Just wondering what you meant by this.

In modern day society, you are allowed to actually a full citizen of more than one nation. If you are such a person & both nations go to war, which nation would you fight for if they both needed you?

Situations can change. National allies can find themselves in opposition. I'm not sure but I think it was developement when Israel was created. At least in the US.
It used to be required to document in the old country first, that you renounced citizenship there, before you would be considered for possible US citizenship. India recently passed laws allowing dual citizenship. Dual citizenship allows by definition foreign nationals to vote in presidential elections. I consider this a mess.

US law differentiates between a US citizen and a US national.

There is also a growing occurence of anchor babies by illegal aliens. The US Supreme Court has dealt with the citizenship of children of legal immigrants or US nationals. It has never dealt with the legality of children where both parents are illegal aliens.


§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth


Release date: 2006-04-21

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(B) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
© a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction. They are citizens of their home country. US law on citizenship by birth incorporates two traditional legal principles, not one.

ius soli ("right of the soil"), under which citizenship results from being born in the US, and

ius sanguinis ("right of the blood"), under which citizenship results from having an American parent or parents

I see illegal aliens as enemy forces in hostile occupation of a portion of the country's territory. They lawlessly entered the nation & I believe are occupying it in hostility as they cause detriment to US citizens. This negates their ius soli credibility. Children of illegal aliens are the product of a hostile act. Its either that or children of illegal aliens can be removed from all ties of illegal alien parents. All natural parental rights disqualified. Which is a rather harsh situation. The former is better for the child's best interest. I think it was right to give that cuban kid back to his father. Legal rights shouldn't exceed an innocent father's rights to his child. Government policies should protect family rights by definition. If we don't do that, we don't serve society well. Legalizing those who enter hostilely is self-destructive of the nation. They will not assimilate, thus diluting national cohesion.

There is also a problem of dual passports. How are we to track anyone entering or exiting the nation when two different national passports can be obtained?

We now have a huge number of foreign nationals in the US, legal & illegal, in limbo as to their intent to assimilate or not to assimilate. The original guest worker visa has a requirement to sign that the person would not seek US citizenship & that their stay would be temporary. Limited to 6 years at most. But that statement is no longer required leaving their intent in limbo, while unlimited extensions to renew the visa is being allowed. Its destroying national cohesion. The benefactors are the representatives of the republic who can manipulate the national population and representation. I highly doubt this is constitutional. Why should the US citizen be subjected to foreign national representation in our government? By definition it is sedition & constitutionally forbidden.

US policy has only been insane since the world wars.

By the way, pray tell why these museums should be exclusive and not inclusive of all genocides if we really want to learn from them? It is a relevant issue. Should Turkey be allowed in the EU without admitting to the Armenian genocide? There's plenty of evidence. Does only the jewish holocaust matter? Public policy gives that appearance.

I'm too tired to try & fix the code into looking like letter b's.

I know what duel citizenship is, I have duel citizenship. The fact is, I would probably not fight for either nation, as I am a semi-pacificst. Futhermore, if the occasion arose that I had to fight for one nation or the other, it would be a simple matter of choseing which nation I agree with. I see no problem there.

And many, many nations offer duel citizenship with the Untied States.

As for your "Illegal Immiagrents are the enemy" close minded rant, yeah, this isn't really the place for that, as such, I won't address it.

Umm, what? Okay, you do know that to get a US passport, you have to renounce your citizenship in another nation, right? At least most of the time. And to get a passport in many other nations, you have to serve a year of military service, and thus lose your US citizenship.

Either way, when you enter the US, they track you US passport. When you land were you are going, they track your US passport.

When you enter the US on a forgein passport, they track your forgein passport. When you land were youa re going, they track your forgein passport.

You can't switch them on the plane, because it will come up that you never left a nation. It isn't hard to track someone at all. I see no problem there.

:lol:
Oh come on Keys and cut the bullshit. As I've stated before, my mother is here with a Resident Alein card, and has been so for the last 19 years. I'm sure with her inablity to vote, she is dirctly causeing the downfall of your nationalist US. There is no fogrien rep in your gov't, because guess what? You have to be a citizen for that. That makes the domestic, now doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I have no idea what you are talking about in reguards to this topic.

I'm applying for dual citizenship as well. Deltasix addressed the issues of tracking dual citizens when you travel abroad--either you're tracked via your visa on your foreign passport, or your tracked via your US passport. Either way you're accounted for.

As for dual citizenship, the rules are different for vairous countries, but by and large the countries that allow dual citizenship are countries that are likely not to be at war with us. Mexico? India? The Philippines? These countries are not hostile to the US--far from it, actually. They're economic interests are closely tied to those of the US.

