As i said, antiquated. IIRC it was to prevent foreign kings/aristocracy attempting to control the country? Seems pretty irrelevant these days. If you're a citizen you should be qualified.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US Federal Government Shutdown | Shutdown Shutdown, Debt Ceiling Raised
- Thread starter Jarmel
- Start date
- Status
As i said, antiquated. IIRC it was to prevent foreign kings/aristocracy attempting to control the country? Seems pretty irrelevant these days. If you're a citizen you should be qualified.
House Resolution 12 was never passed, according to your link. It's been sitting in the Rules Committee all year because Boehner has literally zero motivation to bring it to the floor.
SenorArdilla
Member
Doesn't Cruz have both Canadian and US citizenship? Or is there some clause about how he needs to give up his Canadian citizenship to become a natural born American?
Well, shows what I know.
Grover Cleveland
Member
That's an...interesting question.
It's never come up and the Constitution says nothing about how dual citizenship affects ones' status as a natural born citizen (it actually says nothing at all about dual citizenship).
I could see Cruz defending his right to run under the 14th Amendment though, if that ever came up.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Even an MMTer can figure it out. If the market is flooded with unwanted supply, prices will fall (yields will spike)... at this point the Fed will probably have to step in in its current ad-hoc function of "buyer of last resort". The problem is that the value of the dollar is inversely related to the size of the Fed balance sheet. Does not bode well for the US.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
How do you sell that which is in excess (unwanted) supply?
I think he already gave it up
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
can you tell me a different qualifier of being born than either "where" or "to whom"?
just because it doesn't say it in the constitution doesn't mean common sense is out the window. The constitution doesn't define what a human is, does that mean a zebra is an American, too?
from what I understand, dual citizenship is not something that "exists." If you are an American Citizen, you are not a citizen of any other country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
Sanky Panky
Banned
The price will drop enough to find bids.
Intrinsic and inherent are concepts wedded to a framework that has been found to be without evident foundation. As best as anyone can tell, properties are emergent consequences of the complexity arising from the action of simple mechanical behaviors occurring among sufficient quantities of matter. They are not a priori definitions that control reality, like a server-side variable in a MUD or MMORPG--they are our a posteriori descriptions of the behavior of reality, naively carved into apparently neat boxes by an ironically fuzzy heuristic process.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Natural born citizen is vague, perhaps purposefully so. If it were challenged we would have a clearer idea of what it means but currently it could go either way.
This is not correct. Naturalization does not require you to renounce your other citizenship, the US simply pretends other citizenships don't exist. There are no laws for or against it.
Grover Cleveland
Member
It technically doesn't "exist", in that its not a citizenship status that is recognized by the State Department.
That being said, there are no rules against it. Naturalizing citizens have to take an oath rejecting their prior citizenship, however this clause in the oath is never actually legally enforced.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
doesn't matter. until it is, you can either be born to an American or not. or you can be born in America, or not. If neither is a yes, how else can you be?
Oath of Allegiance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States)
Oath of Allegiance is part of the Naturalization Ceremony to become a naturalized citizen.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=2335743ebbe8a310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD
Yes, I agree.
obviously this would be the response to what i posted above.
Legally enforced or not, its still part of the oath, and it still doesn't mean that you are "allowed" to have a dual citizenship. It's not like you're able to use it for anything meaningful within the United States as a naturalized citizen.
but if someone is applying to become the president (the real purpose of this whole tangent) you better believe this would be something enforced.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other", (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship
But of course people are allowed to hold dual citizenships. Even if they run for president. Otherwise France could exercise veto power over US presidential elections by passing a law declaring a candidate they don't like to be a French citizen no matter what that candidate says. I don't understand what's important about using your dual citizenship "for anything meaningful"; citizenship of a nation isn't supposed to have much to do with your legal interactions with some other nation, except insofar as the nation you're a citizen of has treaties or otherwise brings diplomatic pressure to bear as a result of your citizenship. And France could of course choose to do that on behalf of any US citizen that it deems a French citizen, for any reason it chooses.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
which is completely separate from the process of naturalization.
