Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IAAF acts on Transfer of Allegiance

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • crymeariver
    replied
    Originally posted by 18.99s View Post
    Bringing up that doesn't support your point. Immigrating to the US based on marriage involves more scrutiny than the IAAF is asking of athletes who want to transfer. The US government doesn't (and shouldn't) automatically accept the marriage certificate by itself as sufficient evidence of a bona fide marriage for immigration purposes, and the IAAF won't automatically accept a new country's passport as sufficient evidence of eligibility for a transfer for international competition purposes.
    the "they" would be Qatar and Bahrain...it's not always just about the US and some of you need to think beyond the US and what's required to get citizenship in the US (or the UK). I thought it was obvious I was writing about Qatar and Bahrain...but again, it doesn't matter. What matters is whatever that government defines citizenship as.

    Look at Jamaica. former East German Yvonne Graham (married Winthrop Graham) received nearly instant citizenship. The Bahamas had a rule that a man marrying could immediately convey citizenship onto his wife, but a Bahamian woman marrying couldn't convey citizenship to her husband (not sure if that's still the law there).

    Different countries have different ways of awarding citizenship and it shouldn't be left to the US or the EU to determine whose citizenship is legitimate and whose is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    2. Would your opinion be different if they married the athletes to their citizens (because you're fooling yourself if you believe that people haven't married Americans to "become American").
    Bringing up that doesn't support your point. Immigrating to the US based on marriage involves more scrutiny than the IAAF is asking of athletes who want to transfer. The US government doesn't (and shouldn't) automatically accept the marriage certificate by itself as sufficient evidence of a bona fide marriage for immigration purposes, and the IAAF won't automatically accept a new country's passport as sufficient evidence of eligibility for a transfer for international competition purposes.
    Last edited by 18.99s; 08-09-2018, 12:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    Considered because of age or agency?
    Age.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trickstat
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    When there is no 'hard and fast' rule all you have is politics. That's why I believe as long as a country conveys legal citizenship to an athlete that the IAAF should be duty-bound to recognize the country's decision.
    I agree that the IAAF should recognise citizenship changes and not prevent athletes from ever changing countries. However I believe that they are perfectly within their rights to have some sort of rule that prevents immediate transfer for athletes who have already represented another country which could lead to some farcical situations.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    U.S. relaxes citizenship timeline for those who join the army, although I guess that may cease to be a thing.
    It will probably depend on which country the person is from.

    https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/62677...ed-citizenship

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ico/904981002/

    Leave a comment:


  • crymeariver
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman View Post
    He chose? Or his parents and/or coaches chose? He was only 15 years old when he first competed for Antigua. That should be considered.

    Considered because of age or agency? Can Chinese athletes argue that they didn't have a choice to avoid a ban? Russians? North Koreans?

    Your question is valid and i have no idea which party made the decision to compete for Antigua, but it's not like Caribbean athletes have not previously exploited the "better" conditions of the US to transfer.

    Kareem Streete Thompson, Competed for Cayman Islands and then for the United States and then again for Cayman Islands.

    Sandra Farmer Patrick set an American Junior record at 14 (according to wikipedia...) she arrived in the US at age 11. She was 4th at the '87 Rome Championships, competing for Jamaica...and then was eligible to compete for the US in '88. One year later. And, when she didn't make the team...tried to go back to Jamaica.

    Christian Taylor has mentioned that he might one day compete for the country of his parents.

    (apologies in advance...I know that you know all of this; you're probably the most traveled person on this message board and you were probably there)

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    . . .
    3. Why is Rai Benjamin's case so special? Because he can potentially win medals for the US? He CHOSE to represent Antigua; he could have represented the US at WY. And now he's the poster boy for being 'fast tracked'?
    He chose? Or his parents and/or coaches chose? He was only 15 years old when he first competed for Antigua. That should be considered.

    Leave a comment:


  • crymeariver
    replied
    Originally posted by JumboElliott View Post
    I come from the United States. We are not suffering for medal count. While I find it unseemly that Gulf States do this, particularly given the stories about these athletes having their passports taken and being left destitute when they're beyond their use, my preference would have been that the IAAF took no action whatsoever.

