Thread: Question about dual citizenship

Is it or is it not constitutional to hold dual citizenship and hold a post in the administration? I didn't think that the US recognized dual citizenship. If we don't recogniz it or it is unconstitutional, why do we have several people with dual citizenship in Nobama's administration?

While the following does not answer agrneygirl's specific question, it does deal with the greatly increased incidences of dual citizenship in the U.S.

July 30, 2008

The Issue of Dual Citizenship in the US
Nancy Salvato

"[In a republic, according to Montesquieu in Spirit of the Laws, IV,ch.5,] 'virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtue; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself... Now a government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it... Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education; but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book

There is an issue, rarely discussed in the news, which has critical implications for our national security and political sovereignty. The United States is one of the most permissive countries in the world with regard to dual citizenship. Our government recognizes dual citizenship and tolerates multiple citizenships. How did it come to this?

According to the U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8, it is the job of the legislative branch to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Most people are familiar with, in one form or another, the oath of citizenship, which must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens. Following a pattern set in 1795, our naturalization law spells out the oath to which a new citizen must swear.

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.

So how can an immigrant take such a citizenship oath and still maintain citizenship in a foreign country?

Back in the days of King George, when the United States first declared independence, English common law dictated that only the sovereign could release a citizen from allegiance to a country. As a result, England “impressedâ€

Originally Posted by agrneydgrl

Is it or is it not constitutional to hold dual citizenship and hold a post in the administration? I didn't think that the US recognized dual citizenship. If we don't recogniz it or it is unconstitutional, why do we have several people with dual citizenship in Nobama's administration?

It used to be that way, at least when I became a citizen, I had to denounce my birth citizenship. I wonder who "lobbied" to change this?

The interesting thing about dual citizenship is that if your birth country has a mandatory draft (as does the US), who will you sign up with? Can't do both.

By the way, I think mexico should recall all its military eligible dual citizens to serve in their drug war. If you still hold mexican citizenship, it is mandatory, I wish they'd enforce it.

And this describes the specific intent and official policy of the Mexican government to create an entire class of "dual U.S./Mexico" citizens whose first loyality is to Mexico.

Men with Two Countries
Points that American negotiators should keep in mind while they consider how best to help Mexico.

By John Fonte, senior fellow, Hudson Institute
March 21, 2002 8:35 a.m.

The specter of massive dual citizenship is haunting the upcoming Bush-Fox meeting. Mexico wants "regularization." This means "green cards" or legal work status for approximately three million illegal immigrants from Mexico leading to eventual American citizenship. However, under a 1998 Mexican law these new American citizens could retain "Mexican nationality" and even their children, who are born in the U.S., could claim Mexican dual citizenship.

Linda Chavez, a leading pro-immigration Hispanic Republican warned of the unique challenge of Mexican dual citizenship to American national cohesion. She said, "although some other countries…allow dual nationality — no other nation sends as many immigrants to the United States or shares a common border…for the first time millions of U.S. Citizens could declare their allegiance to a neighboring country."

America is the most successful immigrant country in the history of the world. Our success is based on what could be called "patriotic assimilation" in which immigrants transfer political allegiance from their birth country to the United States and become Americans as loyal as any descendants of the Mayflower. This core American principle should be at the heart of the current U.S.-Mexican negotiations on the status of illegal Mexican immigrants.

Today, American negotiators are focused on how best to help Mexican President Vincente Fox's reform policies while strengthening border security in the new post-9/11 world. The desire to help Fox makes sense. Fox is the first Mexican president since the revolution (1910-1920s) to seriously attempt free-market and democratic reforms. An economically stronger and more democratic Mexico is good for the U.S. as well as for the Mexican people, and would help alleviate the illegal immigration problem in the long run.

However, there are two points that American negotiators should keep in mind while they consider how best to help President Fox. First of all, President Fox's success will ultimately depend on how well he handles the intricacies of Mexican domestic politics. A knowledgeable pro-Fox American commentator, Michael Barone, notes that the new president's efforts to deal with the Chipas rebels, tax reform, official corruption, and the Mexican Congress (his party is in the minority) have stalled. In the end, there is only so much the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress realistically can do to help President Fox, as admirable as their motives may be.

