scans_daily: Comics wank colliding with political wank: Like matter and anti-matter ...

Shooting You with My Smile (

box_in_the_box) wrote in

scans_daily,
@ 2009-11-23 02:19 am UTC

Entry tags:

char: superman/clark kent, genre: public service announcement, publisher: dc comics

Comics wank colliding with political wank: Like matter and anti-matter ...

I look forward to seeing the perfect storm of ~~wank~~ calm and rational debate that will ensue in the comments, between competing factions of both superhero comics fans and public policy ideologues.

Superman supports health care and welfare!

From back in the day when Superman used his moral force to say we should do this because it's the right thing to do for our neighbors, never mind if it cost us some tax dollars.

Of course, today he'd be attacked for his position because, after all, he's an illegal immigrant.

And like so many other illegals, we just want him to clean up our messes and do the jobs we can't do for ourselves for non-existent pay, but that doesn't mean we have to acknowledge when he might have a point.

But I could be mistaken. Is there someone out there who can explain why Superman is wrong?

(Hat tip to Kevin H and Wesley Osam.)

This was originally posted online near the end of August, but I don't recall seeing it on this comm, so I thought I'd share it with you all.

(Read 116 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

no subject

kenn_el
2009-11-23 06:33 pm UTC (link)

I think you're misunderstanding the character. Clark didn't even know he was an alien during his early life. Legally, Clark HAS to exist, whether as the Kents' natural son (Post-Crisis?), and therefore default United States citizen, or adopted son, and naturalized citizen. He's no more legally Kal-El than I am legally my birth name, and the United States does not recognize dual citizenship.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 19 comments) (Show 19 comments)

no subject

halialkers
2009-11-23 06:37 pm UTC (link)

I don't think that people tend to realize this, but there's a mite problem in proving that an alien who dropped down in a birth matrix is your kid. Suppose Martha Kent's old paramour or summat had asked for a paternity test? And then, since Superman is an alien would he even have finger prints or iris-patterns like what humans have? There's no logical reason to assume either.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

no subject

kenn_el
2009-11-23 06:45 pm UTC (link)

We're to assume, based largely upon Clark's marriageability, that Clark does indeed register as homo sapiens. But, as I posted previously, much of the basis for Superman works in the decades in which he was created, in terms of technological advancement. Look at 'Smallville's" meteor storm arrivals for the Kryptonian ships, an example of changing the story because modern tech would have picked up Kal's rocket. Also, "Smallville" DOES have the Luthors forge adoption papers for Clark.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

halialkers
2009-11-23 06:47 pm UTC (link)

Well, I mean if we're to assume that way, humans probably did it with Neanderthals and Homo erectus sometimes, too. Hell, in New Zealand the men are men and the sheep run away. That does not change that looking human is not enough to make you one. Otherwise we would have probably turned Neanderthals into the first slaves instead of killing them all off for being pale-skinned brow-ridged freaks.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

darkblade
2009-11-23 06:43 pm UTC (link)

Yes but the Clark identity is still a fabrication by the Kents. A fabrication that Kal believed was the truth for a moderate amount of his life but a fabrication none the less. Unless the Kents wrote down what they found out about Clark being an alien from Krypton on adoption papers and legally changed his name to Clark from Kal then all the citizenship information on him was pulled from the Kent's asses which would completely void his citizenship should it become exposed.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 15 comments) (Show 15 comments)

	no subject halialkers 2009-11-23 06:46 pm UTC (link)
	You forget....Clark looks human, and that's all that matters. Little technicalities like dropping from the heavens in a f!cking space ship don't technically count in the magical land of the DCU legal system. Heh....again, if Superman had looked more like J'onn J'onzz..... (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject jarodrussell 2009-11-23 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	...he would have shape-shifted into the form of John Jones? (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

kenn_el
2009-11-23 06:50 pm UTC (link)

Not true. My citizenship would stand, for instance, if my adoptive parents were found to have fabricated my origins. In fact, my parents were not my sponsors. I think that it wasn't permitted. Not sure about now. It's been a couple of years.
But to Clark, the kents, and the rest of the world, Clark exists. Much as I do.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 12 comments) (Show 12 comments)

no subject

galateus
2009-11-23 10:04 pm UTC (link)

Well yeah, *he* exists, but his legal identity is definitely fake. The situations aren't really comparable--the Kents didn't just say he was from some foreign country instead of Krypton. They pretended their kid was a citizen by birth, got him a social security number and everything else that comes with that, and never tried to get him naturalized at all.

