Why do we allow dual citizenship? (represent, education, legal, USA)

[Sweden]

Originally Posted by macmeal

It sounds a lot to me like a person saying "I'm black. I'm black because my parents were black, and I love them, and I'm proud to be black. But I want to join the Ku Klux Klan, because they have REALLY COOL uniforms, and really colorful "meetings". I'm not being DISLOYAL to my parents, I'm just 'broadening my horizons' by being both black, AND a KKK member. That way I get the best of TWO worlds."
Somehow, if a person said that, I'd find it insincere. I'd feel they didn't really understand what they were talking about. Just as I'd feel about a Catholic who was also a practicing Muslim....or an Amish used-car dealer....or a gang-banger who worked part-time for the police department...some things just aren't 'compatible', and one must make a choice.
To MY way of thinking, a "dual" citizen isn't FULLY a citizen of EITHER nation, for the simple reason he's unable to pledge 100% commitment to either place. It doesn't make him "bad"---it's just not possible to be "200%" ANYTHING....

This is a very logical and understandable way of thinking, and I understand it perfectly, but, one has to ask one self to what degree, even as a "100% citizen" of ONE country, one is loyal to one's own country. I'm a Swede, I only have Swedish citizenship, but even I am not willing to do whatever for my country if I don't believe it is the right thing.
Let's say the Swedish government decides to kill all Finns in Sweden because they, let's say, "are a threat to our economy", and the US is against this and goes to war against Sweden to stop it from happening. I'm Swedish, with no "loyalty ties" to the US, but I wouldn't fight for the Swedish side any way. Killing all Finns in Sweden would be wrong, no matter what, and so I would join the US and fight Sweden on this. So, obviously, I cannot be 100% loyal to my own country, despite my 100% citizenship.

When asking why we allow dual citizenship in any country, we must really decide first what we are all supposed to be loyal to.
Is it if one's country goes to war? If so, how often does that really happen, and what would one citizen be able to do? Espionage? One doesn't have to be a dual for that: plenty of 100% Americans were spying on the US for the Russians under the Cold War. Appearantly, 100% citizens can be "disloyal" too.

Is it to what country one really feels that one belongs to? If so, how does it affect a country if a citizen feels more like a citizen to another country than to the country one is living in right now? Apart from a blow to the national pride, how does it hurt the country?
And, again, even 100% citizens can do this. One can be a citizen of one country and one country alone, yet still long to be a citizen of another country instead of that which one "belongs to". I personally know many Swedes who would rather be Britons than Swedes, and who identify themselves more with Britons than with Swedes.

Is it what country one roots for in a game of some sort? Unless one is a player and decides to play "bad" in order to let teh other team win, the only thing that is at stake is "national pride".

What is really loyalty? Is blind loyalty to be preffered over reasonable loyalty? Isn't it better if people think about what to be loyal to, instead of just being loyal for the sake of loyalty?
In the "old days", loyalty was incredibly important, since every country stood on it's own. That's why unions were common between different countries. People as in ethnical people fought other people. Nations fought nations. Back then, people were people, not individuals, and therefore HAD to identify themselves with a people, because if one's country was defeated, there was a risk of being killed by the "other people". But, in today's world with globalization and help from other countries, loyalty of this kind isn't that important in the "civilised world". We can rely on our neighbours, or even countries from far away, in most cases, that they won't attack us and/or that they will aid us in the event of an invasion from another country. People don't need to be loyal to a country today in order to be able to help it. We're more civilized today. Or atleast we're supposed to be.

I'm trying to imagine this discussion taking place in Sweden, but despite my vivid imagination, I really cannot. Because I can't figure out what in the world we are all supposed to be loyal to!? What sort of interests are we discussing? If one is a dual and a conflict between one's both countries arises, and one decides to be loyal to one of the countries, how does it really effect the other country? A person is a person! Unless this person has really great power, for example is a member of a ruling party and therefore can affect the course of politics, one cannot do much. Because, if one is just a dual citizen and has got plenty of money, it doesn't matter if one is dual or not. If one was just 100% citizen of one country and still had all this money, the same thing would happen as if one had been dual.

The question isn't "we do we allow dual citizens" but "why do we allow dual citizens in politics"?
But not even then can we really discuss the matter, because people are individuals. We can generalize as much as we want, but the fact is, that we can never fully tell how one person is going to act or to think. Psychology and biology are about living creatures. One cannot tell what is going to happen with 100% accuracy, even if one can do so in, for example, physics. If one drops a sample of pencils from a certain altitude, one can always tell what is going to happen. The pencils will fall to the ground.

