Exerpts from Images &
Voices of Lighthouse Country
A pict/oral history of Deep Bay, Bowser, Qualicum Bay, Horne Lake
by Rita Levitz and Leah Willott
© Rita Levitz and Leah Willot -- Used
Hugging the eastern shoreline of mid-Vancouver
Island, Lighthouse Country encompasses almost 300 square
kilometres, including the settlements of Deep Bay, Bowser,
Qualicum Bay, and Horne Lake. The coastal setting along the Strait
of Georgia, the natural safe harbour at Deep Bay, and the timber
and maritime resources attracted both aboriginal and European
Human occupation of the east coast of Vancouver Island dates back thousands of years. Fish and
game were plentiful. Evidence of shell middens, fishing
weirs, and stone tools are powerful reminders of the First
Nations people who have lived here for generation upon
European settlers began arriving in the
late 1800's. They were drawn here in their search for
homesteads, or to work in the logging or fishing
Nature formed the geographic outlines, but
politics was nature's handmaiden in shaping settlement and
land use patterns. Large tracts of land, usually 160
acres, were made available to settlers through the
pre-emption process. To qualify, the settler had to live
on the land and make improvements to it. Only a British
subject who was the head of a family, a widow, or a single
man could apply for the Crown Land. Other men could give
up their original citizenship, swear their allegiance tot
he British monarch and become eligible. However, Chinese,
First Nations, and single women of any ethnicity were
In the late 1890's a road was completed to
connect Lighthouse Country to the small villages to the
south (Qualicum and Parksville) and to the north (Courtenay
and Comox), thus making this area more accessible to new
Early subdivisions of the E&N land
were designed to encourage further settlement. Between
1912 and 1914, the Vancouver Island Fruit Lands were
created. These 96 lots west of Bowser were intended for
agricultural settlement, but many of the large lots
remained vacant, and some were subsequently returned to
the Crown. Between 1913 and 1928, 91 rural and waterfront
residential parcels were created in the Bowser area.
The land grants associated with
the building of the railway gave the broad
brushstrokes to the settlement, logging, and
farming that was to come to Lighthouse Country.
Roads, railways, and resources all played their
part in the bringing together, or the separating,
of people and places. Each of the settlement
areas, Deep Bay, Bowser, Qualicum Bay, and Horne
Lake developed their own unique personalities in
the reciprocal moulding and shaping that occurs in
the interaction between people and the
Modern Lighthouse Country is a mixture of
landmarks and businesses that have survived the decades,
and new business that are trying to find their niche and
unique ways of serving the community. It is made up of
people, old-timers who remember how it used to be, and
newer arrivals who may plan to stay a short time, but find
their hearts taken by the beauty, friendliness, and
relative safety of the area. It is a community of young
families and retired homeowners. Loggers, fishers, trades,
professional, and service workers have all made their
homes here. This area is a vacation destination for
tourists who are drawn here, as they have been for over
three-quarters for a century, by the fishing, the climate,
and the natural beauty of the ocean and the forests.
Lighthouse Country is also made up of the
organizations that work tirelessly to make this community
a place where people of all ages can find activities,
recreation, common interests, and solace and support in
time of need. All of this has made, and continues to make,
Lighthouse Country a special place in which to live.
(Permanent Residence in the USA)
Naturalization with the USCIS:
The process immigrants have to go through to become citizens of the
United States. A person may become a U.S. citizen by birth or through
naturalization. Usually if children are Permanent Residents, they can
derive citizenship from their naturalized parents. This is true whether
is a child by birth or adoption.
Citizenship: As an U.S. citizen you will be granted
rights and accept responsibilities.
Some of the rights and benefits granted by the U.S.
- All the rights listed in the Constitution including the right to
- Right to have a U.S. passport
- Right to work in the U.S.
Some of the responsibilities implied by the U.S.
- Promises in the Oath of Allegiance including giving up prior
allegiances to other countries
- Support and defend the laws of the U.S.
- Swear allegiance to the U.S.
- Serve the country when required
Who Can Apply?
There are seven basic requirements.
NATURALIZATION PART TWO:
MATTERS OF LOSING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
EVEN ON THE OFF-CHANCE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO RENOUNCE IT,
IT AIN'T ALL THAT EASY.
IN FACT, YOU GET PENALIZED BY THE USA IF YOU TRY.
