Before becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen, immigrants must take an oath that says, in part, "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 language seems to firmly establish a principle of "one person, one country." But even though it sounds unequivocal, it is not. In fact, it is entirely possible for naturalized U.S. citizens to retain citizenship in another country, or for a native-born American to claim citizenship in a second country. On the face of it, this is an odd arrangement that challenges the notion that citizenship is an expression of national loyalty. How can a person be equally loyal to two countries?
Yet dual citizenship has been specifically sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court. In 1967, the court ruled that the State Department had violated the Constitution when it refused to issue a new U.S. passport to a U.S. citizen who had voted in an election in Israel. The decision overturned a law saying that "a person, who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voting in a political election in a foreign state." ...
In previous editorials, we have argued that U.S. citizenship ought to be the norm for people who have decided to live and work permanently in this country. ...
But it's also true that dual citizenship undermines the common bond that unites U.S. citizens regardless of their ethnicity, religion or place of birth. Dual citizenship places a sort of asterisk next to the names of some U.S. citizens but not others.
Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
The LA Times is liberal and pro-immigration, but it just editorialized against dual citizenship: