14 is still more than 35, at least that's what my slide rule says.

biccat wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Just cause she started a tourism business aimed at turks doesnt mean it has to be in Turkey... Could be run out of the USA.

18+4+14 is still more than 35, at least that's what my slide rule says.

You don't need to spend 4 years in university.

Even if we don't fill in the gaps to allow for the 14 year residency requirement, nitpicking that detail doesn't detract in any way from Kilkrazy's point. Which is that being born here in no way means you were necessarily raised here or are attached to/inculcated in our culture.

As for the residency argument, don't forget the recent ruling in regards to Rahm Emanuel and his Chicago residency status. All you have to do to claim residency is to own a property and keep some personal possessions there.

So, we have the following scenario:

Child is born to two parents, an American mother, and a non-American father on a US Military Base with all foreign doctors and nurses.
The father dies during the pregnancy, and the mother dies during childbirth.
The child goes to live with the non-American parents of the father in a foreign country.
The child grows up, never having been to America, not speaking English, and never having met an American.
The child buys some property in America through a proxy, and ships some personal effects to be stored in the property.
14 years later, the child (now a 35 year-old adult) runs for President and wins, while doing all his or her campaigning via virtual means.

So, it seems totally legit to have a President who has never stepped foot in US borders and never having even met an American.

Let's assume my brother wills his house in Oregon to me.

To be realistic, it would be absurd to suppose that people would vote for the adopted Kilkrazy candidate, who has never been to the USA and can't speak English. OTOH the other Kilkrazy candidate could be as American as apple pie, (she goes to an American school now) but wouldn't be eligible.

My point is that factors of birth and upbringing are possibly minimal in legal terms when considering these questions of acculturation.

There are actually two members of the Japanese Diet who were born foreign. One is ex-Taiwanese, who gained her citizenship through jus sanguinus, the other is ex-Finnish, who naturalized.

I have more in common with Obama (which isn't much) than I did with BUsh. Bush is a rich kid through and through, while Obama is a self-made man.

Dunno, if it's a personal connection that you people are talking about as far as culture, that definitely puts me wanting to associate more with the latter than the former. I don't know why a lot of people who are themselves self-made people feel they have more in common with a rich boy who inherited his wealth and family name and basically runs using those...

Some people who like Bush and dislike Obama were born wealthy themselves, rather than self-made. Many others are not self-made but wish they were/think someday they will be, and thus support lower taxes on the wealthy people they WANT to be.

Which helps keep funds away from programs which actually help the economy, thus preventing them from becoming one of their number?

It's particularly ironic because Republicans tend to get more support in states which have more poverty and make heavier use of those support programs. A lot of these folks are literally voting to take food out of their and their neighbors' own mouths.

Mannahnin wrote:It's particularly ironic because Republicans tend to get more support in states which have more poverty and make heavier use of those support programs. A lot of these folks are literally voting to take food out of their and their neighbors' own mouths.

Hey, fearmongering (not by the candidates, necessarily) and building a sense of comradely can get you places.

Long-form, schmong-form... So what if the Birthers have been refuted in every simply way possible?

I'm a die-hard After-Birther!!!

I demand that the so-called President Obama show us his placenta! Anything less than that is not acceptable and Trump needs to be notified immediately!




Gotta love The Onion...

Valete,

JohnS

Oooh... And as an added plus, this is my past Dakka post as a "triple digit-er". It's 4 digit post counts from here on out baby!!!

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:Because even though we're a nation of immigrants we want to keep an American culture. If some guy from Mexico came over and lived here for 35 years and became the president of the United States without assimilating into the American culture I would have a hard time following him.

Being born in America also means that you're tied to America and helps prevent foreign influence in matters.

A surprising number of people are having trouble following Obama despite the fact he is a poster boy for immigration and assimilation into the American culture.

My brother's wife is pregnant, they live in Oregon, he is British, she is American. The baby will be born in the USA. He or she will be entitled to a UK passport, which will allow him to live anywhere in the EU without conditions.

My wife is Japanese and I have a resident visa for Japan. If my brother and his wife died shortly after the birth of their child, in a car accident perhaps, their nearest relative to adopt the baby would be me.

I could take the baby to Japan and raise it there monolingually in Japanese for 18 years, then send it to university in Bulgaria. The mature adult could start a tourism business aimed at Turks, and would be eligible to become President of the USA at the age of 35. Or s/he might take Japanese citizenship and become Prime Minister, or become Prime Minister of the UK.

Actually, Japan doesn't recognize dual or multi-citizenship. If a dual citizen of the US and the UK is naturalised in any other nation besides the US, they will lose their US citizenship. So if the child becomes a naturalized Japanese citizen he won't be a UK or US citizen. Dual citizenship is another big thing, because even though the child is a US citizen by birth he is also a UK citizen by birth. If the child renounces his citizenship in any manner of fashion he renounces the right to run for president and would have to become nationalized.

The president renounces the allegience to another country and would have to forfeit his UK citizenship and passport. So even if the child decided to run he would lose his rights as a UK citizen in order to do so. And even then people most likely would not vote for him seeing as though he has a slim connection to the country.

But no, there is an american culture and the government requires the obligations of a person who is a citizen of the US and only the US. Children are usually naturalised if they are adopted to avoid issues with the other government, so if you adopt your brother's child he may lose his US citizenship to avoid laws from two countries interacting with each other, it all depends on the myriad of citizenship and adoption.