(Originally sent to Fukuzawa, ISSHO, and Friends Sun, 24 Jan 1999)
One of the main reservations expressed by readers of my NATURALIZATION
PART ONE essay (where I discussed the pros and procedures for
taking Japanese citizenship) was that I would be risking losing my
American citizenship. Although the US allows dual nationality (read
jpegs of the US State Dept's formal announcements on the subject here),
Japan doesn't, so how does that square? Won't becoming a Japanese mean
having to surrender your American passport?
Well, no. The American passport has nothing to do with Japan. The
passport of any country is the property of the issuing government, and
the Japanese government, short of formally charging you with a crime,
cannot confiscate it or deprive you of it in any way. That includes
naturalization into Japan--surrendering the passport is not part of the
procedure. Moreover, as far as the US is concerned, the renouncing of US
citizenship can only take place with a formal written request signed by
you, or if a US court convicts you of treason, espionage, or serving in
a foreign government or foreign armed forces.
Now for the news. I'm happy (kinda) to report that Americans, in fact
and in particular, have an unusually hard job giving up their American
citizenship. Fukuzawan MG FAXed me a fascinating article from the ASIAN
WALL STREET JOURNAL (Dec 29, 1998), which holds that the American
government doesn't want you to renounce, and will actually punish you if
Why? Because the US, like only two other countries in the world (The
Philippines and Eritrea), insists on taxing its citizens abroad. And if
you try to renounce (say, because you don't want to pay taxes on lands
you have in France that you would like to pass along to your French
children), they will treat you like a tax dodger, with sanctions
including blacklisting you in the Federal Registry, denying you reentry
into the US indefinitely, and taxing your projected US earnings for the
next ten years after renouncing.
Be that as it may, in regards to naturalization, the point to
American readers is that the US wants you to hold onto your passport.
And because it allows dual nationality, it will probably turn a blind
eye if you obtain a Japanese passport and keep on quietly renewing your
Read on to see the whole AWSJ article.
PS: More news has it (The Economist Jan 9, Leader, and
Fukuzawan OK) that Germany is now drafting legislation to allow Dual
Nationality for the first time. Although this does not do away with the
citizenship as a matter of "jus sanguinis" (nationality via
blood--as opposed to being a citizen of the country of your birth), it
will be part of a compromise by one of the last holdouts to make
naturalization easier. Which means that Japan, which adopted older
Germany's rules on nationality, will be the only OECD country left which
does not allow dual citizenship.
HOW DO YOU QUIT BEING AMERICAN?
(Asian Wall Street Journal, Dec 28, 1998)
By BARRY NEWMAN Staff Reporter
It got harder to buy a gun in the U.S. this month - at least it did
for the lowlifes nobody trusts. Now Tanya Rose Bottygeig will have to
put up with a federal back-ground check if she ever walks into a
pawn-shop to pick up a shotgun - not because she's a known felon, or a
dope fiend, or mentally ill.
No, Ms. Bottygeig can't drive to the Kmart and buy guns with other
Americans because she is literally un-American. She has renounced her
U.S. citizenship and joined up with some other nation.
The right to expatriate is fundamental; the British subjects who
claimed their freedom in North America in 1776 cited it as a law of
nature in the Declaration of Independence. In today's America, though,
expatriates are a lot less respectable than they were then. The gun law
casts them onto a heap with the rest of America's least loved. And gun
dealers are only some of the parties newly interested in keeping tabs on
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service doesn't trust them; nor does the
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Anyone else who might
consider them suspicious, moreover, will have no problem finding out who
they are: A list of their names has started showing up every quarter in
the Federal Register.
It is printed thanks to Sam Gibbons: a Florida Democrat now retired
from Congress. In 1995, he sponsored a bill to publicly identify
Americans who commit what he called "the despicable act of
renouncing their allegiance to the United States." Rep. Gibbons
imagined that the list would include "a handful of the wealthiest
of the wealthy" who give up their passports for one reason: to
So far, the lists have run not to handfuls but to hundreds of names -
from Adankus and Ahn, through Kelly and Kikuchi, and all the way to Yoo
and Zerafa. If billionaires lurk among them, they aren't famous
billionaires. True, many might have stood to save on taxes. But for many
more, a tax bill was far from the first thing on their minds; their
motives for turning into un-Americans, if you listen to them, are as
various as the roots their names recall.