Naturalization is the process by which you renounce your dual citizenship, etc (which is specifically not enforced)
only because it is not enforced does the status of having "dual-citizenship" as it pertains to that supreme court ruling apply. If the renouncing of other citizenship was actually ENFORCED at the time of the naturalization process, you would never be at a point where you "HAVE" dual-citizenship to have the rights of being a dual-citizen.
i meant that you wouldn't be able to be president of France and president of the United States at the same time
ElectricBlue187
Member
Ok but in this reality what you're talking about doesn't matter at all. As there are dual citizens in the US, born and naturalized, and they can do whatever they like.
maquiladora
Member
There isn't really a need for a "deal" as such anymore, since we know now that a Senate approved bill will be put up in the House where we know it'll have enough votes to pass, probably quite easily at this stage. It'll just be a case of going through the motions tomorrow, markets aren't going to go crazy.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
For the price to drop, there has to be a desire to sell below market price. Once that takes place, it leads to a drop in value, until the value is perceived to be fair. So for people to buy at all, they have to think things will turn around, and if that is the case in significant number, then why would China sell, and wouldn't that offset the impact of the sell off?
There is no reason for China to dump treasuries except slowly over time, unless everyone else had the same motivation.
Not all dual-citizens have to go through U.S. naturalization. If you are a U.S. citizen by birth, nothing about naturalization applies to you, and there are few restrictions to attaining citizenship with other nations.
It seems to me that the immediate consequence of this is that the government won't be able to sell treasury bills without increasing their yield to match the delta between the open market bid price and the maturity value of the bills China is selling, until the excess supply is completely absorbed (purchased). Is this correct?
empty vessel
Member
So you're saying that if China sells all of its Treasuries, the value of the dollar will plummet, and China will find itself the recipient of a lot of worthless dollars? Why would China swap Treasuries with value for relatively worthless dollars? And if the dollar becomes worthless, not only is China holding a bunch of worthless dollars, but China's exports also take a hit. Bad move for China.
But that's not right. If China sells its Treasuries, then somebody else owns them, and China owns dollars. It's an asset swap, and that's about the extent of it:
If China decided to unload their holdings of U.S. Treasuries in a low inflation environment then my guess is that savvy bond traders would gladly scoop them up and exchange their paper dollars for something that generates a real return. China would be left holding a bunch of dead presidents that just sit there collecting dust and losing purchasing power. So what?
http://pragcap.com/what-if-china-sells-all-their-u-s-treasuries
As you note, the Fed can mitigate any pressure on interest rates from a sudden sell off, if it so chooses.
And here is the Congressional Research Service's take on it:
Since China held about $1.6 trillion of U.S. private and public securities (largely U.S. Treasury securities) as of June 2012, any reduction in its U.S. holdings could potentially be large. If there were a large reduction in its holdings, the effect on the U.S. economy would still depend on whether the reduction was gradual or sudden. It should be emphasized that economic theory suggests that a slow decline in the trade deficit and dollar would not be troublesome for the overall economy. In fact, a slow decline could even have an expansionary effect on the economy, if the decrease in the trade deficit had a more stimulative effect on aggregate demand in the short run than the decrease in investment and other interest-sensitive spending resulting from higher interest rates. Historical experience seems to bear this out—the dollar declined by about 40% in real terms and the trade deficit declined continually in the late 1980s, from 2.8% of GDP in 1986 to nearly zero during the early 1990s. Yet economic growth was strong throughout the late 1980s.
A potentially serious short-term problem would emerge if China decided to suddenly reduce their liquid U.S. financial assets significantly. The effect could be compounded if this action triggered a more general financial reaction (or panic), in which all foreigners responded by reducing their holdings of U.S. assets. The initial effect could be a sudden and large depreciation in the value of the dollar, as the supply of dollars on the foreign exchange market increased, and a sudden and large increase in U.S. interest rates, as an important funding source for investment and the budget deficit was withdrawn from the financial markets. The dollar depreciation by itself would not cause a recession since it would ultimately lead to a trade surplus (or smaller deficit), which expands aggregate demand. (Empirical evidence suggests that the full effects of a change in the exchange rate on traded goods take time, so the dollar may have to “overshoot” its eventual depreciation level in order to achieve a significant adjustment in trade flows in the short run.) However, a sudden increase in interest rates could swamp the trade effects and cause (or worsen) a recession. Large increases in interest rates could cause problems for the U.S. economy, as these increases reduce the market value of debt securities, causing prices on the stock market to fall, undermining efficient financial intermediation, and jeopardizing the solvency of various debtors and creditors. Resources may not be able to shift quickly enough from interest-sensitive sectors to export sectors to make this transition fluid. The Federal Reserve could mitigate the interest rate spike by reducing short-term interest rates, although this reduction would influence long-term rates only indirectly, and could worsen the dollar depreciation [EV: i.e., increase aggregate demand, which is sorely needed right now] and increase inflation [EV: which is currently persistently below target]. In March 2007, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly stated in a letter to Senator Shelby that “because foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities represent only a small part of total U.S. credit market debt outstanding, U.S. credit markets should be able to absorb without great difficulty any shift of foreign allocations.”