    With that said, given that the IAAF has decided to make rules on this issue, I think that there needs to be some recognition that not all transfers of allegiance are treated equally. Rai Benjamin, a natural born U.S. citizen seeking to transfer allegiance from another country where he holds citizenship by birth should not be treated the same as an athlete who has never set foot in Qatar or Bahrain and would not otherwise meet their naturalization requirements.
    1. I don't find it unseemly.
    2. Would your opinion be different if they married the athletes to their citizens (because you're fooling yourself if you believe that people haven't married Americans to "become American").
    3. Why is Rai Benjamin's case so special? Because he can potentially win medals for the US? He CHOSE to represent Antigua; he could have represented the US at WY. And now he's the poster boy for being 'fast tracked'?

    When there is no 'hard and fast' rule all you have is politics. That's why I believe as long as a country conveys legal citizenship to an athlete that the IAAF should be duty-bound to recognize the country's decision.

    We'll have to agree to disagree because I'm never going to believe that the sport is 'harmed' (not saying that you said that...) by the occasional athlete switching countries. But, I do believe the athlete is in some cases, irreparably harmed by NOT being allowed to switch.

    Leave a comment:


  • JumboElliott
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    Exactly? No, not exactly.

    What makes a country?
    -A flag
    -A currency
    -A capital
    -A boundary...more or less
    -A government/head of state

    That country/govt/head of state gets to determine who her people are. If a country decides to bring in exceptional people to further their country in any way, and give them citizenship, it's their right to do so (it's not like there is ONE way to determine citizenship eligibility and it goes beyond the purview of the IAAF to determine citizenship for countries). Other countries determine their leaders by popular votes, are leaders who are not elected by popular vote illegitimate? (rhetorical question, not trying to make it MORE political...)

    Israel through "Law of Return" grants those who are Jewish Israeli citizenship and we've seen many athletes in MANY sports take advantage of it. Even when they had never grown up or even traveled to Israel previously. That is Israel's right. And, yet you never read/hear the condemnation.

    Bahrain and Qatar athletes are as legitimate as the natural-born and naturalized athletes of any country. And this is a made-up argument of "betters" upset at the medal count of "lessers".
    I come from the United States. We are not suffering for medal count. While I find it unseemly that Gulf States do this, particularly given the stories about these athletes having their passports taken and being left destitute when they're beyond their use, my preference would have been that the IAAF took no action whatsoever.

    With that said, given that the IAAF has decided to make rules on this issue, I think that there needs to be some recognition that not all transfers of allegiance are treated equally. Rai Benjamin, a natural born U.S. citizen seeking to transfer allegiance from another country where he holds citizenship by birth should not be treated the same as an athlete who has never set foot in Qatar or Bahrain and would not otherwise meet their naturalization requirements.

    Leave a comment:


  • crymeariver
    replied
    Originally posted by TN1965 View Post
    Every country has the right to decide who their citizens are for their own internal purposes. Whether that is accepted by others is an entirely different question. You may want to read this ICJ case.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottebohm_case
    Thanks. Interesting. I posted the dissenting opinions below.

    The Swiss, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-re...D-01-03-EN.pdf

    1 have reached the conclusion that it was for the Court to determine whether F. Nottebohm validly and effectively acquired nationality in accordance with the municipal law of Liechtenstein in such a manner that the validity and effectivenessof the natura- lization cannot be the subject of any doubt.




    Norwegian, http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-re...D-01-02-EN.pdf

    But if a State has in principle the exclusive competence to regulate questions of nationality by its own legislation without interference by other States, it is difficult to see on what ground
    its own interpretation and application of this same legislation could be open to challenge by other States.
    Such a challenge is possible in theory on the ground that the legislation or the application thereof is inconsistent with international law ; but the question now under consideration is only whether the author- ities of Liechtenstein have applied their local law in a manner consistent with the provisions of that local law.


    and Canadian dissented http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-re...D-01-01-EN.pdf

    There is another aspect of this case which 1 cannot overlook. Mr. Nottebohm was arrested on October ~ g t h1,943, by the Guate- malan authorities, who were acting not for reasons of their own but at the instance of the United States Government. He was turned over to the armed forces of the United States on the same day. Three days later he was deported to the United States and interned there for two years and three months. There was no trial or inquiry in either country and he was not given the opportunity of confronting his accusers or defending himself, or giving evidence on his own behalf.