Mr. Gibbons's list had its beginnings in a cloud of patriotic umbrage
that passed over the U.S. In the mid-1990s. Congress got mad at legal
aliens who use social services but don't become U.S. citizens. Less
noisily, it got mad at Americans who become legal aliens in other
countries, use services there, but decide not to remain U.S. citizens
A tax bill passed in 1996 establishes a legal presumption that anyone
who gives up U.S. citizenship and is valued at more than $500,000 (like
several million other Americans) must be doing it to avoid taxes. The
IRS will therefore tax them on all earnings it can reach for 10 years
after they give up citizenship. For renouncers who move to countries
where they have no immediate family, the law pronounces the presumption
of tax-ducking "irrebuttable:" No matter how many reasons such
people may have for snipping their American umbilicus, the IRS will hear
none of them.
A month after passing this tax law, Congress came down on illegal
immigrants -and slipped into that bill a four-line clause meant to
penalize supposedly odious emigrants. It makes Americans who give up
citizenship to escape taxes"'excludable. "
That means banishment: Like terrorists and people with communicable
diseases, renouncers can be barred from setting foot in the U.S. ever
again. Even if they chip in all the taxes the IRS says they owe, the law
allows the INS to banish them anyway. Regardless of what either agency
does to them, their names will still appear on Rep. Gibbons's list.
'No one in my family, no matter how much money they made, would have
ever renounced their American citizenship.' Rep. Martin Frost, a Texas
Democrat, said at the time. "We're talking about basic patriotism
and basic fairness." And perhaps some national pique.
With the military draft long past, the thinking seems to go, what
cost can a U.S. passport entail apart from a tax bill? A lawyer who used
to work at a U.S. consulate in Africa remembers an American woman who
would come in every few months asking to turn her passport in. She was
The law's presumptions may seem presumptuous, though, in a mobile age
when some Ameicans de-camp from Brazil to Korea the way others pull up
stakes in Vermont and head for Arizona. Some who move in tow of
multinational companies become true multinationalists. In a more
romantic day, they would be called citizens of the world. Now, exposed
in the Federal Register and faced with permanent exile, none are eager
to tell their stories. But if tax avoidance really is their motive, it
must rank with love and war as a driving force in unusual lives.
A SAGA OF CITIZENSHIP
One man's saga is recounted in a detailed letter written by a New
York accountant to the IRS as an appeal for a less-absolute judgment.
The IRS treated the letter as a "comment" on the law and
released it for publication on the Internet.
The story began 74 years ago when the accountant's client was born in
Calcutta, British India, to parents who were Chinese. They were citizens
of China, and so was their son. He grew up in Calcutta and found his
first job at the Bank of China's Calcutta office . The bank soon sent
him to its branch in Karachi, where he worked as a teenage trainee
through World War II.
In 1945, this young banker returned to Calcutta. Two years later,
with the British gone and India partitioned, the Bank of China sent him
back to Karachi, in what by then was Pakistan. He traveled, as before,
on a Chinese Nationalist passport.
Then China fell to the Communists. The Bank of China expected him to
take up citizenship of the new People's Republic. He declined. He
resigned, gave up his Chinese passport, applied for Pakistani
citizenship - and got it. He married a Chinese woman of Malayan
parentage who was also born in India. They lived in Karachi, and had
In 1954, as his accountany tells the IRS, the young banker turned
insurance man, getting a job with a Bermuda-registered insurance
company. He worked his way up. In 1965, the company sent him to Hong
Kong, and in two years made him a vice president.
But the company thought it best not to have someone from Pakistan on
its Hong Kong board. So, in 1967, he stopped being Pakistani. He became
"I come from all different places, you see." That, he says
in a reluctant telephone interview, is what he tells strangers who ask
where he is from.
Hong Kong wasn't his last stop. In 1975, he became an assistant
treasurer in his insurance company's New York headquarters. The company
sponsored him for a permanent resident's visa - a green card -and in
1981, says the IRS Internet posting, he did what came naturally:
naturalize as a U.S. citizen.
He lived on Manhattan's East Side and in time moved to New Jersey.
His wife and children moved, too. All became Americans. But in 1988, at
age 64, the assistant treasurer began thinking about retirement and
decided on one final move: to end his days as a Canadian.
Why? Because, he says, he wanted to be safe, and New York City in
1988 wasn't safe enough. He wanted to be able to walk into a hospital
and not be asked for insurance papers or a U.S. Social Security number
or a credit card - all of which happened at a hospital in Secaucus, New
Jersey after a bookcase fell on an index finger. And, his accountant
stressed, he wanted to grow old in the company of two sisters and four
brothers. They all live in Toronto, where the streets are safe and the
So, in 1991, he completed his career and entered Canada on a
retiree's visa. In three years, he applied for citizenship. At a
ceremony in 1995, he sang, "O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command." Then he wrote the U.S.
State Department to say he had finished being an American.