But take a sample of persons and give it some certain stimuli, and you will have different outcomings for every person.

Duals are individuals, just as 100% citizens of one country. People are also incredibly adaptable and adjustable. One doesn't have to be 50% loyal to one country just because one is dual. One can be 100% loyal to either country in different matters. (And this should really be better, since this means that one has to think actively about what is RIGHT, instead of just being blindly loyal just because "it's my country".)
And really, define what one is supposed to be loyal to?

If a person is good for a country, pays one's taxes, behaves well, is being a good "citizen", then why not allow dual citizenship and worry about potential problems when they come, instead of assuming that there will be a conflict.

People are not pencils.

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by macmeal

Once again, it's your right to disagree, and apparently, dual citizenship is perfectly legal in many cases. I admit that this mystifies me. I THOUGHT the 'oath of citizenship' required some sort of pledge of loyalty, and a forsaking of past alliances. I can't imagine most countries admitting new citizens who aren't willing to "Pledge allegiance to the Flag" (as our tiny kiddies USED to do each day in school). And "Allegiance" does have some sort of connotation of loyalty.

It sounds a lot to me like a person saying "I'm black. I'm black because my parents were black, and I love them, and I'm proud to be black. But I want to join the Ku Klux Klan, because they have REALLY COOL uniforms, and really colorful "meetings". I'm not being DISLOYAL to my parents, I'm just 'broadening my horizons' by being both black, AND a KKK member. That way I get the best of TWO worlds."
Somehow, if a person said that, I'd find it insincere. I'd feel they didn't really understand what they were talking about. Just as I'd feel about a Catholic who was also a practicing Muslim....or an Amish used-car dealer....or a gang-banger who worked part-time for the police department...some things just aren't 'compatible', and one must make a choice.
To MY way of thinking, a "dual" citizen isn't FULLY a citizen of EITHER nation, for the simple reason he's unable to pledge 100% commitment to either place. It doesn't make him "bad"---it's just not possible to be "200%" ANYTHING....

Obviously, my view doesn't reflect today's reality. Apparently citizenship is now not so much a matter of commitment--it's more like shopping around for an insurance company. Nothing wrong with "double coverage", I suppose. But even insurance companies OCCASIONALLY get into squabbles--each one wanting the "other guy" to provide coverage, instead of their having to. Sounds like a 'conflict' to me...

Just what kind of "loyalty" are you worried about?

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

Just what kind of "loyalty" are you worried about?

OK, here's an example....it's 1941, and 19-year old "citizen X" lives in a typical suburb in New Jersey. He's an American citizen, and his parents are German immigrants, so he holds German citizenship as well. He's proud of his German heritage, and proud to be an American.

He gets a letter from "his" leader, President Roosevelt, who 'orders' him, as a citizen into the military. There's a war going on, against Germany. He's been 'drafted'.

At the same time, another letter arrives. It's from his GERMAN leader, Adolf Hitler. As a German citizen living abroad, he's ORDERED back to Germany to enlist in THEIR military. There's a WAR going on, against America....and Germany needs all the help it can get.

Without knowing anything else about him at ALL, you can make one statement for certain...and that is, that "Citizen X" is now going to have to make a decision. He's either going to be a "good" American, 'do his duty',and submit to the draft....(and thus be looked at as a DISLOYAL German).....OR he's going to quietly hurry to Germany, enter THEIR military, and be looked at as a "disloyal" American. Either way, ONE country will honor him, and the other will condemn him (and quite possibly, charge him with treason).

Think this is a "far out" scenario? It isn't. It happened to MANY people during WWII. There's nothing "bizarre" about it. It's simply a case of having to 'choose". Nobody can REALLY have it both ways--not when the "stuff" hits the fan. Citizenship involves the concept of loyalty, and the willingness to 'stand by' one's country.

At least, that's the way I see it. (And I DO believe that even NOW, the ceremony of citizenship for immigrants DOES involve a 'loyalty' clause)..

[Arizona Bound]

i do not know IF the immigrants these days,, when they do become a legal U.S. citizen.. if they have to take the same pledge as of those from years back.. durring the Ellis Island days.. they were to pledge allegiance to thier new country.. the USA. I do not see those from south of the border doing this!

They also had to learn English.. Learn American history.. take a test...
back then when the Ellis Island immigrants took that pledge.. THEY meant it!

Boy.. how our immigrants have changed!!!!!!