Kal is kinda committing fraud every time he votes.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 11 comments) (Show 11 comments)

no subject

sistermagpie
2009-11-24 01:40 am UTC (link)

He wouldn't be a citizen by birth as soon as the Kent's adopted him? Seems like if you had a kid from an unknown place that you found in Kansas, and you either adopted him or claimed he was your biological child, he'd be a legal citizen of the US, period. He wouldn't be committing fraud in teh least. He's not a citizen of anywhere else.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 10 comments) (Show 10 comments)

	no subject halialkers 2009-11-24 02:22 am UTC (link)
	Except those kids would be human, and hence would be of the same species. Superman is not.. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 9 comments) (Show 9 comments)

no subject

sistermagpie
2009-11-24 02:28 am UTC (link)

Yes, he's a non-human who nonetheless has all the characteristics that are unique to humans on our planet. I'm not sure why a kid with Superman's background--discovered in Kansas and adopted as an infant by a couple who are therefore his legal parents--would necessarily become not a US citizen when it was discovered he had strange, foreign DNA.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 7 comments) (Show 7 comments)

	no subject galateus 2009-11-24 02:37 am UTC (link)
	Legal parents, not biological--the law is being born on US soil (jus soli) or to American parents (jus sanguinis) grants citizenship. Americans adopting a kid doesn't make them automatically a citizen--they still have to be naturalized. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

	no subject sistermagpie 2009-11-24 02:49 am UTC (link)
	Thanks--I didn't know that. Though I guess when the Kent's found him they probably assumed he was American since that's where he was. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject galateus 2009-11-24 02:54 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, they definitely could've assumed that--but I think someone mentioned in another comment the Kents thought he and his rocket were part of a dastardly unethical USSR space-race experiment at the time. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

halialkers
2009-11-24 02:42 am UTC (link)

I didn't know humans could fly and have heat vision and invulnerability and cool Arctic Fortresses. I guess I have to turn in my human card. >.>

You say this in a society where the One Drop Rule has been a very real aspect of our society and where, too, Blood Quantum remains still important for deciding Indian heritage and where until the mid-60s we had eugenics laws on the books?

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

no subject

sistermagpie
2009-11-24 02:48 am UTC (link)

More that humans can talk etc. His consciousness rather than his physical strength or things like this.

It's not that I can't imagine him being rejected on the grounds that he's not human. And obviously yes, there's plenty of history for not allowing people citizenship even if they were human because they were the wrong kind of human. I just think Clark being the only one like himself they might have to think about it--especially since he'd have been living as a citizen for his whole life. I don't think his citizenship would be the priority if he was discovered. Given that he's Superman,I'd think the US would probably want to claim him as one of theirs.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

	no subject halialkers 2009-11-24 02:57 am UTC (link)
	It's arguable that humans are not the only species which can talk, vervet monkeys and some ceteaceans can do so. A person who can single-handedly take over the entire USA. Yeah, that'd go over well. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

no subject

sistermagpie
2009-11-24 03:11 am UTC (link)

Humans are the only animals that have language. But yes, my reaction to a person who could take over the entire USA would be complete fear, myself. I'd think the fear would lead to "kill him" more than questions about his being a citizen. If he grew up as a Kansas farmboy and was Superman I'm not sure people wouldn't want him as a citizen of the country rather than want to possibly send him to another country resentful of the US. I'd imagine people might want to be very careful about how they used any patriotism he had.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject psychopathicus_rex 2009-11-24 09:16 am UTC (link)
	I don't think there's anything on the books saying that you have to be human to be a citizen of a country - it's simply assumed, because we've never had a non-human claiming citizenship as far as we know. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

(Read 116 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)