-38 votes

I Think Dual Citizenship is Treason

I am against dual citizenship of any kind. When you benefit from the blood spilled by patriots in the past, the least which can be requested of you is undivided allegiance. The United States is not like any other country, even though I am the first to condemn the crimes of our government, in Latin America, in the Middle East, and across nearly every continent in the world. Nevertheless, it is the greatest country in the world. A country is not its government. The fact that we are now being badly betrayed by our leaders and threatened by domestic traitors to the Constitution is another matter. We can recover. One small step is to outlaw what President Teddy Roosevelt called "a self-evident absurdity."

Roosevelt said "We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance."

For most of the country's history, dual citizenship was considered the equivalent of political bigamy. It is a recent development, dating from 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down a law that forced people to relinquish their American citizenship if they acquired another citizenship.

The absurdity gets worse. It so happens some people are subject to relinquishing dual citizenships, as was revealed in the case of Shamai Kedem Leibowitz, an FBI translator with a top secret security clearance who actually did act as a patriot when he leaked documents which might have been related to the NSA’s surveillance of U.S. citizens, and was prosecuted for it by Obama.

In article on Leibowitz, Politico noted:

"The FBI page on contract linguists says: "Applicants for the FBI Contract Linguist position must meet all of the following requirements: United States citizenship; Willingness to renounce dual citizenship.... Ability to meet all FBI Employment Requirements, pass an FBI Background Investigation, and receive a Top Secret Security Clearance ....""

It is also possible that Leibowitz was prosecuted for being behind the leaked news that Representative Jane Harman had allegedly been caught on an NSA wiretap engaging in a quid-pro-quo conversation with an Israeli agent.

Leibowitz is the grandson of a famous Israeli Torah scholar, philosopher and activist, Yeshayahu Leibowitz. He joined the defense team of a Palestinian activist Marwan Barghouti, and is a supporter of a "one-state solution" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He has also supports efforts divestment of U.S. institutions in Israeli bonds.

But I digress. The big question is, why are low-level employees subject to relinquishing their dual citizenship, but not U.S. Congressmen like former Representative Rahm Emanuel, later White House Chief of Staff, or those at the highest levels of an administration's foreign policy apparatus like Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, or Dov Zakheim? Emmanual served in the Israeli Army but not the U.S. one. What does that tell survivors of the USS Liberty?

The idea of liberty dictates that any human being can choose to be a citizen of any country for which he or she qualifies. That's his business. But any country could suddenly be at war with any other country. That is realpolitik. For the privilege of being a citizen of this great country, you must choose.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How about Jefferson:

"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall op- pressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a resi- dence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to eve- ry one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes perma- nently with us?"

Yea, liberal immigration policy has always been in the United State's DNA. It's a core value. If you're concerned about immigrants destroying American values, surely you could agree with letting the first generations live and work here in combination with higher bars for attaining full citizenship. It's the moral thing to do.

Based on your profile and comments, I think you may just have an aversion to anyone who looks different or "talks funny".

You know the other great thing about immigration? The food is AWESOME in immigrant areas!

spicy food...LOL

Accessibility of exotic cuisine does not justify the destruction of a nation. And, in spite of the discussion being steered in this direction, immigration is not the ONLY policy affected by dual citizens, which can have harmful impact on a country.

Your misunderstanding of my personal statement aside, I do not subscribe to your slave morality of kindness, humility, and sympathy simply for the sake of those things. Some people suffer, it is not my responsibility to fix it and I would not demand such acts from you.
It is just part of life.

Consequences of actions mean more than intent. I'm sure you've heard the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

If an act results in harm to the nation to which I am proud to be loyal, then it is bad and an immoral act.

Are you sure you're in the right place?

Is it possible you intended to type www.daily_newt_gingrich_evil_moonbase.com?

You know you're trolling at this point right?

so, now I'm a "troll"


I'm surprised none of you have pulled out the naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, yet. After all, I did write "Zionism", although I have nothing against Israel; I just don't want to be Israeli.

Reflectively, if you will pardon the pun, I wonder whether any of you are in the right place.


At least, I made a point. And, here is another:
We have a dual citizenship problem.

your point is baseless...

Your point is baseless, counterproductive and wrong, based on empirical data and simple facts. I know it's hard to be married to a position and be wrong, but come on man, give it a rest. You've been hammered with logic, facts, morality, what else is there?

When I'm confronted with peer-reviewed backlash, I re-analyze my position with the data provided and change. Growing is difficult. It takes courage to admit being wrong. Man up. What have you done in that position before?

C'mon, dude, you have said nothing.

First of all, my morality is not the slave morality to which most of you appear to adhere. If you don't understand this concept, I suggest you read Friedrich Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morality".
Do you really expect an independent-minded person of Scottish ancestry to be cowed by peer pressure?
Secondly, as a nationalist, Jefferson also had other points on accepting immigrants,

"with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our flag; an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation of being involved in war". ~T.J.