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by Sweden

This is a very logical and understandable way of thinking, and I understand it perfectly, but, one has to ask one self to what degree, even as a "100% citizen" of ONE country, one is loyal to one's own country. I'm a Swede, I only have Swedish citizenship, but even I am not willing to do whatever for my country if I don't believe it is the right thing.
Let's say the Swedish government decides to kill all Finns in Sweden because they, let's say, "are a threat to our economy", and the US is against this and goes to war against Sweden to stop it from happening. I'm Swedish, with no "loyalty ties" to the US, but I wouldn't fight for the Swedish side any way. Killing all Finns in Sweden would be wrong, no matter what, and so I would join the US and fight Sweden on this. So, obviously, I cannot be 100% loyal to my own country, despite my 100% citizenship.

When asking why we allow dual citizenship in any country, we must really decide first what we are all supposed to be loyal to.
Is it if one's country goes to war? If so, how often does that really happen, and what would one citizen be able to do? Espionage? One doesn't have to be a dual for that: plenty of 100% Americans were spying on the US for the Russians under the Cold War. Appearantly, 100% citizens can be "disloyal" too.

Is it to what country one really feels that one belongs to? If so, how does it affect a country if a citizen feels more like a citizen to another country than to the country one is living in right now? Apart from a blow to the national pride, how does it hurt the country?
And, again, even 100% citizens can do this. One can be a citizen of one country and one country alone, yet still long to be a citizen of another country instead of that which one "belongs to". I personally know many Swedes who would rather be Britons than Swedes, and who identify themselves more with Britons than with Swedes.

Is it what country one roots for in a game of some sort? Unless one is a player and decides to play "bad" in order to let teh other team win, the only thing that is at stake is "national pride".

What is really loyalty? Is blind loyalty to be preffered over reasonable loyalty? Isn't it better if people think about what to be loyal to, instead of just being loyal for the sake of loyalty?
In the "old days", loyalty was incredibly important, since every country stood on it's own. That's why unions were common between different countries. People as in ethnical people fought other people. Nations fought nations. Back then, people were people, not individuals, and therefore HAD to identify themselves with a people, because if one's country was defeated, there was a risk of being killed by the "other people". But, in today's world with globalization and help from other countries, loyalty of this kind isn't that important in the "civilised world". We can rely on our neighbours, or even countries from far away, in most cases, that they won't attack us and/or that they will aid us in the event of an invasion from another country. People don't need to be loyal to a country today in order to be able to help it. We're more civilized today. Or atleast we're supposed to be.

I'm trying to imagine this discussion taking place in Sweden, but despite my vivid imagination, I really cannot. Because I can't figure out what in the world we are all supposed to be loyal to!? What sort of interests are we discussing? If one is a dual and a conflict between one's both countries arises, and one decides to be loyal to one of the countries, how does it really effect the other country? A person is a person! Unless this person has really great power, for example is a member of a ruling party and therefore can affect the course of politics, one cannot do much. Because, if one is just a dual citizen and has got plenty of money, it doesn't matter if one is dual or not. If one was just 100% citizen of one country and still had all this money, the same thing would happen as if one had been dual.

The question isn't "we do we allow dual citizens" but "why do we allow dual citizens in politics"?
But not even then can we really discuss the matter, because people are individuals. We can generalize as much as we want, but the fact is, that we can never fully tell how one person is going to act or to think. Psychology and biology are about living creatures. One cannot tell what is going to happen with 100% accuracy, even if one can do so in, for example, physics. If one drops a sample of pencils from a certain altitude, one can always tell what is going to happen. The pencils will fall to the ground.

But take a sample of persons and give it some certain stimuli, and you will have different outcomings for every person.

Duals are individuals, just as 100% citizens of one country. People are also incredibly adaptable and adjustable. One doesn't have to be 50% loyal to one country just because one is dual. One can be 100% loyal to either country in different matters. (And this should really be better, since this means that one has to think actively about what is RIGHT, instead of just being blindly loyal just because "it's my country".)
And really, define what one is supposed to be loyal to?

If a person is good for a country, pays one's taxes, behaves well, is being a good "citizen", then why not allow dual citizenship and worry about potential problems when they come, instead of assuming that there will be a conflict.

People are not pencils.

Your post makes perfect sense, IF everyone were honorable, ethical, did the right thing' and were considerate of others. In that case, not only would 'citizenship" be irrelevant, even LAWS would be irrelevant. Laws aren't made for "good people"--good people are GOOD. Laws are made for BAD people, who need to be REQUIRED to 'behave".