Did the assistant treasurer, now retired, renounce his U.S.
citizenship to save on taxes? No doubt taxes crossed his mind. He has
retirement income of $80,000 a year and a net value of nearly $2
million. Canada has no estate tax; his heirs could gain when he dies.
Had he moved to China--where his parents were born and he never
lived--the IRS would have let him put forth all his other reasons for
moving to one more new country. But his Canada ties aren't enough.
The law, passed in 1996, was made retroactive to 1995, before the
date of his renunciation. It says tax avoidance has to be a prime motive
for his desertion of the U.S. There is no arguing it.
AN AMERICAN ANOMALY
Citizenship, it seems, means more to America than to many of those
who expatriate. They preserve their identity in blood, language, clan
and family. With religion and territory added, so do many nations, from
Laos to Latvia. But countries of immigration like the U.S. have no
organic national glue. They synthesize nationhood out of ideas and a
will to belong. Citizenshlp keeps them whole.
For a thing so treasured, though, U.S. citizenship has steadily
become easier to get and harder to lose. Except for war criminals and
the like, revoking it without consent is next to impossible. And the
U.S. grants it to every baby born within its borders, even if the mother
is an illegal immigrant on a day trip. They all remain Americans whether
or not they remain in America.
When Congress cut welfare payments to noncitizens in 1996, this
cheapening of citizenship seemed to turn around. Millions applied to
naturalize. Rarely since the 1950s has so much loyalty talk been heard
in the land. The oathnew citizens take still obligates each to
"absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince or potentate. . . ."
But it takes more than an oath to alter the facts of multinational
Some who naturalize may go through the motions of renouncing former
citizenships. Many more don't--and the U.S. looks the other way.
Likewise, Americans overseas who want to swear loyalty to a second
country once got dirty looks at U.S. embassies; now they can get help.
When lives overarch borders, gaining a passport or giving one up often
has as much to do with practicality as nationality.
Sirens do wail in Washington, however, when U.S. citizens overseas
hand their passports back--precisely what the letter of the law demands
of every immigrant who takes the U.S. citizenship oath.
The underlying reason is a great American anomaly: The U.S. taxes all
the earnings of all its citizens, whether they live in Duluth or
Dnepropetrovsk. Only two other countries treat their citizens that way.
One is the Philippines. The other is Eritrea.
Americans outside the country - perhaps three million - file tax
returns spottily at best. In 1994, the IRS received just 257,000 returns
claiming a special tax break for citizens overseas. But America's
passion for taxing everyone everywhere has long posed temptations to
belong to other nations.
A tax law to deter renouncers first hit the books in 1966. It was
hardly used. Yet in the next 27 years, with a blip for the Vietnam War,
fewer than 30,000 passports were turned in; through the 1980s, the
average was 300 a year. Then, in 1994, this "trend" became an
"issue." An article ran in Forbes magazine mentioning a few
big names who had sidestepped taxes by expatriating to places like the
Bahamas and Belize. They were known as "yacht people."
In Washington, the Democrats decided to sink them. President Bill
Clinton proposed an "exit tax" on wealthy ex-citizens who
would pay on capital gains as if they had sold their assets--or died.
They could then rewrite their wills, and nobody would ask why they
The Republicans wouldn't buy it. They rejoined with a hardening of
the old rules that ended up as today's law.
Rather than go after the super rich alone, it casts a wide net that
can even snare departing green-card holders. It hangs on for a decade,
taxing any money earned in the U.S. In practice, that mostly means
capital gains on the sale of American assets. And the law pins a motive
of tax avoidance on any expatriate in the upper middle class.
"GET THE MOTIVE OUT"
"Sometimes I'm sorry I brought this thing up," Michael
Pfeifer says; now a partner at Ernst & Young, he devised the exit
tax while at the IRS in 1995. "It evolved from a tax on the
wealthiest two dozen people who expatriate in a year to something far
broader," he says. "My intention was to make thetax automatic.
If you go, you owe. Get the motive out."
The motive, however, is still in. A Finn born in Chicago who stays a
week and lives in La Paz for 30 years before giving up U.S. citizenship
is as much a tax dodger, under the law, as an lowa-bred billionaire who
buys a Cape Verde passport and lives in Cannes.
Mexico frowned on dual citizenship until this year; American-born
Mexicans who moved south couldn't attend Mexican colleges, for example,
without turning in their U.S. passports. Germany, which is also
rethinking its rules, still wants anyone who becomes German to give up
earlier loyalties and prove it.
