ashkan33 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 personally, I don't agree with dual citizenship.I believe that most of the people in the world do it to run from bad situations in their country (especially third world countries) to US or other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 In those cases, if pressed on the matter would they really go back there/even want to keep their other citizenship anyway if that was their predicament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 In those cases, if pressed on the matter would they really go back there/even want to keep their other citizenship anyway if that was their predicament? In some cases, it is darn near impossible to dump your 'old' citizenship..... Even going to their consulate, and telling them so doesn't always work. A selection of them have some truly strange and bizarre conditions to accept your renunciation of citizenship.... Others, won't let you get rid of it no matter what you do.... Then there are countries that simply make you a citizen after X amount of time, simply by dint of living there..... Used to be, that joining a foreign military, or holding public office in a foreign country, would automatically strip your US citizenship.... but then, the laws changed, and the court had to prove "intent to abrogate US citizenship"...... Yeah, like that's gonna happen...... Basically, the laws changed to accommodate some of our more pushy allies, so they can retain their dual citizenship, yet hold public office in both countries.... even when those positions are at loggerheads with each other. It is a really screwed up situation, and quite frankly, I wish I hadn't researched it quite so much, as all it tells me, is yet another fashion that my government is screwing me, to benefit some other countries citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRampage Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Basically, the laws changed to accommodate some of our more pushy allies, so they can retain their dual citizenship, yet hold public office in both countries.... even when those positions are at loggerheads with each other. It is a really screwed up situation, and quite frankly, I wish I hadn't researched it quite so much, as all it tells me, is yet another fashion that my government is screwing me, to benefit some other countries citizens.Well, if it's any consolation: It's not just the US that has these kinds of screwed up situations. Edited July 31, 2012 by BlackRampage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 "intent to abrogate US citizenship", during your swearing in Oath, some countries oaths force you to formally renounce citizenship of other countries. You cannot in fact complete your US citizenship unless you take the oath in front of a proper official, I know the US Oath has you formally renounce allegiance to other countries. I am fairly positive they could hold your US citizenship at ransom over that fact if they wanted you to just pick one for some reason. I have never heard of a case of that actually happening though. It really is kinda muddy where actually ends up. The legal advice I got on this very matter was more of less: don't ask, don't tell. Just apply for British citizenship and keep renewing the US passport. Pro-tip: Never show customs both at the same time ever. One time I whipped 2 passports out and the custom officer nearly had a brain spasm. They were both US ones, an older expired one and the in date one, just in case I needed to show some proper stamps. Imagine if they were from different countries. Then there are countries that simply make you a citizen after X amount of time, simply by dint of living there..... Yeah I know one occasion the UK have done pretty much that. Back in the 90's randomly sent a friend of mine citizenship acceptance papers simply because he had been here since the 70's. Now they want you to pay £830 for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizdarby Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Considering the huge sums of money, required to run a successful (or unsuccessful) presidential campaign, I think that a prospective candidate has got to grab funds from wherever they can, regardless of the nationality of the source. The only proviso I think there should be, is not the nationality of the source of funds, but the 'safety' of the source, for instance getting funds from an organisation that has strong links to breaking human right issues, would be political 'suicide'.As for dual citizenship, it happens all the time. Sport leaps to mind. In my own country we have/or have had people like Zola Budd (Born in South Africa), Owen Hargreaves (Raised in Canada), Jonathan Trott (South African again) etc who have all represented England at the highest level, and are considered to be English. The USA have the similar situation, Martina Navratilova (Born in Czechoslovakia) leaps to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Considering the huge sums of money, required to run a successful (or unsuccessful) presidential campaign, I think that a prospective candidate has got to grab funds from wherever they can, regardless of the nationality of the source. The only proviso I think there should be, is not the nationality of the source of funds, but the 'safety' of the source, for instance getting funds from an organisation that has strong links to breaking human right issues, would be political 'suicide'.As for dual citizenship, it happens all the time. Sport leaps to mind. In my own country we have/or have had people like Zola Budd (Born in South Africa), Owen Hargreaves (Raised in Canada), Jonathan Trott (South African again) etc who have all represented England at the highest level, and are considered to be English. The USA have the similar situation, Martina Navratilova (Born in Czechoslovakia) leaps to mind. Foreign money should NEVER be used for a political campaign. Period. Influence peddling would be right at the top of my list for reasons why it shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Money going out from or into a country isn't always straight forward to say whether it is using a proxy is actually foreign or ultimately is off the back of some Saudi Oil or something. How is 'foreign' to be verified in the end? Edited August 1, 2012 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizdarby Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Foreign money should NEVER be used for a political campaign. Period. Influence peddling would be right at the top of my list for reasons why it shouldn't.This will probably surprise you, but I actually agree with the validity of your point. Having foreign interests built into a presidential campaign,(through political donations) would compromise the integrity of american president. I suspect that Mitt Romney has probably shot himself in the foot, by so visibly embracing foreign funding. Of course this basically hands Obama his second presidential term on a plate, for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenergy Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 You know, what are the chances for Congress to change it's electorial laws to ban Super Pacs, party "donations" from coparations and lobby groups and Fund Raising like these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now