Citizenship "requirements" (which, I admit, are apparently NOT all that 'plain') like ALL rules and regulations, are aimed at the "worst case scenario". Obviously, MOST nations, MOST of the time, will never require any 'loyalty' from their citizens. Sweden, in particular, as a 'neutral' nation, may see no need to EVER require any sort of 'commitment'. Hopefully, NO decent person would ever submit to their government's order to "Kill All Finns"...(HOWEVER, you must admit that SOME governments HAVE made exactly this sort of moves---which not only impacts THEIR citizens--but the people they're supposed to kill--and anyone else "observing"--let's not give the Human Race TOO much credit, at least not just yet).

Once again, your post makes perfect sense for 'honorable" people---but honorable people aren't the ones we write laws for...

[ontheroad]

An interesting list! Now what do all these folks have in common? And it does appear (see Perle) that you might have cut and pasted this info. I am curious where you got all and;/or some of it.

Originally Posted by Ozark-Baby

DUAL CITIZENS IN THE US GOVERNMENT



Michael Mukasey
Recently appointed as US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Michael Chertoff
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.
Richard Perle
One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media. Paul Wolfowitz
Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.

Douglas Feith
Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.
Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith's deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, "to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat" and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Franklin will "remain free while the government continues with the wider case" and his "prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting" former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, [who] are scheduled to go on trial in April [2006]. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials." (source: sourcewatch.com).
Edward Luttwak
Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.
Henry Kissinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor's mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia's Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It's like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.
Dov Zakheim
Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.
Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century's position paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.
He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11's rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim's watch. We can only guess where that cash went.
Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense. Judicial Inc's bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel's armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.
Kenneth Adelman
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Vice President Dick Cheney's ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband's revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.
Robert Satloff
U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.
Elliott Abrams
National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration's State Department.
Marc Grossman
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.
Richard Haass
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
Robert Zoellick
U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.
Ari Fleischer
Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.
James Schlesinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
David Frum
White House speechwriter behind the "Axis of Evil" label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.
Joshua Bolten
White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.
John Bolton
Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).
David Wurmser
Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.
Eliot Cohen
Member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.
Mel Sembler
President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.
Steve Goldsmith
Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush's Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.
Adam Goldman
White House's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.
Joseph Gildenhorn
Bush Campaign's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.
Christopher Gersten
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.
Mark Weinberger
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.
Samuel Bodman
Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.
Bonnie Cohen
Under Secretary of State for Management.
Ruth Davis
Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).
Daniel Kurtzer
Ambassador to Israel.
Cliff Sobel
Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Stuart Bernstein
Ambassador to Denmark.
Nancy Brinker
Ambassador to Hungary
Frank Lavin</B>
Ambassador to Singapore.
Ron Weiser
Ambassador to Slovakia.
Mel Sembler
Ambassador to Italy.
Martin Silverstein
Ambassador to Uruguay.
Lincoln Bloomfield
Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.
Jay Lefkowitz
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
Ken Melman
White House Political Director. Brad Blakeman
White House Director of Scheduling.

How you would react to the Head of Homeland Security if he or she were a dual national with citizenship in Iran, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia?

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by macmeal

OK, here's an example....it's 1941, and 19-year old "citizen X" lives in a typical suburb in New Jersey. He's an American citizen, and his parents are German immigrants, so he holds German citizenship as well. He's proud of his German heritage, and proud to be an American.

He gets a letter from "his" leader, President Roosevelt, who 'orders' him, as a citizen into the military. There's a war going on, against Germany. He's been 'drafted'.

At the same time, another letter arrives. It's from his GERMAN leader, Adolf Hitler. As a German citizen living abroad, he's ORDERED back to Germany to enlist in THEIR military. There's a WAR going on, against America....and Germany needs all the help it can get.

Without knowing anything else about him at ALL, you can make one statement for certain...and that is, that "Citizen X" is now going to have to make a decision. He's either going to be a "good" American, 'do his duty',and submit to the draft....(and thus be looked at as a DISLOYAL German).....OR he's going to quietly hurry to Germany, enter THEIR military, and be looked at as a "disloyal" American. Either way, ONE country will honor him, and the other will condemn him (and quite possibly, charge him with treason).

Think this is a "far out" scenario? It isn't. It happened to MANY people during WWII. There's nothing "bizarre" about it. It's simply a case of having to 'choose". Nobody can REALLY have it both ways--not when the "stuff" hits the fan. Citizenship involves the concept of loyalty, and the willingness to 'stand by' one's country.

At least, that's the way I see it. (And I DO believe that even NOW, the ceremony of citizenship for immigrants DOES involve a 'loyalty' clause)..