We had an issue with a Navy man and his Japanese citizen wife recently. They had conceived a child in Japan before they were married, he was stationed back in america before they could get married and the marriage was finally approved while she was in Japan and he was in the States. He died before he could return or she could come to america. After the child was born she came to america and the child was removed from her and given to the man's family due to citizenship laws concerning their marriage. There was some law saying that they had to 'seal the deal' after marriage in order for it to count, so she was denied citizenship and her child. Got to love arbitrary laws.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:Beck didn't. That was Hillary Clinton during the '08 election in an attempt to gak all over everyone to become president.

The second point was something 4chan came up with. They have something involving Bob Saget as well IIRC. Besides, if you're going to quote memes, do it right. It was 1990.

The point of the meme was to demonstrate how disingenuous Beck's argument was. "I don't really believe this, and I'm sure it's not true, but isn't it funny that he hasn't just proved it" is an argument engineered to provide deniability while still spreading the rumour that it just might be true.

When making an argument, the point is to put forward the evidence for the case, not just talk about how it's interesting that Beck hasn't done anything to prove he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:You know that there was a lot more going on with Clinton than a BJ, right?

You know there actually wasn't, right?

That millions of dollars in legal costs and an immense amount of the president's time was wasted on bs allegations, that all amounted to nothing other than the revelation that the president got a blow job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:On the positive, now I can call Obama "Junior"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mister robouteo wrote:I think most of the disparity about Dubyahs military service wasn't about paperwork, but about his attempt to come off as some kind of real hero about it. The embarrassingly transparent carrier visit where he actually flew the plane (except for the take off and landing parts) kind of helped fan that flame.

There was a real belief among the leftwing that Bush had actually gone AWOL or something, and that there was this big effort to cover it all up. It was bs, and the only proof for it was that people really didn't like Bush.

It was really no different to people believing the Clintons had killed all those people, or scammed people with Whitewater or whatever.

It's bad when both sides do it. Though few crazy bits of nonsense, on either the left or the right, have been as bad as this birther nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Because even though we're a nation of immigrants we want to keep an American culture. If some guy from Mexico came over and lived here for 35 years and became the president of the United States without assimilating into the American culture I would have a hard time following him.

Then you and everyone else would be free to not vote for him.

That's the thing that puzzles me about not just the 'natural born citizen' requirement but about any kind of criteria for the presidency... who better than the electorate to decide what really matters to them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are actually two members of the Japanese Diet who were born foreign. One is ex-Taiwanese, who gained her citizenship through jus sanguinus, the other is ex-Finnish, who naturalized.

Here in Australia the former premier of New South Wales was an American, who first came to Australia in 1994 at the age of 26 to be with her husband. Despite all that foreign-ness corrupting her brain, she seemed to do alright.

Well, she did terribly and led the party to one of the greatest electoral defeats not only in the history of NSW, but of Australia, and by some arguments, in the world. But that wasn't really her fault, the party she tried to lead was well and truly out of control.

You know, there was some guff about McCain's citizenship but that isn't as televised as much. Probably because he didn't win.

If the typically republican-associated anti-abortion stance that life begins at conception is to be taken as a premise for lawmaking, perhaps when they get their way changing laws about that they can follow it up by making sure all potential presidents were actually concieved within U.S. borders accordingly?

mister robouteo wrote:If the typically republican anti-abortion stance that life begins at conception is to be taken as a premise for lawmaking, perhaps when they get their way changing laws about that they can follow it up by making sure all potential presidents were actually concieved within U.S. borders accordingly?

Only if it wasn't conceived by at least one american sex cell.

I hope this wont necessitate escalating into another inquiry into politicians "family" lives then. Neither party does well with those. I think they should prove that the doctor who signed it wasn't born someone else too, and a background check on the parents concerned there too. After all, if China can breed olympic gymnasts, they could breed a president and a doctor just as easily. You never know how much this foreign conspiracy might run and you can't be too careful when the absolutely rational rules of the U.S. Constitution are questioned.

You! Yes you! Where was your father's sperm from? I see, and where was your mother's egg from.

A sperm from Italy and an Egg from France does not an American make.

What? You were conceived in America?

Correction sir, you were conceived inside of your mother who counts as sovereign French territory. That makes you a French/Italian citizen.

I knew it! No wonder so many politicians hate the common American taxpayer. The whole thing is just another way of those Commies undermining our economy. Now I'm wondering if India is breeding customer service people too. This stuff goes WAY deeper than Donald Trump thought.

Yes, we need to start a campaign for it.

Citizenship starts at Conception!

Frazzled wrote:
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?

WAIT WHAT?! why is petrol so cheap over in america? Is that per litre or per gallon?

heacy hitter wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?

WAIT WHAT?! why is petrol so cheap over in america? Is that per litre or per gallon?

Per gallon.

It's cheap because we don't pay $5 per gallon in taxes.

biccat wrote:

heacy hitter wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Check the current polls. He did it because the issue was finally startign to gain traction among the non nut jobs so he had to jettison the sideshow. What will he do to distract from $5 gas an 20% underemployment now?

WAIT WHAT?! why is petrol so cheap over in america? Is that per litre or per gallon?

Per gallon.

It's cheap because we don't pay $5 per gallon in taxes.

It would be great if we only paid $5/gal in taxes... :(

http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html

SilverMK2 wrote:It would be great if we only paid $5/gal in taxes... :(

http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html

Your tax rate is 58p/litre, which translates to $3.72/gallon.

edit: Oh wait, forgot the VAT. Yeah, you're getting hosed.