True, and what Delta said about that again applies--you choose one side or the other. Dual citizenship isn't going to increase the chances of someone being a spy or something. People with just an american citizenship can be just as treasonous/traitorous as someone with dual citizenship.


I'd love to go on about this topic, but it is a slightly different topic (the original topic is the situation/experience of ethnic minorities in the US). Topic split.

"Oh come on Keys and cut the bullshit. As I've stated before, my mother is here with a Resident Alein card, and has been so for the last 19 years. I'm sure with her inablity to vote, she is dirctly causeing the downfall of your nationalist US. There is no fogrien rep in your gov't, because guess what? You have to be a citizen for that. That makes the domestic, now doesn't it? "

Really? Then why is amnesty even an issue since American public so broadly opposes it? Its not the American public being represented that's for sure. If Hillary Clinton was representing Americans from India, then why does she by & large only meet with Indian foreign nationals in the IndiaPac. Almost no Indian Americans work for the Indian companies she meets with in India, in either the US or India offices. In fact I know several Indians who have become American citizens who can't get jobs in their fields here since they've been laid off due to outsourcing because they're Americans now. Which only proves that government is allowing discrimination against Americans in the workplace. Tata & Cognizant don't hire Americans even if they're of Indian decent except as janitors & other low positions. If you search the net you will find job ads which state guest worker visa holder need only apply. The government's response is Americans need to reeducate in order to compete. Now that's BS!

Yeah really. Why is Hillary, a possible Presidental Canidate, dealing with forgein nations?
Hmm, I bet I can give it a guess.

Yes, and you correctly point out that Americans from India are some group of people who one would meet with. Whats your point? Many canidates meet with minorities or people for forgein nations. They don't "subvert the US" as you seem to think. They come here.

Do they lock themselves in a box when they get here, and don't interact with the world? No, they actually don't, which seems to be what you'd require them to do to meet your "non-rep in gov't" clause. But the fact remains that dual citizenship has nothing to do with this.

But the people she is meeting with are NOT Americans as I stated.

Whats your point and how does that actually connet to the issue at hand? I must have misread you, but okay, if they are forgieners, what does that have to do with Dual Citizenship?

In regards to dual citizenship, I was calling into question national loyalties, and that it allows resistance to assimilation which dilutes national cohesion.

Yeah, but what does Mrs. Clinton meeting with people from forgien nations have to do with dual citizenship?

Do politians meet with people from other countries? Sure. Do they take gifts and favor them? Sure. Does this have anything to do with Dual Citizens? Not that I can see.

I was complaining about the number of foreign nationals legal & illegal, in the country, who are here due to federal incentives, are getting representation in the nation. They are more than 25% of the entire national population now and growing due to federal policies. They are here through numerous means. The government is diluting national cohesion. They're here due to numerous policies and changes in our public laws since the early 1980's. These policies are harming the American public and the American public is protesting, yet the government is still continuing these policies. I cited Hillary Clinton, my state senator, as an example as you doubted that foreign nationals are getting representation in our government. Foreign nationals are getting far more representation than the usual humanitarian aid that was the norm before the 1980's. Congressional traveling to foreign nations is far more frequent than was the norm to the point where I wonder why we even have ambassadors. They are supposed to be a go between to prevent corruption. After visiting foreign nations the feds are fast tracking their policies namely foreign aid and free trade agreements. Why the need to rush these policies? Is anyone in danger? Why aren't these things being given time to allow the careful examination they deserve? The American public is constantly being presented with public law changes as fait accompli. Dual citizenships are part of the problem as national cohesion is being diluted through them. Many vote in the elections of both nations. If you're going to vote in our national elections I want to know your voting primarily as an American looking out for American interests & not as an American looking out for foreign interests.

Dual citizenship is not a good thing in my opinion, and the reason for this, is as said, it questions loyalty, but also, it encourages globalization, which is something people of my political slant oppose.

I would say alot more than 25% of Americans are from forgien nations. How many native Americans are left here.......?

This is a nation of immiagrents, its as simple as that. Claiming that there are too many is sorta counter point. I suppose you're of the group of people that want to return our nation to a simpler time of national unity that never existed. I see you just dislike people from other nations that come to the US. Thats fine, your entitled to your personal opinions about that nonsense, its up to you. I see no point in bringing it up in this conversation about dual citizenship.

Do forgieners have representation in gov't? No. Do they sway elected officals on certain occasions? yes. Is there a difference? Yes.

Now, back on topic:

Really? Do you have any stats for that? Because I don't know of any people who vote in both elections, mainly because citizenship doesn't mean you can automaticlly vote in all countries, as I've stated with Mexico. If I wanted to vote in the Mexican Election, which I really don't, I would have to renounce my American Citizenship and join the Mexican military. If a Mexican wants to vote in an American election, they have to renounce their Mexican Citizenship because the law is set up that way.