Thats one way to look at it. I believe the factors in which people keep their citizenship from their birth country now-a-days is purely cultural and has nothing to do with loyalty to one nation or the other.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

Thats one way to look at it. I believe the factors in which people keep their citizenship from their birth country now-a-days is purely cultural and has nothing to do with loyalty to one nation or the other.

If you're now 18, you've never personally experienced a situation in which your government actually "required" you to do anything--at all. The 'draft' was done away with long ago, and 'jury duty' is more or less a 'local' thing. Still, I can assure you that living in a 'free society' isn't really free---and there COULD come a time that you might have to "put up or shut up", and you'll have to decide then whether to comply, or (if you're a dual citizen) not to. Whether we'll ever have a 'draft' again, I couldn't say. But I lived through that, and if I hadn't joined the Navy, the Army would have "joined me" (drafted me). It wasn't looked at as 'servitude' or 'loss of freedom", but as a sort of 'duty' just for 'living here'. Lots of the opposition to the draft wasn't due to its existence, per se...it was due to the "stupid" nature of the Viet Nam war....

Maybe you'll never experience that--- but you should be aware of its existence.....Someday, we may be in a REAL war, for a GOOD reason. And we may be REQUIRED (not 'asked') to take part in some way. COULD happen..just when, or how, is anybody's guess.

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by macmeal

If you're now 18, you've never personally experienced a situation in which your government actually "required" you to do anything--at all. The 'draft' was done away with long ago, and 'jury duty' is more or less a 'local' thing. Still, I can assure you that living in a 'free society' isn't really free---and there COULD come a time that you might have to "put up or shut up", and you'll have to decide then whether to comply, or (if you're a dual citizen) not to. Whether we'll ever have a 'draft' again, I couldn't say. But I lived through that, and if I hadn't joined the Navy, the Army would have "joined me" (drafted me). It wasn't looked at as 'servitude' or 'loss of freedom", but as a sort of 'duty' just for 'living here'. Lots of the opposition to the draft wasn't due to its existence, per se...it was due to the "stupid" nature of the Viet Nam war....

Maybe you'll never experience that--- but you should be aware of its existence.....Someday, we may be in a REAL war, for a GOOD reason. And we may be REQUIRED (not 'asked') to take part in some way. COULD happen..just when, or how, is anybody's guess.

I'm not a dual-citizen myself, my mom wants me to but really there is no reason why I would want to. I would never even consider the mere random thought of ever having to move to Mexico. I've been going to the same place where my parents grew up for 17 years. In reality, nothing has changed and I don't think much will ever change. There is certainly a lack of Government support and a huge corruption issue. But seeing as my parents have dual-citizenship, they plan on going there to retire... for just a few months out of the year. My dad doesn't want to stay there for the rest of his life and I don't really blame him.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

I'm not a dual-citizen myself, my mom wants me to but really there is no reason why I would want to. I would never even consider the mere random thought of ever having to move to Mexico. I've been going to the same place where my parents grew up for 17 years. In reality, nothing has changed and I don't think much will ever change. There is certainly a lack of Government support and a huge corruption issue. But seeing as my parents have dual-citizenship, they plan on going there to retire... for just a few months out of the year. My dad doesn't want to stay there for the rest of his life and I don't really blame him.

Of course, at this time, it seems highly unlikely there would ever be a conflict in loyalties between Mexican and US citizenship. I'm looking at it from a US perspective, however, in a very general way. Dual citizenship with Mexico would probably be a 'ceremonial', or financial move. But how about dual citizenship with, for example, Cuba?...or Iran?....or North Korea?....I can see all SORTS of ways BOTH countries would 'come down hard' on such people, every time they traveled back and forth. Imagine a Chinese-American dual citizen. At the very LEAST, both countries would probably severely rerstrict his right to move around, travel freely, etc. China has been particularly hard on its 'natives' who've been living in the West and gone 'home' for a visit. Some of these countries are pretty hostile to THIS country, and I doubt any 'dual citizens' would be able to avoid all kinds of complications.

International politics is a strange world. I can't remember the guy's name, but some years ago, he was 'sent up' for LIFE, in one of the biggest espionage cases to come along in years. Know who he was 'spying for"?...ISRAEL !...one of our all-time biggest 'buddies'.....yep, Israel is a close friend of the US, but don't sell them any of our secrets....that will get you "busted" big time.

So much for 'loyalties' among nations....even 'friendly' ones. (perhaps someone may recall the guy's name. As far as I know, he's still 'in'....and will be, for a LONG time)...