I didn’t say that they were independent agents. Of course they are part of the United States, but they are not part of the body which governs the country called “The United States”. Which part of the Constitution says otherwise?
Of course. But they are not elected jobs. They are not postions obtained from the majority vote.
As I said, I kudos to anyone who gets a job…from cafe waitress to under-secretary. But I still think if someone choses to put themself up for election, they have chosen a country and at that point they should give up any loyalty to any other country.
That’s basically it. This page will tell you all you want to know, and more, about US policy vis-a-vis dual citizenship.
I presume your insistence on only talking about directly-elected positions eliminates such insignificant figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell,…
You haven’t clarified why that makes a difference.
The vast majority of Austrians are* incredibly* proud that he is one of theirs, and as Gov of CA is head of one of the most powerful economic entities on earth. He has about as much chance of getting his Austrian citizenship revoked as the earth falling into the sun.
You presume correctly (though that Rumsfeld is a tosser). Once elected surely the elected one can employ anyone he/she feels can do the job.
So you don’t think that there’s any possibility of a conflict-of-interest if an appointee has dual citizenship, whereas if they were elected then there would be?
All of the articles I’ve been looking at for information on this thread suggest this isn’t quite the case any more.
Because as a Kiwi I can apply for a job anywhere. I will always be a Kiwi.
If chose to apply for citizenship elsewhere and then ran for an elected position, I would like to think the people who voted for me felt confident I put their interests above New Zealands. Relinquishing my New Zealand citizenship would be the clearest and most obvious way to prove that.
Are you suggesting that their is no possibility of conflict of interest with non dual-citizens? Are you suggesting that those we elect should not be held to a higher standard then some who was just hired to do a job?
OK, sure, that would be one way to show your priorities. But your earlier posts said that all people who are elected to a government position should give up any other citizenship - which suggests that this is the only way to demonstrate any allegiance at all. That’s what we’re challenging.
Aren’t they showing that they feel confident in you just by electing you? Why do you feel the need to take a step they haven’t even asked you to take?
I know.
I said it was the clearest and most obvious way to show it.
To the best of my knowledge NZ has no such “proof of loyalty” in order to run for election. All I was saying is that in my opinion it should be so.
I wouldn’t like to elect a quasi-NZer wo made us the next state of Australia 
I believe if you have commited yourself to a country enough to approach the people for their vote, then you should give up any other citizenship.
You can still cheer for them when the cricket/rugby etc etc is on. You can still speak fondly of the past in the old land.
BUT if you want their populace to vote for you then you are one of them.
They don’t ask for that step?
Some places do. Isn’t it America who says a non-citizen can’t be president?
We’re talking about dual citizenship, not non-citizenship. And America doesn’t say that a dual citizen can’t be president.
Do you think that the rejection of other citizenships should be done before or after somebody is elected?
Yes we are.
But doesn’t America say you must be born there to be president?
I can’t understand why ‘President’ means you have to be born there yet ‘Governor’ means you can have dual citizenship?
Surely the discrepency is illogical.
Surely being a citizen is more important, no matter where you were born. Isn’t it about loyalty and dedication to ones home, either chosen or born?
And once you pick who you belong to shouldn’t you stick with it? Can you not have fond memoroes of where you came from without being a citizen?
Ok, I didn’t know that.
When someone decides to run for election.
Now ask me if I would ever give up my citizenship
furlibusea
I’m surprised it took 51 posts for someone to cite the oath one takes to become a US Citizen:
*
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;*
I am not some right-wing conservative 150% US Patriot. (Just look at how many Dubya Bashing and anti-John Wayne postings I have made). However, I would think that somebody who has become fabulously wealthy (in this country), and powerful (Governor of California) that they would have the courtesy to relinquish their dual citizenship. Actually I was naive enough to think that once you took that oath, your previous citizenship was automatically revoked. Guess I was wrong.
This definitely could work against him politically, especially if he tries to be President. (Yes I know it would require a Constitutional amendment - but it seems repealing the natural born citizen requirement has been gaining momentum). Anyway, when he says that he would “protect and defend the Constitution of the Unites States”, etc. how much creedence could we put in those words? Heck, he said he’d renounce his allegiance to Austria when he became a US citizen - but he didn’t.