U.S. financial markets experienced exceptional turmoil beginning in August 2007. Over the following year, the dollar declined by almost 8% in inflation-adjusted terms--a decline that was not, in itself, disruptive. But as the turmoil deepened and spread to the rest of the world in 2008, the value of the dollar began rising. Interest rates on U.S. Treasuries fell close to zero, implying excessive investor demand. Other interest rates also remained low, although access to credit was limited for some. Although comprehensive data will not be available for some time, a “sudden stop” in capital inflows does not appear to have been a feature of the downturn. Problems experienced in U.S. financial markets over the past few years have been widely viewed as “once in a lifetime” events. If these events failed to cause a sudden flight from U.S. assets and an unwinding of the current account deficit by China or other countries, it is hard to imagine what would.
A potentially serious short-term problem would emerge if China decided to suddenly reduce their liquid U.S. financial assets significantly. The effect could be compounded if this action triggered a more general financial reaction (or panic), in which all foreigners responded by reducing their holdings of U.S. assets. The initial effect could be a sudden and large depreciation in the value of the dollar, as the supply of dollars on the foreign exchange market increased, and a sudden and large increase in U.S. interest rates, as an important funding source for investment and the budget deficit was withdrawn from the financial markets. The dollar depreciation by itself would not cause a recession since it would ultimately lead to a trade surplus (or smaller deficit), which expands aggregate demand. (Empirical evidence suggests that the full effects of a change in the exchange rate on traded goods take time, so the dollar may have to “overshoot” its eventual depreciation level in order to achieve a significant adjustment in trade flows in the short run.) However, a sudden increase in interest rates could swamp the trade effects and cause (or worsen) a recession. Large increases in interest rates could cause problems for the U.S. economy, as these increases reduce the market value of debt securities, causing prices on the stock market to fall, undermining efficient financial intermediation, and jeopardizing the solvency of various debtors and creditors. Resources may not be able to shift quickly enough from interest-sensitive sectors to export sectors to make this transition fluid. The Federal Reserve could mitigate the interest rate spike by reducing short-term interest rates, although this reduction would influence long-term rates only indirectly, and could worsen the dollar depreciation [EV: i.e., increase aggregate demand, which is sorely needed right now] and increase inflation [EV: which is currently persistently below target]. In March 2007, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly stated in a letter to Senator Shelby that “because foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities represent only a small part of total U.S. credit market debt outstanding, U.S. credit markets should be able to absorb without great difficulty any shift of foreign allocations.”
U.S. financial markets experienced exceptional turmoil beginning in August 2007. Over the following year, the dollar declined by almost 8% in inflation-adjusted terms--a decline that was not, in itself, disruptive. But as the turmoil deepened and spread to the rest of the world in 2008, the value of the dollar began rising. Interest rates on U.S. Treasuries fell close to zero, implying excessive investor demand. Other interest rates also remained low, although access to credit was limited for some. Although comprehensive data will not be available for some time, a “sudden stop” in capital inflows does not appear to have been a feature of the downturn. Problems experienced in U.S. financial markets over the past few years have been widely viewed as “once in a lifetime” events. If these events failed to cause a sudden flight from U.S. assets and an unwinding of the current account deficit by China or other countries, it is hard to imagine what would.
Doesn't sound too worrisome. In fact, it almost sounds beneficial given current economic circumstances.
As to the size of the Fed balance sheet, uh oh. I take it only one of us is worried about this, and it ain't me.
I find it funny that you are so fearful of government debt, yet are so hostile to the proposition that the government stop creating or significantly reduce its creation of it. The US can always borrow at 0% interest. Whatever rate it decides to pay on the savings accounts it offers to the public (US Treasuries) is by choice.
Power move? The USD could be hurt fairly badly, and doing so would likely push other countries to start adopting something else as a standard for trade. While it initially would hurt China's economy, the US would be useless and China would likely emerge as the new focus of consumerism and potentially as the a bigger world power.
