by tonytran2015 (Melbourne, Australia).
Click here for a full, up to date ORIGINAL ARTICLE and to help fighting the stealing of readers’ traffic.
Blog No. 1xx
#dual citizenship, #multiple citizenship,
1. George Washington warned against foreign influence.
From easily accessible Wikipedia:
Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality. He urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation, arguing that attachments with or animosity toward other nations will only cloud the government’s judgment in its foreign policy. He argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Alliances, he warns, often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America’s allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people…
Washington makes an extended reference to the dangers of foreign nations who will seek to influence the American people and government; nations who may be considered friendly as well as nations considered enemies will equally try to influence the government to do their will. “Real patriots”, he warns, who “resist the intrigues” of foreign nations may find themselves “suspected and odious” in the eyes of others, yet he urges the people to stand firm against such influences all the same. He portrays those who attempt to further such foreign interests as becoming the “tools and dupes” of those nations, stealing the applause and praise of their country away from the “real patriots” while actually working to “surrender” American interests to foreign nations. Washington had experience with foreign interference in 1793 when French ambassador Edmond-Charles Genêt organized American demonstrations in support of France, funded soldiers to attack Spanish lands, and commissioned privateers to seize British ships. Genêt’s mobilization of supporters to sway American opinion in favor of an alliance with France angered President Washington who ordered him to leave…
He argues that the country should avoid permanent alliances with all foreign nations, although temporary alliances during times of extreme danger may be necessary. He states that current treaties should be honored but not extended.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address)
From Library of Congress, a more trustworthy source:
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one 59 the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions;60 by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained;61 and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql. priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me 62 fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be63 constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with64 perfect good faith. Here let us stop. (George Washington’s farewell address, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw2.024/?sp=247&st=text)
2. The rise of “dual citizenship” and the destruction of patriotism.
Believe it or not, the Secretary of State Dean Rusk of Nixon administration was the last defender of the integrity of American citizenship. There are well known 3 court cases involving his Department of State to protect the integrity of US Citizenship [4,5,6].
The actions of the Department of State was not to have some dramatic outcomes of the nature of the case cited in  but sought to uphold the integrity of the American citizenship. Citizenship up to then was to mean exclusive loyalty to only one single country.
However the actions failed and American citizenship from there on has become a commodity with no sacred value.
The failure of Nixon’s government to uphold the exclusiveness of American citizenship has open a flood gate to many non-clear-cut situations which are now acknowledged in US government’s websites.
The official website of the Department of State of USA states that
“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship. However, persons who acquire a foreign nationality after age 18 by applying for it may relinquish their U.S. nationality if they wish to do so .”
and as long as a “dual citizen” keeps clear of the following acts, he would preserve his “dual citizenship”
“Section 349 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. nationals are subject to loss of nationality if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality. Briefly stated, these acts include:
- obtaining naturalization in a foreign state after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
- taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
- entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
- accepting employment with a foreign government after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. nationality before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. nationality within the United States (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law, and any inquiries should be directed to DHS) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
- conviction for an act of treason against the Government of the United States or for attempting by force to overthrow, or bear arms against, the Government of the United States (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA). ”.
This makes it easy for “dual citizens” to exploit their (unfair?) advantages over traditional citizens of the USA.
There has been then many organizations promoting “dual citizenship” and even “multiple citizenship” . A typical promotion is
“…Typically, no American will forfeit his or her citizenship by undertaking the responsibilities of citizenship in another country. This is true even if the responsibilities include traveling with a foreign passport, voting in another country’s election, or running for and/or serving in public office of another country. In most cases, it is unimportant to U.S. authorities whether another country also claims you as a citizen.
The loss of U.S. citizenship can only occur if a person’s actions demonstrate an intent to give up his or her citizenship. Such actions might include:
- Serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the United States.
- Formally renouncing one’s U.S. citizenship in front of a duly authorized U.S. official.
- Committing an act of treason against the United States, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the U.S. Government..”
More definitions and cautions on multi-citizenship can be found in [11-14]. The situation is so hilarious that there is currently something like a contest to reach the most multiple number of citizenship [15-19].
“Dual citizenship” is thus an antithesis to nationalism on which most nations are based on. Opening the flood gate to “dual citizenship” is the first step to con Americans to abolish nationalism. Surely, the American lefts have now called for a World Order without border and with only their (destructive or otherwise) ideology .
3. Notes to commenters.
This is a sensitive issues to many countries. Only comments on theoretical aspects are accepted. Comments mentioning names of races or ethnic groups will not be accepted.
. Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/resource/mgw2.024/?sp=247&st=text
(“While Israelis may hold dual citizenship, a Basic Law passed in 1958 states that Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance as parliamentarians unless their foreign citizenship has been revoked under the laws of that country.”)
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany, (“If today  we give in to demands for dual citizenship, we would soon have four, five, or six million Turks in Germany, instead of three million – Chancellor Helmut Kohl, in 1997.”)
. https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-migrant-program-offers-cautions-us-073113485.html, March 29, 2013, (“Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government has refused calls from Turkish and other immigrant communities to allow dual citizenship. Many immigrants are reluctant to apply for German citizenship because they want to hold on to their original nationality.”)
. https://cnstopstories.com/2018/08/17/citizenship-question-for-2020-census-prompts-strong-criticism-lawsuits/, (Census question on citizenship is now even considered offensive).
Social Issues Blogs,
Controlling of an entity by another is not innocuous, Countries with dual citizenship rules may be internally torn apart, Dual citizenship destroys the integrity of American citizenship, Guide for gutting another country using dual citizens, USA may-had-been-controled-by-a Deep State before Yalta conference,
Click here go to Home Page (Navigation-Survival-How To-Money).
SUBSCRIPTION: [RSS – Posts], [RSS – Comments]
MENU: [Contents][Blog Image of Contents ][Archives ] [About]