Second, while working cooperatively on many issues, American negotiators must, at the same time, counter Mexican actions that challenge our core national interest in assimilating immigrants as patriotic Americans with undivided political loyalty to the United States. Writing in National Review (October 12, 199 Jorge Amselle (like Linda Chavez, a pro-immigration Latino Republican) warned that, "The Mexican government through its promotion of bilingual education and of dual nationality and voting is actively subverting the assimilative process of Americanization…."

Amselle was referring to the official Mexican government policy of acercamiento ("getting closer" or "establishing a bond") to "Mexican communities abroad," meaning both Mexican citizens living in the United States and Mexican Americans who are U.S. citizens. This policy was started by the old PRI regime and has been considerably expanded by Fox. The spirit of this policy is exemplified by Juan Hernandez, a Texas-born Mexican-American dual citizen, who is Fox's cabinet minister for Mexicans Abroad.

Hernandez told Nightline that "we are betting" that Mexican-Americans who are American citizens (even after several generations) will "think Mexico First." Hernandez and other Mexican officials continually repeat the refrain that Fox is the leader of 120 million Mexicans, 100 million in Mexico and 20 million in the United States. Since this concept would, by definition, include not only Mexican migrants who sometimes work north of the Rio Grande, but also millions of American citizens of Mexican descent, many of whom were born in the United States — it is clearly in contradiction to traditional American principles of civic assimilation and immigrant loyalty.

Two years ago, before Fox became president, his current national-security adviser, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, advocated a policy in which the Mexican government would work politically with the "20 million Mexicans" in the U.S. to advance Mexican "national interests." In El Siglo de Torreon on May 5, 2000, Zinser attacked American attempts to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border. He declared that "Mexicans are subjected every day to mean-spirited acts and their rights are permanently threatened by ambitious politicians who are hunting for the Anglo vote." After disparaging the "reactionary Senator Jessie Helms," Zinser recommended that Mexico "find allies in the U.S. political system" particularly among "Liberal Democrats, labor unions, civil rights organizations, and social movements."

Last month The Californian (Salinas) reported on February 26 that the Mexican counsel general in San Jose, Marco Antonio Alcazar, told Mexican-American fifth and six graders at a school in Salinas that because of Mexico's dual-nationality law they have "the right to automatically obtain Mexican citizenship." Alcazar declared, "This is exciting because there are many children, who were born in the United States, whose parents are Mexican. And these children have the opportunity now to enjoy two different nationalities…" Alcazar gave the school "complete collections of educational books from the Mexican government, intended to help students understand Mexican history and culture."

How different the schools are today from those that educated the children whose parents came through Ellis Island. In those far off days, the children of Italian immigrants did not study the exploits of Garibaldi and Mazzini in American public schools with textbooks provided by the Italian government. Instead, the emphasis was on assimilating the children of immigrants by teaching them about American heroes such as Washington and Lincoln.

The words and actions of Hernandez, Zinser, and Alcazar tell us that some Mexican policies represent a challenge to America's interest in assimilating immigrants as loyal Americans. Even President Bush's point man in Congress on Mexican border issues, Congressman Chris Cannon (R., Utah) is concerned about Mexico's promotion of dual citizenship. Cannon told the National Journal (March 2) "You need to be clear about where your loyalties are."

Of course, despite these problems, it remains in America's interests to encourage economic and democratic reforms in Mexico. Thus, Brookings scholar Robert Leiken has suggested, in a report for the Center for Immigration Studies, that private sector development aid for Mexico focus on investment and infrastructure in those poor zones in the southern and central parts of the country where most immigrants originate.

In short, American negotiators with Mexico should be able "to walk and chew gum at the same time." They should defend American interests in post-9/11 border security and in the patriotic assimilation of new immigrants, while promoting trade and to the extent realistic helping to strengthen Fox's admirable economic and democratic reforms.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 2102.shtml

Here is a shorter (fewer words) answer to that question.

The Constitution no longer applies.

Assimilation is not what the Mexican parents want and they are teaching their kids that message. They probably are conveying that Mexico is greater than the United States and these kids need to uphold the take-over of this country. I guess we really ticked them off when we bought the southwestern territories from them. If this keeps going, we won't only have to worry about suicide nuts screaming God is Great in Arabic, but perhaps start worrying about Si Se Puede.

Thanks for the info. I just thought it odd that many in Nobamas administration carried duel citizenship. I would have thought to hold a high position in the admin that it might be a problem of loyalty. But then again, we might have a foreigner as a president.