(Untitled)

[roga]

WTF, genealogy? Man, I wish I could trace my family that far back, or that I were running for President* so that someone would care enough to do it for me. Sadly, I can only go back four generations, ie my grandparents' grandparents

Comments

[dangomango]

Can anyone ever explain that clause to me? Because for the life of me, I cannot figure out how being born on US soil makes you any more qualified to be President than a US citizen who, for example, immigrated from Russia at the age of five. I have never been able to get that one. I think it's because of the fear that an elected president born in another country would be a spy, or have the interests of another country in mind instead of the States - basically general paranoia.

[roga]

But it's such an irrational paranoia that you'd think, after more than 200 years, it's one of those policies that would be changed? I mean, being a munch younger county we're obviously no comparison, but only 6 out of our 13 Prime Ministers were born in the vicinity. And even if you only immigrated to the US at the age of 40 - if you made it all the way to the presidential nomination, chances are you got enough Americans to trust you already. It just feels very outdated, not to mention it probably excludes thousands of people who could have made great leaders from ever entering the race.

[dangomango]

Well, I don't know how many Americans support it, but I agree with you - it seems like a pointless piece of legislation, and God knows we've got enough of those.

[roga]

It's probably one of those things nobody thinks to bring up unless someone actually contests it. I mean, if it were an issue - if a non-native citizen actually wanted to run for president - I'm sure the courts/congress would allow it. (Because the legal and justice systems are rational. Uh, right?)

In any case, I know they're okay with McCain running, even though he wasn't born on US soil - although he was born "at the U.S. military base Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents", so I guess that's natural-born enough for now.

[eumelia]

I've read a review of that book, it's by I-can't-for-the-life-of-me-remember-his-name Zand, right

[roga]

Shlomo Zand, yeah.

Kalush, definitely :-) Not rambling at all! You just mentioned all the points I hadn't because I was wise enough (or not) to put this all in a footnote. But that's what I meant about it not changing any of my political views - I mean, we might not be the descendants of King David, but that doesn't undermine for one minute our legitimization to have a state (IMO, of course). And the 'Palestinian people' is an excellent analogy.

It does hurt the romanticist in me, though. Because damn it, I like the myth! It's so... romantic. Sigh.

Dunno if I'll read the book; there's a discussion about it at the uni this Thursday, though, if you're interested in going. I have an impromptu make-up class, so unfortunately I won't be able to, but there's supposed to be a panel with a couple of expert professors from different unis raising questions/arguments against (I assume) the book, and Shlomo Zand replying to their arguments. Should be interesting.

[eumelia]

The whole progression of the creation of the State of Israel was no different from any other new state at the time.
I'm all for a Jewish state :) I like it here and believe that as long as we live in such a divisive world it's essential that we have a state.
[going slightly political, apologies in advance] at the same time the way Israel treats the Palestinians and the segregation of the various Arab cultures with in Israel is racist, wrong and must change if we're to survive as a country, because if it doesn't eventually the world will begin to boycott Israel in earnest by way of South Africa, which I don't think anyone wants. It would be a great tragedy if that's what it took for Israel to regain it's ethical balance.

[roga]

Okay, so what I was gonna say here is that I am all for democracy, but I still haven't figured out the solution to the Democratic/Jewish state issue - they're pretty much mutually exclusive, and you have to choose where to compromise on both, but in the end there's no such thing as a "democratic Jewish state". So I have no idea how the country should ideally be, ethically, demographically, whatever.

You said below that you're an "extreme-left-believes-democratic-not-Jewish". And you said here that you're all for a Jewish state. So, how do those two go together, in your opinion?

[kita0610]

there's no such thing as the "Jewish people"

I call bullshit until proven otherwise. Lemme know how the class goes; I'm interested to hear more.

[roga]

The class isn't about the book - it's a class about major junctions in the Israeli/Arab conflict. But the prof (from what I've heard, and as the book suggests) is a very provocative leftist, so it should give food for thought anyway.

And the book isn't exactly claiming there isn't a Jewish people, like I said, which depends on how you define "people" anyway; more accurately, from the reviews I've read, it claims that the Jewish people as they are now are not the descendants of the Jewish tribes that were exiled 2000 years ago (nor the Jews who stayed in Israel). I'm pretty sure there's a grain of truth in what he's saying - like I said, in 2000 years, I find it hard to believe that all my ancestors were Jews - but obviously he wrote the book to fit his political agenda, which is extreme-left-Israel-needs-to-be-democratic-not-Jewish. So I'm taking this claim as a grain of salt as well. But like I said, it won't change my own political opinions - eumelia explains it better than I in the comment above.

[eumelia]

I'm an "extreme-left-believes-democratic-not-Jewish".
However, and this is a big one, our history teaches us that without a land to call our own we're in grave danger and unless we have a territory, which is the right of every nationally identified people on earth, we're in the same danger as 60-odd years ago and before.

Anyway, sorry for abducting your thread, just wanted to let you know that not all extreme lefties are narrow minded crazies :)
*runs and hides*

[roga]

I never said you were! Never said he was a narrow-minded crazy guy either, just stating the point. I'll respond to that first sentence in the above thread, though, since I can't handlt to conversations about the same thing at once (and I was going to ask it anyway).

[miss_porcupine]

The natural-born-citizen business, I seem to recall from twenty years ago, was a response to the fear that aristocrats from Europe would show up and decide to try and turn the nascent republic into a fiefdom. Our early history was very tenuous and threats from within and without were present then that aren't so prevalent now.

[roga]

I figured it was something that might have been relevant in the 18th century. It just feels really outdated these days. Any of today's US politicians could have easily been born in a different country; it just doesn't make any sense, today. It could just be my bitterness at being a citizen-unable-to-run (irrational, because I'd never have run anyway), but still. It always strikes me as a dumb law, especially for America. (Not that there aren't plenty of those in every legal system on earth.)

[miss_porcupine]

It's a little bit of your bitterness, I expect, but when Israel is two hundred-plus years old on the same constitution, let's see what kind of rules are still on her books. :)

I can't actually remember the citizenship clause ever coming up as one of those laws that Must Be Changed NOW. We've had senators, generals, governors, mayors, prominent people of all stripes come from other places and make their home here, but either none of them wanted to be president badly enough to start a movement or... I don't know. There was half-hearted chatter when Schwarzenegger became governor of California, but it was more as trivia tidbit. If there was a compelling candidate with popular support, there'd probably be impetus to change it. I just can't think of anyone who has had their political career cruelly and too-briefly snuffed out because they couldn't become president.

[roga]

when Israel is two hundred-plus years old on the same constitution

Well, that's some wishful thinking, there :-)

Besides which Israel has way too many inner disagreements to ever agree on a constitution. If we ever did have one, though, the clause would probably be that both the PM and the President must be Jewish. Because we're just that democratic.

(BTW, I don't know if you've seen it, but the graffiti image you helped me with is at the bottom of this post. Thanks again!)

[a2zmom]

I don't care what the professor says, I assume most Jews have been descended from ancient Jews because who in their right mind would convert? We're an unpopular religion for a good reason.

[roga]

I know! That's the part I don't really get, because I'm sure he's basing his theory on something, and I'm curious as to what it is. When did large groups ever convert into Judaism? Why? It's intriguing.

[roga]

You're right. See, now you're totally making me want to read the book.