Thing is, if it's a political power move-- is it going to work or will we see US allies assist in stabilizing the American economy as it becomes beneficial for them to do?
One of three scenarios will play out tomorrow, assuming the Senate passes its bill:
1. The House will receive the bill, and Boehner holds a simple up-down vote. This will put him at odds with the fringe group of Republicans, and will most likely be the cause for his eventual relieving of his Speakership. Debt ceiling is raised, markets calm, business as usual. 85% chance of happening.
2. The House receives the bill, and Boehner will open discussion on the bill, during which Ted Cruz will fillibuster. The fillibuster lasts pass the deadline, causing the country to default. 10% chance of happening.
3. The House receives the bill, but neither Boehner, nor Eric Cantor, will allow the bill to come to a vote. Country defaults. 5% chance of happening.
I honestly hope the deal gets done, but I'm skeptical...
1. The House will receive the bill, and Boehner holds a simple up-down vote. This will put him at odds with the fringe group of Republicans, and will most likely be the cause for his eventual relieving of his Speakership. Debt ceiling is raised, markets calm, business as usual. 85% chance of happening.
2. The House receives the bill, and Boehner will open discussion on the bill, during which Ted Cruz will fillibuster. The fillibuster lasts pass the deadline, causing the country to default. 10% chance of happening.
3. The House receives the bill, but neither Boehner, nor Eric Cantor, will allow the bill to come to a vote. Country defaults. 5% chance of happening.
I honestly hope the deal gets done, but I'm skeptical...
Cruz isn't in the House. He can't filibuster the bill there.
If Cruz does block unanimous consent in the Senate, I would hope the senators would amend the Senate rules to allow the bill to come up anyway, since the alternative is to let the country default.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Is there no chance that they could invoke cloture around Cruz? I mean, how many wingnuts are there in the Senate?
TheLaughingStock
Member
How much/how long do you believe China will be hurt as a export driven economy? They have a terrible obsession with earning interest on US IOUs. Also, do I have your rationale correct...every world power whose assets are not the standard for trade like the US is useless? Is a serial defaulter like Germany useless today?
Wonder if someone could help me.
Had a twitter exchange last night with a right wing American who I follow (always good to get a different perceptive on the world, even if you disagree with it)
I got a bit lost with what he was trying to say in the end (basically he was blaming Obama / Dems for not negotiating)
"ACA is still law Unchanged The house offered to fund it. But make it apply to everyone including Congress. President Obama said no"
Any ideas?
Had a twitter exchange last night with a right wing American who I follow (always good to get a different perceptive on the world, even if you disagree with it)
I got a bit lost with what he was trying to say in the end (basically he was blaming Obama / Dems for not negotiating)
"ACA is still law Unchanged The house offered to fund it. But make it apply to everyone including Congress. President Obama said no"
Any ideas?
You could start with this
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/10/t...ing-exempted-from-obamacare-huge-whopper-lie/
Don't argue with the irrational.
systemfehler
Member
So only Eric Cantor can initiate a voting? I somehow sense that those election and administration laws should get a rehaul soon. I mean lets change the voting rights - wait we don't even need a 2/3 majority. Excellent.
Some good shots fired by the BBC this morning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24545697
"As America stands on the brink of running out of money to pay its bills, the Republican leadership in the House raised pointless grandstanding to an art form.
More than that, in just a few hours they hit on a formula that flawlessly exposed their own division, underscored their leadership's weakness and highlighted the extent of their humiliation.
I read one far-right blog this week that claimed President Obama was a Soviet mole, planted at childhood.
It seems much more credible that the Republican leader John Boehner was the plant, sent here to damage the GOP by sending its poll ratings through the floor. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24545697
"As America stands on the brink of running out of money to pay its bills, the Republican leadership in the House raised pointless grandstanding to an art form.
More than that, in just a few hours they hit on a formula that flawlessly exposed their own division, underscored their leadership's weakness and highlighted the extent of their humiliation.
I read one far-right blog this week that claimed President Obama was a Soviet mole, planted at childhood.
It seems much more credible that the Republican leader John Boehner was the plant, sent here to damage the GOP by sending its poll ratings through the floor. "
"As a ransom note this doesn't amount to much. It was, I suppose, something they thought they might be able to sell to activists back home. Rather like a man who has been almost stripped naked refusing to remove one last sock, claiming his dignity depends on it.
But they couldn't get the votes of their own members for that either. So they announced "no vote tonight". That mean's Tuesday might as well have been cancelled and we are back to square one.
