In the early years of American politics it was the Federalists who held power in the new American executive and Congress. The Federalists feared the inflow of new immigrants into America were placing them at a political disadvantage. Since most new immigrants were European and had fled tyrannical governments their politics were Republican.

At the time US Citizenship only had a two year residency requirement. The Federalists in response to this nature of immigration extended the residency requirement to five years and then in 1798 to fourteen years.

Two statutes followed those citizenship changes to halt the enemy within. The Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Act. Under the enemies act citizens of a nation the US was at war at could be locked up or deported. The Friends Act enabled the President to lock up or deport any non-citizen deemed dangerous to the United States.

Stone writes:

Under this legislation, the individual had no right to a hearing, to be informed of the charges against him, or to present evidence on his behalf. The act vested absolute power over such persons in the president.

Those two acts were prior to the Sedition Act of 1798 which is a well known historical piece of legislative tyranny.

It is remarkable that we keep fighting these same battles over and over. The Australian Migration Act vested absolute power in the executive through the Minister - which we saw used in the Haneef instance.

Government keeps granting itself these powers under the auspices of an alien enemy within and then abuses that absolute authority almost immediately. This is why a Bill of Rights and explicit Constitutionalism to enforce limited government are so necessary.

Government quite simply cannot be granted or trusted with those powers in a liberal democracy.

From an article exploring the modern hopelessness of things being outside of the individuals control and requiring a group action, ie political, to reign it back;

"All those periods [of low American national esteem] were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored," he said. "Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again."

Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House. This period has seen intense interest in the presidential primaries ... Records were shattered by voters showing up at polling places, yearning for a voice in who will next guide the country as it confronts the uncontrollable.

One of the reasons I wanted to gain American Citizenship before the Presidential election is because I think this is a very important election; both locally, nationally and globally. The world is kind of waiting with baited breath and hope that America won't elect another moron who can't govern.

Democracies tend to give governments one chance too many, it is the same in Australia with the several moribund governments, including Howard's and Carr/Iemma too many chances after it become obvious they lost the will to govern in the public interest. America is no different. The blood letting in the recent legislative elections shows the remorse for that bad decision to leave Bush in the executive.

It appears I won't be able to become an American citizen in time for the election, I saw an immigration lawyer recently and his legal advice was to wait until I am divorced first. Otherwise it will unnecessarily complicate matters and expose the nationalization process (read bureaucracy) to potential issues (read incompetency).

It is a bit of a shame, apart from thinking this election is important, I have been disenfranchised from the Australian electoral process for many years now. I am democratically stateless. I pay taxes, own property and am expected to abide by laws; yet I have no say in the politics of either nation.

You would assume if nationalism is the over-riding political right, as it seems to have been in the politics of nativism in Australia recently, then surely I would never be disenfranchised from the Australian process.

Then again if by republican principles political right comes from having a say in being governed, following the laws from popularly elected representatives including property ownership, then surely I would have a democratic say locally.

Nationalism knocks both those on the head and is in opposition to both liberalism and republicanism. It is one of the inefficiencies of constitutional liberalism that nationalism can be used to disenfranchise, not enfranchise.