    Leave a comment:


  • TN1965
    replied
    Originally posted by crymeariver View Post
    Exactly? No, not exactly.

    What makes a country?
    -A flag
    -A currency
    -A capital
    -A boundary...more or less
    -A government/head of state

    That country/govt/head of state gets to determine who her people are. If a country decides to bring in exceptional people to further their country in any way, and give them citizenship, it's their right to do so (it's not like there is ONE way to determine citizenship eligibility and it goes beyond the purview of the IAAF to determine citizenship for countries). Other countries determine their leaders by popular votes, are leaders who are not elected by popular vote illegitimate? (rhetorical question, not trying to make it MORE political...)

    Israel through "Law of Return" grants those who are Jewish Israeli citizenship and we've seen many athletes in MANY sports take advantage of it. Even when they had never grown up or even traveled to Israel previously. That is Israel's right. And, yet you never read/hear the condemnation.

    Bahrain and Qatar athletes are as legitimate as the natural-born and naturalized athletes of any country. And this is a made-up argument of "betters" upset at the medal count of "lessers".
    Every country has the right to decide who their citizens are for their own internal purposes. Whether that is accepted by others is an entirely different question. You may want to read this ICJ case.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottebohm_case

    Leave a comment:


  • crymeariver
    replied
    Originally posted by JumboElliott View Post
    Exactly.

    Meanwhile, these are the criteria of naturalization in Qatar:

    legally resided in Qatar for 25 years with gaps not exceeding 6 months.
    is of good character and has a clean criminal record.
    has legal ways of earning a living.
    has enough knowledge of the Arabic language.

    They are essentially the same in Bahrain. What Qatar and Bahrain are doing is the American equivalent of congress passing private laws to naturalize citizens so that they can compete for the United States absent extraordinary circumstances.
    Exactly? No, not exactly.

    What makes a country?
    -A flag
    -A currency
    -A capital
    -A boundary...more or less
    -A government/head of state

    That country/govt/head of state gets to determine who her people are. If a country decides to bring in exceptional people to further their country in any way, and give them citizenship, it's their right to do so (it's not like there is ONE way to determine citizenship eligibility and it goes beyond the purview of the IAAF to determine citizenship for countries). Other countries determine their leaders by popular votes, are leaders who are not elected by popular vote illegitimate? (rhetorical question, not trying to make it MORE political...)

    Israel through "Law of Return" grants those who are Jewish Israeli citizenship and we've seen many athletes in MANY sports take advantage of it. Even when they had never grown up or even traveled to Israel previously. That is Israel's right. And, yet you never read/hear the condemnation.

    Bahrain and Qatar athletes are as legitimate as the natural-born and naturalized athletes of any country. And this is a made-up argument of "betters" upset at the medal count of "lessers".

    Leave a comment:


  • JumboElliott
    replied
    Exactly.

    Meanwhile, these are the criteria of naturalization in Qatar:

    legally resided in Qatar for 25 years with gaps not exceeding 6 months.
    is of good character and has a clean criminal record.
    has legal ways of earning a living.
    has enough knowledge of the Arabic language.

    They are essentially the same in Bahrain. What Qatar and Bahrain are doing is the American equivalent of congress passing private laws to naturalize citizens so that they can compete for the United States absent extraordinary circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by gh View Post
    U.S. relaxes citizenship timeline for those who join the army, although I guess that may cease to be a thing.
    However, fast-track citizenship is available (for now) to the general population of noncitizens who join the US military, not just athletes.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    U.S. relaxes citizenship timeline for those who join the army, although I guess that may cease to be a thing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X