...kinda like when political leaders, with dual citizenship problems and conflicts of interest, lead US into international quarrels for the benefit of another state...

"No endeavor", said Jefferson, "should be spared to detect and suppress" this sort of immigrant.

Not every immigrant is a friend of America. Jefferson was no fool.
And, neither should you be.

The United States has a dual citizenship problem.

HOWEVER, Just to humor you, Prisoner, would you care to demonstrate the "empirical data and simple facts", to which you refer? I would be very interested to know exactly what you meant; and what you imagine this elusive information to have proven. Try to make your case in six points or less, if you will.

you GTFO

Hatred of immigrants is very un-American.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus


n/m I believe I have already replied to your ridiculous comment.

I never said that I hate anyone.

However, I do have a strong aversion to America haters who apparently think they can deride my country, while taking advantage of everything it offers.
That being said, I also have a problem with the current U.S. policy of massive unregulated immigration and FORCED assimilation, if you would like to discuss that.

Don't kill 4 year old dual citizens for treason.

It sort of sounds like they are saying that your four year old is guilty of a crime (treason) that has often been considered a capital offense.

Yeah, my 4 year old is

Yeah, my 4 year old is smuggling top secret neclear reactor designs to the Iranians in between episodes of Curious George and needing help wiping his ass.

I wonder if as a science experiment I started beating him and teaching him hate, I could produce an adult that hates anyone that isn't part of team Murica world police.

That's awesome!

Great response!

Public employees should not have dual citizenship...

...but I have no problem whatsoever with dual citizenship for private individuals.

And, in either case, it's not treason, not as defined in the Constitution.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I would like to see those seeking public office

To be barred from public office if they do not renounce their foreign citizenship.

Hard to have 100% loyalty to the American people and the Constitution if you've taken oaths with foreign entities/countries.

Being a dual citizen does not

Being a dual citizen does not always require an oath. My son was born in the Philippines and by birth was a citizen. I took him to the U.S. embassy and got him registered up at the embassy and obtained a U.S. passport for him. No oathes, he hasn't sworn allegiance to anyone.

"Hard to have 100% loyalty to the American people and the Constitution if you've taken oaths with foreign entities/countries."

Yeah, because we know nobody would ever just repeat an oath and not mean it.

And if he were to be in the enviable position

To choose to run for office, would he choose to renounce foreign citizenship, or would his foreign ties be more important to him than serving America?

If his foreign ties are more important than serving the American public, then he shouldn't be running for office anyway.

Well he is 4 and doesn't know

Well he is 4 and doesn't know about how us silly grown ups draw imaginary lines on pieces of paper to differentiate one king's property from another King's property. To him you are either a nice person or a mean person. Wouldn't it be a better world if we all thought that way? Wouldn't it be a better world if instead of identifying ourselves by a nationality we identified ourselves as humans? There seems to be this primitive tribal need to divide up and put ourselves in conflict with other tribes out of manufactured fear of one another, and false belief that those in the other tribe are inferior, thus killing them is justified.

I hope my son doesn't go anywhere near politics, but if he did it is up to him what he does. I am raising my son to be kind and honest, so he would be a lousy politician anyways. I hope he is proud of his roots from both sides, and if that is an unacceptable position then those people would not deserve him as a public servant. Let them continue to have the cast of clowns they have always and will always root for.

You are probably right, why have a dual citizen that is an upstanding and honest person when you can have a thieving liar that is 100% American and will take any loyalty oath they need to. Just as long as they wear one of the little American flag pins on the collar of their $2k suits. If people come to confiscate firearms they will be full citizens that have taken an oath to the constitution.

We were all 4 once

Unfortunately, the state of our union is a mess.

That's why we are all here.

Defeating socialism (both Republican & Democrat), defending the US Constitution from creeping liberalism, eliminating lobbyists & foreign influence, auditing and shrinking government seems silly to a 4 year old, but not to us.

I think you're thinking about the problem backwards

If you're concerned about influence from exogenous sources on government officials, the answer is to give government officials less power and more public control / oversight. Then make them easier to kick out of office.

It's a systems problem. By the government officials being more influenced by the community, i.e. public shame and accountable, you solve the problem. It doesn't matter if the person isn't even a citizen.

I like your solution as well

Unfortunately, oversight in Washington has become nonexistent.

Oversight in D.C. is now like a dog and pony show.

The legislative branch no longer has full access to many government departments. When a system is failing, one needs a new system with new safeguards.

Especially when the CIA, NSA and some other departments have 'gone rogue' and no longer have full disclosure or oversight.

