Dual citizenship is a conflict of interest and somewhat of an oxymoron.
Per Merriam-webster... (italics mine)
citizen
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially: one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2 a: a member of a state
b: a native or naturalized person who
owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state
allegiance
1 a: the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord
b (1): the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government
(2): the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides
2:
devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause
How is it that our president cannot have dual citizenship but those in other gov't positions can? The constitution was written using the term
"natural born" as a condition for presidency, the intent being that they serve one and only one country, the united states. Yet all others who hold
positions of power in our gov't may be formally compromised? Did our forefathers really intend this? Given the context that was the beginning of our
nation, I strongly think they would not agree with this.
Certainly people join informal groups of likeminded interests but dual citizenship is a formal allegiance. It's legally binding and blatant. For
instance (hypothetical), if called to arms by Israel would they go to the "holy land" and take up arms against the muslem? Would be an interesting
vaccuum in our gov't, no? And then there's that whole spying stuff...
Well, where there's smoke, there's fire...
BTW, good post Bobs_uruncle,
Addendum: I've said it time and time again. Weeding out conflicts of interest in our gov't, publicly and legally, is the first step to turning our
country around. Until that is done, all other sol'ns will be corrupted and actually turned against the citizenry. The American revolution began not
when the crown oppressed the commoners (which it did in multiple ways), but when it tried to oppress the printers (local media) and the lawyers
specifically. That's when it hit the fan. So what are our media and lawyers doing today? That's rhetorical...
edit on 21-8-2012 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-8-2012 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)