Koreans who get U.S. passports and then go home will be barred from
owning property or starting businesses. But if they renounce U.S.
citizenship--the Federal Register's list of expatriates is full of
Korean names--the law will brand them as tax avoiders, as it will
another suspect minority: Americans who marry foreigners.
A New York lawyer's case file contains the tale of an American who
ships out to France in World, War II, falls in love, marries and never
comes back. Everything he owns is in France. He wants to will it to his
A citizen spouse would get it all, but in 1988, Congress decided to
tax estates left to aliens, lest they take the money and run. The
American in France hates the thought of his wife being forced to sell
their home to pay U.S. taxes, so he gives up his citizenship. His
motive, obviously, is tax avoidance.
For many renouncers, the tax law does offer one way out. It gives
them a chance to refute its knee-jerk presumptions if they live in their
new country of citizenship and show strong ties to it. Sound easy? Ask
Mr. Haugen is a maritime lawyer in Seattle, and the person he's
talking about is a relative in northern Norway. Born in the U.S., she
traveled to the old country at 19, met a man, married him, and has lived
in his town for almost 50 years.
Loyally, she filed U.S. returns; Norway's high taxes offset anything
she owed. But in her 60s, she decided to simplify her estate for the
sake of her children, Norwegians all. So she turned in her American
passport and asked Mr. Haugen to square things with the IRS.
That's when Mr. Haugen learned that to commute a sentence of tax
dodging, the IRS first must see: U.S. and Norwegian income tax returns
(translated into English) for three years into the future; theoretical
estate returns for the U.S. and Norway hypothesizing death on the date
of expatriation; and a schedule of gifts to be made in the coming
decade. For starters.
The requisite stack of details (including site of cemetery plot)
"is kind of a monstrous thing," says Mr. Haugen. He tallied
enough hours compiling it to bill $10,000. Tax lawyers say they'd charge
And here's the zinger: Last summer, the IRS announced in an official
notice that it couldn't decide if people such as Mr. Haugen's client
abandoned the U.S. to escape taxes. It said "the inherently factual
and subjective nature of the inquiry" made it too hard.
Renouncers entitled to a decision will stay up in the air; at any
time for 10 years, the IRS could suddenly decide to decide.
"They've lost track of common sense," Mr. Haugen says.
And even if America's tax collectors do make up their minds to impose
a tax or not, Mr. Haugen's Norwegian relative could still have something
to fear from America's gatekeepers.
POWER TO THE INS
In the 1996 illegal-immigration act, the section that bans ex-citizen
tax shirkers for life comes right before the sections on deportation for
high-speed flight and removal of alien terrorists. Sponsored by Rep.
Jack Reed, now a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, it gives the
INS--not the IRS--the power to divine the motives of renouncers and to
pronounce tax-avoiders "excludable".
"The immigration law is not about tax enforcement," says
Ann Lesk, a tax lawyer in New York. "It's about punishing people
for making money in the U.S. and then going somewhere else. It's a meat
Told of it, some scholars wonder about the law's chilling effect on
the right to expatriate. But once gone, ex-citizens have no more claim
to come back than would-be immigrants do.
The prospect of banishment isn't a pleasant one, especially for
someone like one law professor who didn't make his fortune in America
and never meant to come to the U.S. in the first place. "My name is
in the Federal Register," he says, explaining why he would rather
that a newspaper not use it.
He stems from a line of German-Jewish bankers who became Roman
Catholic late in the last century and owned a 3,000-acre estate near
Munich. The Nazis sent his grandfather to a concentration camp. His
father and mother escaped with him to England. Then his parents
divorced. His mother sailed to America, and he went with her.
They were stateless. At war's end, the family learned that its German
patriarch had somehow survived. The money wasn't returned; the land was.
But the mother had remarried in America. So, in 1947, she and her son
became American citizens.
BACK TO GERMANY
His father, meanwhile, returned to Germany. In 1950, at age 16, the
son began visiting. He liked Europe, a tug that intensified when, in
1984, he fathered a child by a German woman. In 1993, he secured a post
at a British university and left the U.S.
His father had died in 1991, bequeathing him land that had been in
the family since 1825. With a German son as his heir, the professor
realized, the U.S. would ultimately tax those lands.
Adding it all up, he decided to become German again. In 1997, aware
of the consequences, he walked into the U.S. Embassy in London and
renounced his American citizenship.
In its two years of publication, Rep. Gibbons's list of expatriates
in the Federal Register has grown no shorter; if the tax law has
dissuaded anyone from giving up U.S. citizenship, it doesn't show. If it
has raised any revenue to speak of, the IRS can't say.
