Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dual citizenship folly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dual citizenship folly

    Dual citizenship folly
    By Bruce Fein

    Washington Times
    March 1 2005


    The United States should end its folly of tolerating dual citizenship
    for persons who vote, serve in office, or otherwise demonstrate
    allegiance to a foreign government.
    As the New Testament sermonizes, "No man can serve two masters:
    for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will
    hold to one, and despise the other." The United States Constitution
    thus prohibits any federal officeholder, without the consent of
    Congress, from accepting "any present, emolument, office, or title of
    any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

    Most would be stunned to learn, however, that under U.S. law (8
    U.S. Code, section 1481), a person may retain citizenship despite
    enrolling in the armed forces of a foreign nation at war with the
    United States, serving as president of a foreign state, or even
    committing treason. Raffi Hovannisian on becoming Armenia's foreign
    minister, declared, "I certainly do not renounce my American
    citizenship." Muhamed Sacirbey, foreign minister of Bosnia in
    1995-1996, did not lose his U.S. citizenship. The chief of the
    Estonian army from 1991-1995, Aleksander Einseln, likewise enjoyed
    dual citizenship. As Thomas M. Franck has chronicled, several
    Americans have represented their other country of citizenship as
    ambassadors to the United Nations.
    Last month, the Mexican Chamber of Deputies passed legislation
    endowing 10 million Mexican and Mexican-Americans with the
    opportunity to cast absentee ballots from the United States in the
    2006 Mexican presidential elections. The Central Mexican state of
    Zacatecas embraces Mexican migrants as candidates for electoral
    office. Andres Bermudez, a wealthy California grower christened the
    "Tomato King," captured a mayoralty. Two other immigrants garnered
    seats in the state legislature. Mexican candidates routinely
    motorcade in the U.S. seeking political support from
    Mexican-Americans.
    The magnitude of the dual citizenship-divided loyalty problem is
    elusive. Approximately 60 countries permit expatriates or migrants to
    vote via absentee ballots, including Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil and
    Honduras. The number permitting dual citizenship has been variously
    estimated at from 37 to 89. The U.S. government neither records nor
    estimates the number of its dual citizens. But baseline figures and
    trends are troublesome. The foreign-born population in the United
    States probably approaches 30 million to 35 million, or approximately
    10 percent. That percentage is climbing because of disproportionate
    youth and high fertility.
    And immigrants to the United States characteristically arrive
    from nations that accept dual citizenship. In sum, the problem of
    split allegiances cannot be swept under the rug as an inconsequential
    crumb.
    Patriotism is the alpha and omega of national strength, even if
    occasionally misappropriated as the last refuge of a scoundrel.
    Undivided devotion to the United States and embrace of its hallowed
    ideals and heroes are what make the nation flourish. Single
    citizenship finds expression in eagerness to enlist in the armed
    forces or to support its soldiers; to participate in the nation's
    political affairs; to join voluntary private organizations, like the
    Rotary Club, the League of Women Voters or the PTA; to cooperate with
    law enforcement; to make donations to domestic charities; and, to
    promote America's signature culture by living and breathing social
    equality, nondiscrimination, individual rights, the rule of law and
    freedom of speech.
    Dual citizens who demonstrate political attachments to a foreign
    government, in contrast, will be less resolute in celebrating and
    advancing the interests of the United States. They will be less
    inclined to sacrifice to make the nation like a sparkling "city that
    is set on an hill," in the manner that Augustus Caesar "found Rome a
    city of bricks and left it a city of marble." Furthermore, if dual
    citizenship is indulged with official nonchalance, the lofty ideals
    associated with American citizenship will be dimmed.
    Accordingly, Americans who vote in a foreign election, occupy any
    office in a foreign state, enlist in a foreign army, attempt to
    overthrow the U.S. government, or otherwise affirm allegiance to a
    foreign nation should forfeit their citizenship. Accomplishing that
    is clouded by the United States Supreme Court decision in Afroyim v.
    Rusk (1967). There, a narrow 5-4 majority held unconstitutional a
    statute that made voting in a political election in a foreign state a
    justification for revoking citizenship acquired by naturalization.
    Writing for the court, Justice Hugo Black broadly sermonized that
    the 14th Amendment permits loss of citizenship only by voluntary
    relinquishment. Obeying that edict, current federal law makes a
    specific intent to relinquish United States nationality the
    touchstone for its loss.
    Congress should either propose a constitutional amendment to
    overcome Afroyim; or, enact legislation that deletes the specific
    intent requirement in the expectation that the high court will
    reconsider the precedent. Dual allegiances do not imminently threaten
    the fabric of the United States. But they fuel a yawning indifference
    to American customs and civic spirit indispensable to national
    vitality.

    Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international
    consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.
Working...
X