This actually makes me curious – is this linguistic issue the equivalent Québecois being called Canadian (i.e. true but unpopular), an incorrect nitpick, or a reflection of some kind of formal arrangement?
Does the United States recognize dual citizenship? By that I mean if U.S. authorities arrested Byrne who was a Scottish/U.S. citizen would the United States have to honor any treaties they have with Scotland in regard to arresting one of their nationals?
Actually it is a simple decision. If one feels strongly enough about the direction that the US is heading that they wish to become involved in the political game, you have laid out exactly what they must do to get on the bandwagon. Anything short of that wont cut it.
From your post, it is obvious that you have trepidations about the oath. If so, I commend your character but you must be content to watch from the sidelines as our political process moves on.
Perhaps we can get past the fact that (gasp) it’s a musician saying this, and that therefore his opinion is automatically worthless, or that the statement came in a mass e-mail, but discuss instead whether it is fair that someone can be drafted to serve in the military but yet not be allowed to vote.
If someone is good enough to serve in the armed forces, he should be good enough to vote.
I heard he tried to vote, but was turned away by pollworkers because his suit was far too big for him.
Funny. I’ve been voting in US elections since I turned 18, and I don’t recall ever having to take an oath of allegiance to do so.
It’s a very simple decision that many immigrants make every day. FTR, I did it myself (Canada). If you have no intention of abiding by the standards and oaths required to become a citizen of a particular country, then you don’t merit citizenship in that country. Which is perfectly okay, you have allegiance to another country, you’re willing to live in another one but when push comes to shove you believe your allegiance lies with another. But then don’t complain about how you don’t get the privileges of citizenship (voting) when you aren’t willing to take on the duties required to earn it (allegiance).
Why one earth should any country accept someone as a citizen when they don’t really feel primary allegiance to it? The whole point is to accept people who’ll go beyond taking all the benefits and bailing ship for another when they don’t feel like doing their duty. The very thought that this is acceptable or whining about not naturalising is just…baffling to me.
Apparently it’s the first of these. Generally speaking, people who are English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish are considered to be British. British is the general term for all subjects of the United Kingdom.
But apparently, there is a movement in Scotland that argues that Scottish people are not British. Scotland still being part of the United Kingdom, I don’t know what their term is for a subject of the United Kingdom.
Legally, the United States does not recognize dual citizenship. As has been pointed out, when you accept American citizenship you legally renounce all other citizenships.
In addition, the United States does not recognize Scottish citizenship or sovereignty. Scots are citizens of the United Kingdom. Any treaty the United States has would be with the United Kingdom not Scotland.
Presumably you were born on American soil so there’s the base assumption that you have primary allegiance to this country. You are also automatically burdened with the duties of citizenship, including allegiance. If you choose not to accept them or feel you don’t have any allegiance to the country, you are free to leave and demonstrate to another state that you have a permanent desire to accept the duties and oaths of citizenship that they require.
Immigrating to another country that you DON’T have citizenship in is a privilege. Earning citizenship in that country requires demonstrating that you have a serious desire to accept the duties that citizenship requires, including permanent residence blahblahblah. And again, that is a privilege. Not a god-given right. It is not unreasonable to ask people who are asking for that privilege to swear to it.
I must be on crack or maybe it’s the fact that I’ve been naturalised twice that makes all of this obvious to me.
And yet I’ve still never had to swear allegiance to this country. I never had to take a test, fill out any paperwork, get a job, nothing. All I had to do was get squeezed out of my mother’s uterus on US soil.
It seems to me that someone willing to travel a thousand miles to get to this country – someone sufficiently interested in the outcome of this election to lament their lack of a voice – is at least as worthy of a vote as me.
I’m nothing special. And neither is any other natural-born citizen. I think citizenship, the vote, right to trial, and all the other benefits that come with this country should be awarded to anyone that wants them bad enough to move here.
That’s just my opinion and this isn’t an immigration thread so I’ll discontinue the hijack now.
Nevermind, ending the hijack…
I’m a dual citizen. Who is my primary allegiance supposed to be to? I’m so confused!
Do you have a cite for the exact US rules governing dual citizenship? It seems like you are saying that a naturalized US citizen must renounce all other citizenships (I would be interested in seeing a cite for that), but people can also be dual citizens at birth.
If I’m reading this provision right, US law does provide that anyone who has served in the US armed forces for a year or more can apply for naturalization immediately, without having to wait out any residency period.
What does fairness have to do with it? A green cardholder accepts a bundle of responsibilities in exchange for a bundle of rights. If they don’t like the responsibilities they don’t have to get a greem card.
Yes, that’s nice. Canada allows me to retain my rights of citizenship, supposedly too, but the point here is that depending on how you were naturalised/oaths you took, there is a chance you have primary allegiance to the United States, provided the two countries you have citizenship with disagreed on an issue. But the specific answer to your question should have been settled when you became a citizen of whatever country, because my understanding is that there are certain loopholes built in for different nation-states. As it stands with me, I have American citizenship with non-recognised Canadian citizenship. I had to swear to that oath and my impression is that the US only recognises my American citizenship because I wasn’t part of any exception/loophole. OTOH, Canada recognises me (still) as a dual citizen.
But honestly, Arnold, perhaps you should ask your immigration lawyer rather than posing this question on a message board, as it does relate to legal issues specific to you. It really doesn’t answer the point that there’s no use whining about swearing oaths of allegiance when you’re asking another country for the right to be a citizen. They have no obligation to naturalise people who believe their primary allegiance is to another country, and people who hold back from applying for citizenship (in any country) because of their problem with said country’s [insert requirement here] ought to STFU about not being allowed to vote.
I’m already a dual citizen. Dual citizen at birth. Hence the question, who should my primary allegiance be to?
Maybe it’s just me, but I think that laws in general should be fair. And I think that if a person is willing to enter the armed services for a country, being allowed to vote would be fair also. Same thing with paying taxes. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I seem to remember that taxation without representation was a big grievance of some freedom fighters around 1776.
P.S. I was a little short in my previous response to you so I will expand further.
I’m not an immigrant so I don’t have an immigration lawyer. I thought Little Nemo might have a cite for what he was saying, I couldn’t easily find something online that specifically addressed his statement.
I assume this is addressed to amarone. I am not taking a position on what is reasonable to expect from someone asking to be naturalized. I was addressing the issue “is it fair to expect people to serve in the armed services and pay taxes, while denying them the right to vote?”
I did not complain. The US is perfectly entitled to set the conditions it does. I was responding to what seemed to be a glib comment about taking citizenship by pointing out that there are, for some of us, weighty decisions to be made.
I didn’t say they should.
I didn’t say that the US should accept people as citizens who are not prepare to swear allegiance, not did I whine about naturalisation.
Maybe you are addressing other comments in this thread rather than mine specifically. Or maybe you misread my post or thoughts behind it. But the net result is that you have ascribed several incorrect positions to me.