Nor has the INS managed to write rules to enforce the immigration
law. In prickly consultations with the State Department and the IRS,
nobody can agree on the precise mechanics of an "official"
And nobody knows how Congress could have given the INS the enormous
power to brand people who give up U.S. citizenship as tax dodgers and
banish them--without appeal--when the IRS can't legally let other
agencies snoop through anybody's tax returns.
What can the U.S. tell expatriates living under this cloud?
The State Department's Mr. Betancourt says, "This is not a
paperwork issue. The consequences are very serious. I can't say
nothing's going to happen."
For now, he advises, it is probably still safe for expatriated
un-Americans to enter their forsaken land. But with their names on the
"list of shame," they would all have some explaining to do if
they ever got the urge to buy a gun .
Posted by Tom Rodriguez on February 02, 1997:
Can a Mexican citizen, US resident, become a US citizen without
giving up Mexican citizenship? I've heard Mexico's laws are changing
to allow dual citizenship.
Posted by BETSY on February 04, 1997:
In the past a Mexican would lose his rights as an heir if he took a
foreign citizenship. If he had or ended up with property in Mexico, he
had to dispose of it within 60 months, or forsake it in favor of the
government. The U.S. does not encourage dual citizenship, but are not
very interested in this matter, as long as you do not break any U.S.
laws. At the present time, Mexicans can take a foreign citizenship
without losing out on the family property.
There is one hitch though, you cannot vote in Mexico and in the
foreign country as well. And... how can a foreign government protect
you in Mexico, if you hold both citizenship? As you see, there are
some wrinkles to iron out. Most people suspect that this was a
political move to encourage more Mexicans to take up U.S. citizenship,
also as a way to encourage Mexicans to vote in the elections back
home. This needs further clarification, naturally.
Dual Citizenship and
American National Identity
By Stanley A. Renshon
A Mix of Self-Interested Motivations
Mexico shares a long border with the American
Southwest and is the single highest sending country of immigrants into
the United States. As noted, the official estimate of foreign-born
persons, of whatever legal status, living in the U.S. as of 2000, was
28.4 million. The flow from 1980 to 2000 constitutes the largest
consecutive two-decade influx of immigrants in the country's history.
Half the foreign-born population is from Latin America, and 1999 figures
reveal (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000, 1) that, "one-third of
the foreign born are from Mexico or from another central American
In the censuses of 1960, 1970,
1980, and 1990, Mexico was just one of the top-10 countries of origin
for immigrants in the United States (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997,
p. 13/Table 3-1). In 1980 and 1990 it was the top country of
birth, and this will no doubt be true as well for the 2000 census. In
1980, there were 2.1 millions Mexicans living in the United States.
By 1990, that figured had doubled to over 4.2 million.
By 1994, that figure had jumped to 6.6 million (de la Garza,
1997, 2). And by 1997, that figure had jumped to over seven million
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997, p. 12).
Mexican Americans in particular
have high birthrates. The Census Bureau estimates that the proportion of
the population in immigrant households is likely to increase in future
years given that group's relative youth and high fertility rates. So,
for example, the average foreign-born household had larger numbers of
children under 18 than native-born household (1.02 vs. .67) Or, to put
it another way, 60 percent of foreign-born households had one or more
children under 18 compared with 45 percent of native households.
Foreign-born households were more likely to have two (44 versus 36
percent) or more (16 versus 9 percent) children than native-born
households. Of families with a foreign-born householder from Latin
America, 25 percent had three or more children, and, among married
couples with householders from Mexico, this figure is 79 percent.
As Steven A. Holmes points out in
his analysis of the 1998 National Center for Health Statistics study:
Much of the increase in
Hispanic-origin births is a result of high fertility rates among
Mexican Americans, particularly recent immigrants, about 70 percent
of the babies born to Hispanic women in 1995 — up from 61 percent
in 1989 — were born to women of Mexican heritage...The study
provides further evidence that people of Mexican heritage have an
increasing demographic significance in American society. The study's
findings strongly imply that, as a result of high levels of
immigration and a high birth rate, people of Mexican heritage are
poised to become a major economic, political, and cultural force in
the coming decades." (1998, A12)
These facts have not been lost on
the government of Mexico. As Paula Gutierrez (1997; see also Vargas,
1996, 7-10) points out, "The dual nationality amendments [recently
enacted] radically depart from Mexican tradition and laws." The
change required that three articles of the Mexican constitution be
amended and at least 55 secondary laws be repealed or revised.
