Amazon.com Widgets
  • It seems best.

    There is nothing particularly special that isolates one government from another. Sure there are governments that are less intrusive, better at protecting individual rights; but who made up the rule that a person can only be a citizen of just one nation. Why shouldn't nation states have to compete for their citizenry? If I find a country with a government that fits more with my beliefs and values, wouldn't it be a good thing to have choices.

  • Dual citizenship contributes to a global citizenship but should have its rules and regulations.

    Dual citizenship has several advantages. An increase in dual citizenship between two countries would also decrease the chance of war between them. Dual citizenship provides a sense of union between people. If more countries allowed dual citizenship, and people were friends with other people who had a dual citizenship different from theirs, there would be more global peace as holistically speaking, we are all people living in the same planet. With that said, dual citizenship does come with its rewards as one can easily traverse two countries and choose which government's social service system to enjoy, but in return people should also pay taxes to both countries regardless of which they reside in.

  • Seriously? I have to write fifty words?

    From a moral standpoint, some can believe that people should be loyal to only one country. But from a legal standpoint, there's absolutely no reason to ban it. Being a citizen of two countries affects no one's life directly and is very unlikely to cause dispute between governments, so why not?

    I usually wouldn't spend my time on this, but the "no" response was so arrogant that I felt obligated to prove that not all Americans are that hidebound.

  • You shouldn't make people choose between their parents' countries and the one they were born in

    Even if you are "always" a citizen of the country you are born in, you may have no actual loyalty to it if you were not raised there. You could be born in one place and raised in another by parents who were themselves born in yet other countries. You shouldn't be forced to maintain loyalty to some far-off place you don't even remember being born in. I put it this way because lately everyone has been harping on where you were BORN even though I am 46 years old and barely remember that place. If you're over 40 years old, and every time you open your mouth it seems someone is harping on "where were you born" that's ridiculous and you shouldn't be expected to maintain loyalty to some place you don't even remember!

  • Family and tax contribution

    Eg: English father; French mother; lived in those countries plus paid taxes in NZ for years; status: British and NZ citizenship. Now lives and pays tax in Au. If taking AU citizenship, will retain NZ citizenship because on retirement will have contributions from NZ supporting AU contributions, benefiting Australian taxpayers.

  • Yes, dual citizenship should be allowed.

    There are many people that will greatly benefit from dual citizenship. People that live in one country, and have other family members in a neighboring country would need dual citizenship to travel back and forth often. This is why I think dual citizenship should be allowed in most cases today.

  • 100% American only

    People chose to live where they want. But if someone identifies themselves as an American, let them identify themselves as an American exclusively with American citizenship. Dual loyalty is questionable at best. It can be borderline treasonous to some extent. Even the Tsarnaev brothers had dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is a concept that should be questioned thoroughly.

  • Dual citizenship is malicious.

    When someone has dual citizenship, they can own a business over here, make money, and send it over to another country. Almost like what illegal immigrants are doing right now. Is it fair to our taxpayers? No. Is it fair to Americans as a whole? No. Point is America's economy is hurting like everyone elses and either way you look at it, every country needs it's contributions from it's people. Especially those who own businesses here. Don't get me wrong businesses shouldn't be getting taxed more, but there should be a law that prevents what I am talking about here.

    I mean, it's really ignorant if you own businesses here in the U.S. (benefit off of our tax system) then contribute majority of your income into other countries. It's just not right. If all these business owners that had dual citizenships in the U.S. Put back more into the U.S. Economy we wouldn't be hurting as bad right now.

    And no, I don't want other countries business if it means to allow treasonist here in the U.S. This is one of the problems with Globalization.

  • A Team Player

    I've always been a team player as I believe in the old saying "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". If your are playing for more than one team eventually there will be a conflict because you can't give 100% to two teams.

    Also if a person decides to move to another country, because it matches their asperations, they are turning their back on the country of origin and by so doing should be committed to their new home, 100%.

  • A team player

    I've always been a team player as I believe in the old saying the "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". If your are playing for more than one team eventually there will be a conflict because you can't give 100% to two teams.

    Also if a person decides to move to another country, because it matches their asperations, they are turning their back on the country of origin and by so doing should be committed to their new home, 100%.

  • It is used as an excuse for better economic lives. Passports should only be issued in exchange for any previous being surrendered.

    How can countries account for movement of people when they can choose to use any passport of their choice? There could be criminals moving from one area to another to avoid criminal charges. There could be others who obtain benefits and medical attention in countries in which they are not registered.

  • Citizenship of a country should mean allegiance

    Our taxes and work, go to support our country but some people within are trying to bring down their own country unlawfully. There should be no refuge elsewhere for those people. Criminals should have their citizenship of UK removed so they have no citizenship anywhere so make them vulnerable to attack. As they wouldn't be protected by UK citizens rights. Bottom line, if you don't support the country you are in... Leave and live somewhere else or seek to change things legitimately.

  • Duty to a country

    I fail to see how a person can be loyal to two countries in a declared war situation. .
    I do believe that citizens have an obligation to vote for the government. That should follow the effort to become well informed on policies and making a considered judgement...Not judgement made in the interests of another country.

  • You cannot serve two masters

    Some cultures do not mix. I cannot believ ethere are senators who have dual israel and USA citizenship. This affects their deciciosn making and makes them more susceptible for lobbying and bribery, no offense. I also belive Germany made a HUGE blunder for allowing this. NO country should allow dual citizenship. You either belong to one or other. You can be from both worlds but choose the other and do your best to serve it.

  • Sole citizenship status is key

    I feel that dual citizenship is a farce. If you are not contributing to the economy and the betterment of your country then your status needs to be given up. You cannot claim citizenship for a country that you are not contributing too. We cannot be citizens of convenience. We have to stand by our country during the good and the bad times.

  • It is illegal

    Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
    Oath

    "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."


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.