Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US also does not recognize dual-citizenship. If she was an Iranian citizen before becoming a US citizen, then she was required to renounce her Iranian citizenship before becoming a US citizen.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The USA actually has no stance on dual citizenship and thus does not oppose it. Furthermore, the US has no aversion to people holding two different passports from two different countries.
I have a number of dual citizen Brit/American friends to prove it.
Yes, we have a lot in common with the Iranian people, and books like Reading Lolita in Tehran show that. But the author, Nasifi (sp?) is she typical of Iranian women? She was born into some degree of privilege. Mayor of Tehran's daugher. And off to England at the age of 13 for her education. And has lived in the US for a significant portion of her life. She's given us a different viewpoint, but I suspect that her viewpoint is very different from the viewpoint of an Iranian woman who was not born into privilege, who did not go abroad for her education, and who was raised completely in Islamic tradition. When we talk about changing their cultural beliefs, we are also talking about changing their religious beliefs, because in a theocracy such as Iran, the two are intimately intertwined. What right do we have to tell them their religious beliefs are false? And if our country advocates freedom of religion, should we be challenging the religious beliefs of these people at all?
Actually, Nasifi is probably fairly typical. Even with the revolution, Irani women tend to be educated. Afghanistan is a different story.....more then likely urban women were better educated and more liberated then rural/poor women. Still, neither group lived a life that would be equivalant to the life they led under the Taliban. When a group can outdo Saudi Arabia on treating women like farm animals, then you know you have a problem.
The more I read about life for muslim women before and during Islamic theocratic reigns, the more I understand that this really isn't about culture or religion. After all, if it were religion all muslims would treat their women like filth. If it were cultural, then there would never have been periods of liberation- wearing short skirts, becoming drs, working with men and the like.
No, it is purely political - a way to control the masses. Much like the evil West is used to distract the poor of say Iran and like women who are subjegated are a way to distract men who may feel impotent within their now tattered and defunct nation. This is not culture. This is not religion. This is a human rights violation. Because after all, one shouldn't have to be a Westernized country in order to be held accountable for offenses like murder, torture and rape.
Iran is at war with "Terror" and "Espionage"... the info that she provided is top secret so we don't know what it is... but that is the Iranian government's claim... so they would like to torture an American citizen... and under America's theory of self-defense, they are justified.
It seems to me that you are saying that, because President Bush allowed our intelligence gatherers to use coersive techniques, including some that many consider torture, then it's ok for other country's to use those, or possibly even other torturous techniques on our people? Is that what you are saying?
Actually, Nasifi is probably fairly typical. Even with the revolution, Irani women tend to be educated. Afghanistan is a different story.....more then likely urban women were better educated and more liberated then rural/poor women. Still, neither group lived a life that would be equivalant to the life they led under the Taliban. When a group can outdo Saudi Arabia on treating women like farm animals, then you know you have a problem.
The more I read about life for muslim women before and during Islamic theocratic reigns, the more I understand that this really isn't about culture or religion. After all, if it were religion all muslims would treat their women like filth. If it were cultural, then there would never have been periods of liberation- wearing short skirts, becoming drs, working with men and the like.
No, it is purely political - a way to control the masses. Much like the evil West is used to distract the poor of say Iran and like women who are subjegated are a way to distract men who may feel impotent within their now tattered and defunct nation. This is not culture. This is not religion. This is a human rights violation. Because after all, one shouldn't have to be a Westernized country in order to be held accountable for offenses like murder, torture and rape.
I have to take issue with this. Culture isn't written in stone. And within a country you yourself have just stated that there is a range of behaviors. If Afghani women in urban areas were more liberated than in rural areas, that is a range. Is it religion in the United States when women who are Fundamentalist Baptists or Pentecostals or other religions are forbidden to cut their hair, forbidden to wear make-up, forbidden to wear pants but intead must wear long-sleeved dresses that reach the top of their ankles? Or is it political? These women choose to abide by these restrictions. And many women in Islamic countries also willingly abide by the restrictions there because of their religious beliefs.
Murder, torture and rape are wrong. But the people in Afghanistan and the people in Iran will point out, there is murder, torture and rape happening in America, too. I agree with you that the Taliban is extremist, and that the theocratic government in Iran is too restrictive. But they will argue with you that America is extremist, that America is not restrictive enough, and that we are not protecting our people enough. They don't see what they do to women as oppressive, but instead they see it as protective. There is always a balance that has to be achieved, and the balance is unique to each society. We may think that we have found a better balance, but it's not perfect, we still have plenty of problems. They may think they have found a better balance, but it's not perfect, they still have plenty of problems. The balance we have may not work in their country. There culture may not be prepared to deal with the resultant problems. The key is in knowledge. Learning about their beliefs, gaining insights into their beliefs and their way of life, appreciating the differences and the similarities between us. It's the foundation of mutual respect, the foundation of working out the issues between countries peacefully rather than by force.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The USA actually has no stance on dual citizenship and thus does not oppose it. Furthermore, the US has no aversion to people holding two different passports from two different countries.
I have a number of dual citizen Brit/American friends to prove it.
You are mistaken. US Citizenship Oath:
Quote:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Other nations, like the UK and Canada, do allow dual-citizenship. Therefore, you can hold two passports. However, the US (and apparently Iran) do not recognize the citizenship of any other nation.
If the Iranian government says she is a terrorist, are you gonna believe them or would you rather see some proof? Maybe if they torture her and she confesses, that will count as proof?
Other nations, like the UK and Canada, do allow dual-citizenship. Therefore, you can hold two passports. However, the US (and apparently Iran) do not recognize the citizenship of any other nation.
The US cannot take away your foreign citizenship. Only the other country of citizenship can do that, and the US does not require this. The US does not recognize your foreign citizenship once you become an American citizen, but it cannot and does not attempt to influence the citizenship rules of other countries.
Other nations, like the UK and Canada, do allow dual-citizenship. Therefore, you can hold two passports. However, the US (and apparently Iran) do not recognize the citizenship of any other nation.
Natural-born citizens don't swear the oath. Does that make a difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