This enormous undertaking represented, "a sharp reversal
after decades in which successive governments either ignored Mexican
expatriates or referred to them as pochos, or cultural
traitors" (Dillon, 1995). What changed?
The full story of that change has
yet to be written, but it will surely entail self-interested strategies
on the part of the ruling Mexican party, the opposition party trying to
make inroads against it, and a growing chorus of Mexican-Americans who
wanted to further their economic, political and cultural claims in their
country of origin. Each of these parties had their own versions of
self-interest, but it is instructive to note that the interests of the
United States were clearly not considered by any of these parties.
This does not by itself make
Mexican dual citizenship an adverse development for the United States.
However, it does underscore the extent to which the calculations that
led to Mexico's decision to enact dual citizenship were taken with the
self interests of the three Mexican groups wholly in mind. Its impact on
the politics, economy, and culture of the United States counted for very
little, if at all, in these calculations.
And what are these calculations?
Several seem quite clear. Mexico has always depended on the northward
movement of immigrants into the United State to reduce population and
economic pressures, and the political consequences which flow from them.
Encouraging northward migration operates therefore as "safety
valve" for Mexican society and, not incidentally, for its governing
elites of whatever party.
Mexico, like other
immigrant-sending countries, benefits economically from sending many of
its nationals to the United States to work. The reason is that Mexican
nationals, working in the United States, are a key source of national
income, which itself helps to relieve economic and thus political
pressures on the governing elites.
A recent study by Rodolpho de la
Garza, Manuel Orozco, and Miguel Barona (de la Garza et al.,
1997, 1-2) on the binational impact of Latino financial
remittances found that because of "the very large number" of
new arrivals from Latin America remittances have "dramatically
increased" and "represent a substantial contribution to the
national economies of the receiving countries."26
Specific figures for Mexico cited
in this study are startling. For example, in 1990 the five countries
that the study examined (Columbia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Mexico) received over $1 billion in remittance income;
however, "remittances to Mexico account to over half of the total
amounts sent to the five countries combined" (1997, 2). As the
authors (1997, 3) point out, their use of World Bank figures are
"conservative estimates, and others indicate that Mexican
remittances account for between $2 to $4 billion." Moreover, Mexico
was one of three countries in which the increase in rates of remittances
was greater than its immigrants' income (1997, 4). Finally, the amount
of remittances to all five countries exceed the amount of official U.S.
aid, and this is true even for countries like El Salvador, which
received the largest amount of such aid in the 1980s.
From the standpoint of Mexican
economic incentives, the advantages of dual citizenship to Mexico are
clear. The more close ties to the "homeland" can be encouraged
and stimulated, the more stable the flow of remittances will be and the
more likely they are to increase over time. Recent estimates have put
this figure at $2.16 billion in the first quarter of 2001, up 42 percent
(Finley, 2001). Removing barriers that keep Mexican Americans alienated
from their home country is another plus from this standpoint.
Dual-citizen Mexican Americans can now send their money home and have
use of it when they spend time or retire there. From the self-interested
economic perspective of Mexican Americans, this is a positive
However powerful economic
incentives are, and they are substantial, it would be a severe error to
underestimate the political importance of Mexican Americans to the
Mexican government. Spiro has argued (1997, 1470) that, "Mexico and
other countries would have no concrete means to use their nationals as
instruments, at least not consistent with international law..." I
am not sure what international law making use of multiple loyalties is
inconsistent with, but it is clearly part of the strategic thinking of
In a private meeting with U.S.
Latino leaders in 1995, Mexican President Zedillo (quoted in Vargas
1996, 3)27 said that his government would
support the then-pending constitutional and other legal changes,
allowing dual-citizenship to "increase the political clout of
Mexican Americans." Why was he interested in doing that? For one
reason, because his goal was to "develop a close relationship
between his [Mexico's] government and Mexican Americans, one in which they
could be called upon to lobby U.S. policy makers on economic and
political issues involving the United States and Mexico" (Corchado,
1995a, 11A, emphasis mine; see also Vargas, 1996, 3).
Or, as Vegas (1996, 9, emphasis
mine) notes, the many recently developed Mexican government programs now
in operation28 to reach out to the Mexican
American community in the United States have a clear purpose:
The government of Mexico is
investing in Mexican Americans now and plans to collect tomorrow.
Recognizing their political and economic power in the United States,
but aware of their familial and spiritual links they continue to
maintain with Mexico, the country of their ancestors, the Mexican
government is hoping to contribute to the development of a powerful
and effective lobby ready to represent and defend the interests of
Mexico in this country (1996, 9, emphasis mine).
