Those who hold a second nationality and want to run for these offices will have to renounce it before applying to register as candidates. The provision seeks to ensure that people holding these responsibilities maintain only their legal bond of Mexican nationality while in office.
Good. Keep Israelis and Yankees out of direct power
Current president of Ecuador Daniel Noboa was born in Miami.
Brazilian scumbag fled to Miami with the help of Italian passport.
Former president of Georgia Salomé Zourabichvili is French. If memory serves, she actually started as the French ambassador to Georgia
Imo ever country should have this provision. It’s insane that the president of the US could be a citizen of another country. If you are going to driving high level policy it’s not unreasonable to expect you to renounce other citizenships
in my opinion ANY position in governments (maybe excluding education (teachers)) should be like this.
if you really want to “serve” your country you can easily cancel your citizenship of another country.
easily cancel your citizenship of another country.
I can think of two countries off the top of my head where this is untrue. For USA you need to pay to renounce your citizenship, & China won’t allow you to at all. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the requirement that they are a citizen for government positions, but it seems a little heavy handed for positions that don’t have direct influence over foreign policy.
I thought China didn’t allow dual citizenship, so getting another citizenship would cancel out your Chinese citizenship?
Ah yes, to fight nationalism, we must become nationalism. This is dumb.
It’s not fighting “nationalism,” it’s fighting centuries of imperialist aggression from the north
I think some leftist have a misunderstanding of the use of nationalism within states outside of the imperial core. The IRA was a nationalist movement. Nationalism means something different when you’re colonized. It means something different when the fascist are your neighbors, bombing civilian ships in the waters to your south, and interfering with elections everywhere they can. If Cuba or Iran felt that had to do something similar I think we’d all understand. Let’s not confuse things because we don’t understand the meaning of the word “nationalism” and try to apply it universally to mean “bad”. That’s not material analysis. That’s idealism.
I think Americans often have a very bad understanding of the IRA and The Troubles, but your point stands. Though I still think all forms of nationalism are bad, they exist on very different terms and are orders of magnitude worse for colonisers.
Liberatory Nationalism, which is the form of nationalism that emancipated Vietnam, China, Russia, Cuba, and countless other socialist states past and present, is undeniably very different from right-wing nationalism. Nationalism at the periphery is how we get anti-imperialist movements; fighting for your nation’s autonomy over its own borders and internal dealings is a highly progressive form of nationalism. Nationalism within the colonizer states gets you modern-day USA, France, UK, Israel, and historical manifestations like Nazi Germany. So, therefore, nationalism in this context is about either the preservation of the status quo, in the case of settler-colonial nationalism, or about dismantling the status quo, in the case of liberator nationalism.
Ho Chi Minh has probably the sharpest thesis on liberatory nationalism within his texts, but I think you don’t have to look much farther than the Vietnamese declaration of independence.
Later in life, he would write this: “At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.”
His patriotism, his nationalism, is what drew him into the struggle against colonial forces. I find it incredibly reductionist to lump both forms of nationalism together under one umbrella as you’ve done, and history shows us there is a clear difference.
I’m just not realy that into the concept of nations tbh. I think we’d be much better off without the arbitrary demarcation of borders etc. There’s a difference between patriotism and nationalism too of course, pride rather than thinking your better, but it all just feels like ways to have “us” and “them” to me. Whatever you have to do to throw off the shackles of your oppressor though, I guess.
Its very reductive to think “patriots” = pride and “nationalists” = superiority. How does that square against the Vietnamese struggle against colonialism? Because that was a nationalist movement made up of patriots.
The “us” vs “them” kind of matter given the context don’t they? Colonialist nationalism had an us vs them but the us is colonialists… And the them are the colonized. Liberatory nationalism obviously is the opposite, where the us is the colonized and the them are colonizers.
Like, you seem to be operating under in these broad strokes that collapse all these contexts into a flat binary. That doesn’t really seem like a useful tool for analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkbSYIyzmF0
watch this video, it will help you understand why the position you’re taking is a reactionary right wing one. essentially the left is both internationalist and nationalist, it’s internationalism supports the nationalism and sovereignty of other nations, while the right is simply nationalist and it doesn’t support the nationalism of other people.
We weren’t really taught about it when I was in school in the 2000s. I didn’t know the details until a few years ago when I got really into an Irish band, Bricknasty. One of their songs included a eulogy for Ross McDonnel, an Irish documentary filmmaker, and I fell down a rabbit hole.
We weren’t taught about African politics because “they’re always at war” (a racist oversimplification, of course) but I was surprised that they skipped over a predominantly white country’s war…until I realized it’s a story about an “underclass” uprising. Can’t be teaching kids that the oppressed can organize.
Using nationalism to fight imperialism is like trying to put out a fire by throwing acid on it
It can work if you’ve got enough acid, but you’re still gonna get burned.
And then youve got a bunch of acid everywhere
I can’t say I agree on this one. I think it’s just another one of her policies she’s enacted to protect Mexico’s future by making sure politicians only have its best interest in mind.
The US isn’t the only country meddling in Mexican politics. There’s a growing Zionist presence in Chiapas that’s going to have to be delt with eventually.
Yeah that’s my thoughts as well. It encourages decision making for the benefit of the country, as it should be for country leaders.
I remember as a kid learning about why Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn’t run for president; which ironically I think he’d be decent at best, because he actually gives a shit about people, the law/rules, and public relations.
She may be doing it because of the U.S. citizen puppet leader of Colombia having gotten CIA support to take the Colombian presidency. Not preparing a defense against Monroe Doctrine tactics would be giving the U.S. attack vectors.
I disagree. Look at bolsonaro’s little rat self running to miami with his italian passport