Who exactly is in charge then? Who has control? Where do their loyalties lie if they are not accountable to the executive, judicial or legislative branches?

If the answer is 'we don't know', then yes, the system needs to be changed.

There is no solution for DC

If you want to change the system, you create a new one. DC will not change, it is in terminal decline.

I think the most realistic way forward is for states and counties to start forcing the issue of their sovereignty and power. We start the solution at our school districts, our county legislature, etc. Power must be moved back to a local system, then distributed and diluted across many more people that live in the community - subject to public community shame.

There is no possible way concentrated power that is thousands of miles away from the people it affects is going to be reigned in. Start local.


Jus sanguinis and Jus soli do not involve oaths. It's possible to hold multiple citizenships without having taken any oaths.

Oh I agree, and thanks for sharing the links

My point is only for high public office holders.

When they CHOOSE to run for public office they must renounce their foreign citizenship/oaths.

After CHOOSING to serve the American public, when their term is complete they can CHOOSE to re-apply for citizenship with whatever foreign country they wish.

Even if the renouncement is non-binding to the foreign entity (ie, they do not lose their foreign citizenship in practice), it should be a requirement for any individual seeking high public office.

Whether elected or appointed.

Thank you for this post

I found it to be a very thoughtful and sensitive appraisal of something that merits more attention and discussion.

the protocols work well

it's good when the cattle protect the self-proclaimed ranchers.

have you noticed that virtually all of the appointed government officials who hold dual citizenship are loyal to a particular strip of bankster-owned land?

I must be anti-AsiaticTurk to make such an assertion.

It's amazing to me to see how deeply the warmongers/money-changers of Western Asia/Eastern Europe have infiltrated this site. Seems they control enough accounts to virtually censor (collapse) any comment they want or disappear most topics through their downvote power.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Calling dual citizenship treasonous is hateful nonsense.

Calling dual citizenship treasonous is hateful nonsense. How can someone be guilty of a crime when the alleged crime might not be performed by the person, but rather by other parties without the knowledge or consent of the person? Acquiring a second passport is no different from acquiring a first passport in instances where Jus sanguinis and Jus soli intertwine. They have more to do with documenting a pre-existing situation rather than entering a new situation. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Someone can already be considered to hold multiple citizenships at birth without knowledge or consent.
When countries automatically consider people citizens based on principles apart from the will of the person, why should a dual citizen have to take action to oppose the opinion of another countries view of them? What if several countries declared all humans to be citizens of their countries, should all Americans then be forced to go through the process of renouncing citizenship from all of the countries they might have never even heard of? Renouncing citizenship is not always a simple process. Some countries require that you make a formal written request with forms and such meeting their criteria, and then they get to decide if they want to free you from their view of your citizenship or not. Ultimately, if you are worried about the loyalties of people, you should consider their affiliations and views and such before you vote for them to represent you, rather than worry about what some other third party thinks of them.

People should not have to be forced to give up their liberty, or full access to their families in different countries to satisfy your insecurities.

Calling disagreement "hate" is childish.

Taking advantage of the security and prosperity of any nation while rejecting loyalty to its people is contemptible.

But calling it "contemptible" is not?

You have a double standard with language. The title of the post is calling people criminals for having what could be a status imposed on someone without their knowledge or consent. To call someone's 4 year old a treasonous criminal because of the situation of their birth outside of their control is hateful.

I didn't call disagreement contemptible.

And, so what if a four year old is a dual citizen? Four year old children do not participate in the political decision making processes of a country. That is ridiculous. But, at the point where that person wants to participate, they should have to make a choice. You're either with us or not. You don't say, "Oh, I'm gonna hang around, with one foot out the door, just in case I screw your country up and need to run and hide over in my country that I'm not screwing up."

And I didn't call disagreement hate.

My point about the 4 year old is the idea that by calling the status of dual citizenship treason, a crime is ascribed to someone without their action necessarily being involved. It can happen with people of voting age who don't realize their status as dual citizens when they were voting. I know people who fit that bill. Your concern is also very presumptuous at the expense of other people's freedom and family bonds. I doubt that anyone would think the way that you suggest. More than likely they would want to better the place they live in, and yet maintain a way to have smooth connections with their family bonds in other countries. You ought to be considerate that some peoples close families are geographically dispersed. But if pre-existing corruption wins in politics, thwarting a dual citizens attempt to better the place they live, they might want a way to escape the bondage that pre-existing corruption may have caused and which they were unable to affect. I don't see what is wrong with that. It seems like the issue people have can have more to do with coveting an escape plan than concern about conflicting allegiances or corruption. Thus they want to make second class citizens of people who maintain family bonds elsewhere. When people face difficulty, they often turn to their families for help and sometimes move in with them. It seems unfair to limit dual citizen's ability to do this.