Guess what? The Senate is working on a plan. But they are running out of time. How the House will react to any deal is uncertain. But I bet they embarrass themselves in the process."
But they couldn't get the votes of their own members for that either. So they announced "no vote tonight". That mean's Tuesday might as well have been cancelled and we are back to square one.
Guess what? The Senate is working on a plan. But they are running out of time. How the House will react to any deal is uncertain. But I bet they embarrass themselves in the process."
scytheavatar
Member
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/how-john-boehner-could-lose-his-speakership
Boehner has zero chances of losing his speakership, unless the tea partiers want Pelosi to be the speaker. What are the odds that Cantor or any other Republican would want to be put on Boehner's current place and be a babysitter for the worst babies in the world? What that is likely to happen is that the tea partiers would continue to cause problems for Boehner and cause him to be unable to push for agendas towards what the Republicans want, especially for the farm bill and immigrant fights.
Sanky Panky
Banned
You are correct. People will buy bonds at a yield they think justifies the risk and expected return they seek (bond returns are both coupon and price fluctuation if not held to maturity). There is an inherent premium in short-term t-bills because they are cash-like and provide liquidity. If they are neither stable (volatility has picked up), or if their yields are expected to rise (from big sellers flooding the market), the markets will react. Moreover, t-bills are some of the most re-hypothecated assets in the shadow banking system. That by itself will have a huge impact, and have a multiplicative effect on global liquidity.
Christine said:
That is correct. The yield curve will flatten or become negative (as it has happened with the 1 mo and the 1yr rates), until there are buyers in those higher yields. Heck, there is a market for Argentinian bonds at $0.40 cents to the dollar.
empty vessel said:
Except the decision is to sell treasuries for yuan (converting the dollars) with the implication that their currency will appreciate (hence they have been stress testing their economy for this scenario). They will not hold worthless dollars, as they have actively voiced their opinion that the world needs an alternative. The article you posted highlighted the drop in the value of dollars, because the transaction will be to sell dollars, buy yuan (or alternate reserve currency). Another not-so-secret, is that China has been importing record amounts (over 2,000 tons last year) of that dirty metal repudiated around these parts: gold. Maybe the second largest economy in the world wants it for decoration?
empty vessel said:
As you can see, there are very real and direct effects to the money printing the central banks have undertaken. As the Fed prints more and more versus what others do, the value of the dollar will continue to drop (hence talks of currency wars since 2012). Aside from economic implications of investors expecting their US assets to to lose value, do you think Europe will be all giddy that their currency is appreciating when their economy is still in the shitter? there are huge political ramifications also.
maquiladora
Member
boehner am cry
edit : but he is still safe....
That was one of Boehner's surrender plans that he failed to get through the house so your friend is factually incorrect. It's also a terrible plan, in that it just makes the US Gov't a shitty employer. Those people are already required to use the ACA exchanges because of a stupid GOP provision in the ACA,. This move would just punish them further by taking away their employer subsidy.
As for negotiations, the GOP is not negotiating. A negotiation is where I offer you something you want in exchange for something I want. GOP wants to gut the ACA. What are they offering in exchange? Nothing at all. Instead they're blocking essential government operations until they get what they want. The problem is they need the government to run too, so ending their obstruction is not a concession.
Also, on a more technical note, nobody is asking the GOP to fund the ACA. The ACA is already funded. It's the GOP that needs action taken to defund it and therefore must convince the Senate and President to do so.
Yeah, I am getting pretty tired of the false equivalencies from everyone. Last night on my newsfeed a guy equated what is happening to a game of chicken, as if both parties are equally stupid for not budging. It's a self-made crisis fabricated by the tea party. They should get nothing, and look stupid while getting their nothing.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
AngmarsKing701
Member
maquiladora
Member
What an absolute waste of time and money the last 2 weeks have been.
SteveWinwood
Member
What a joke. All the money people are owed should come out of his pocket.
Takamura-San
Member
They just gave Fox news the gift of Obama the tyrant non-negotiator.
I hope it was worth it Boehner and I hope people don't forget.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wait--I thought the Tea Party was all about cutting spending, not wasting money. Surely this cannot be.
BertramCooper
Banned
ThreePiMatt
Member
And dems get to pound the republicans for wasting two weeks, billions of dollars, and causing panic in the markets for doing what they should have done in the first place.
- Status