I've explained why it doesn't question loyality at all, but alright. As for globalization, which we do have a topic about in econ, I'd be interested in seeing what your reasoning against a natural process would be in that thread other than "people of your political slant oppose" it.

India. Israel. I know of people who go back home as they call it to vote although they're American citizens. I don't know if its legal but its done. The few I know served in the military before coming here. It would be difficult to verify until way after the fact. Electoral corruption exist in many nations.

More than 25% of the American population is foreign nationals, not American citizens. Many of the foreign nationals coming in are here to work then go home. Thus they are migrants not immigrants, legal and illegal. Others hope to stay, not because they love America, but because they want to influence American government policy in favor of their original nation. This was not the intent of large immigration flows into this nation before the 1950's. A political agenda was never their intent. That they would assimilate was never called into question. It was difficult, but they did. Their intent was to start new lives as American citizens.

I am not anti-immigration. I am all for an immigration flow into the nation at rates and numbers that the nation can sustain (which means no school overcrowding, no health care systems being bankrupted, no glutting of the labor market leading to wage decreases, etc. on a national scale) and the number of foreign nationals in the nation should never be enough to skew American representation as is occuring in the house of representatives. There should never be blanket massive amnesty because it is incentive for illegal aliens to come, instead of using any of the numerous legal pathways to enter the nation, thus perpetuating the illegal entry problem which places national security at risk. I do believe there should be better coordination of assistance to those immigrants who come here to start new lives as American citizens.

Why do you assume the negative? If I end up voting in another country as well as the US, I'm going to have US interest in mind either way. Dual citizenship can help US interests as much as it can hurt it.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but there are some problems related to dual citizenship in countries where military service is required. If you're born in Country A and have citizenship of Country B because that's where your parents came from, you might be forced to join the army of Country B if this country requires a few years of military service. Unless you stay clear of Country B all your life.

Yeah, I said that a few times.

That's almost exactly the response I was going to give, minus the "semi" part. I don't see any inherent contradiction in holding American and Canadian citizenship (well, aside from cultural matters such as the way in which Canada tends to view itself as "not America"). If military service is required for true citizenship, I have no earthly citizenship. Indeed, I'm probably not a very good citizen of either of my countries, as I firmly believe that my citizenship is in God's kingdom before any earthly principality. And if my allegiance to God comes into conflict with my allegiance to the United States or Canada, I'm going to side with the first. Thankfully, these are two countries in which that happens rather infrequently.

What reason is there for dual citizenship other than financial gain from the secondary nation?

It does question loyalty, and it is just generally disrespectful to your original nation.

If you've lived half of your life in one country, and the other half in the other country, then having dual citizenship is more than just financial gain--it may also be a legal recognition of one's cultural and national identity.

There's only a question of loyalty if the two countries in which you have citizenship have directly conflicting cultural/legal ideologies. That is perhaps why you couldn't be a dual citizen of the USSR and the USA.

Thats odd. I get ZERO money from Mexico, where I am a citizen, seeing as how I am living in the US. Mind telling me how I can get "fiscal gain" from my "secondary nation"?

Also, how does it question loyality in a way that hasn't already be convered and proven to be false in this thread?

I see no problem with Duel Citizenship. I also don't believe it is being disloyal, but even if it is, I dont care! There is nothing wrong with questioning a country rather than blindly following it into whatever doom may come.

During the Cold War era, yeah, dual citizenship could be pretty tough to achieve in the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

There certainly could be a conflict of interest in times of war. Like Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii at the start of hostilities between the nations. Situations like those are few and far between. Dual citizens would certainly face the possibility of forced internship (nice word... for a homey-inprisonment). Iraqi citizens here on visa or having newly gained sole or dual U.S. citizenship certainly aren't being forced into that, but are probably monitored closely for travel.

In today's age, there are probably not very many patriotic nationalists that place their originating country over their current home country... except maybe when the World Cup begins. :) More hostilities will break out over soccer that for fighting for the country of birth's political agendas. Am I right on this point or not? :)

On dual citizenship: I personally wouldn't do dual citizenship, but it doesn't seem a harmful concept to me so go ahead!

Illegal immigrants are harmful. And I agree with Keys that they are an "enemy" but not so much THE enemy... I would say that the issue of illegal immigrants (as in their children) are illegal immigrants without choice in a situation where the child's place of conception is outside a country. If it isn't, well they're hardly going to take any citizenship over their family.. I further disagree that such an argument is close minded either- it isn't close minded to look after one's own interests.

You can only have one passport? Well in the UK you can.. you have to forfeit a foreign passport to obtain a British one. Correct me if this is wrong.