Speaking of the Mexican government
change in its approach to Mexican Americans, Raul Yzaguirre, President
of the National Council of La Raza, said in a 1996 interview (quoted in
Corchado, 1995b, A1; see also Vargas, 1996,7 fn 23, emphasis mine):
"For many years there was an aversion by Mexico to deal with our
community. Now they realize we represent a long term interest."
What interests are these? Writing
before the changes in dual nationality became law, Jorge A. Vargas says:
Mexicans with dual nationality
would raise an array of novel and delicate questions in the United
States. Such questions may address international law in general, and
specific areas of domestic legislation of these two countries.
Taxation, labor issues, acquisition of real estate and other
business transactions, inheritance, domicile, military service,
family law and minor's rights, deportation and other immigration law
aspects, political rights and diplomatic protection may be among the
long list of technical legal questions directly affected by this
contemplated legal change. (1996, 3)
To this substantial list, one might
add Mexican President Vicente Fox's call for essentially open borders
between the two countries. (Jordan, 2000; Thompson, 2000) Since
almost all the human traffic would go from south to north, this
suggestion would appear to be highly advantageous to Mexico. It would
ensure that more Mexican Americans send more remittances, further defuse
Mexican demographic, economic, and social pressures, and ensure
ever-larger groups of dual nationals to be mobilized on Mexico's behalf. Its
overall benefits for the United States appear economically modest.
Politically, it is potentially destabilizing.
Dual citizens and those with
multiple loyalties might be used to organize on behalf of other policies
the Mexican government might favor — for example, bilingual language
policies which help to maintain and facilitate ties to the
"home" country. Or
they might be used to promote amnesty for those who enter the country
illegally (Greenhouse, 2000),
another policy that furthers Mexico's interests much more than it does
the United States'. Juan Hernandez, President Fox's advisor and director
of the new Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad, added several more.
He wants American states to issues driver's licenses to illegal
immigrants, allow them to get in-state tuition at colleges, and have
access to pre-natal and other health care (Finley 2001). And he would
like to have Mexican Americans who have succeeded in this country invest
more in their "home country" (James Smith, 2001).
The Mexican president was quite
clear in his remarks to the Mexican Federal Congress in May 1995 (quoted
in Vargas, 1996, 5, emphasis in original): "The Mexican nation goes
beyond the territory contained by its borders. Therefore an
essential element of the ‘Mexican national program' will be to
promote the constitutional and legal amendments designed for Mexicans to
retain their nationality..."
It is not possible to read this as
anything other than straightforward statement that Mexico considers
individuals who have emigrated, and even obtained citizenship elsewhere,
as still being Mexican nationals. President Vicente Fox "has made
it clear he intends to be president of 118 million people, a number that
includes the 100 million living in Mexico itself as well as those living
in the US." (Slambrouck, 2000)
Of course, the fact that the Mexican government considers Mexican
American citizens in this way does not mean that Mexican Americans
necessarily reciprocate the feeling. Yet, there is certainly enough
theory and evidence to support the view that many Mexican immigrants
retain an important attachment to their country of origin.
Vargas agrees, noting that one set
of "sociological" arguments in favor of dual citizenship for
Mexicans is that, "Mexicans are very proud of their culture. In
principle, any Mexican is a true nationalist. They love their history,
culture, and traditions, and especially they love their beautiful
country. Accordingly Mexicans remain Mexicans anywhere they are."
American Dual Citizens: Ambivalent Loyalties
The issues that can arise with multiple loyalties are seen in some of
their most direct manifestations in the case of Mexican Americans. Other
research data suggest that Vargas' "sociological arguments"
have substantial real-world manifestations. As a result, they are not
just a matter of abstract controversy. Rather, they directly raise basic
questions about issues of cultural coherence and attachment in American
On many empirical measures, Mexican
Americans stand apart from traditional or even contemporary patterns of
integration into American society. Ruben Rumbaut (1994), for example,
surveyed over 5,000 children from immigrant families. Half were
U.S.-born children of immigrants, half were foreign-born children who
immigrated here before they were 12 (the 1.5 generation).
He offered each child the opportunity to self-identify by either
national origin (e.g., Jamaican, Hmong), hyphenated identity (e.g.,
Mexican American, Filipino American),
a plain American identity, or a pan-racial/ethnic identity (e.g.
Hispanic, Latino, "Black").29 He
found a definite trend of adopting a hyphenated American identity from
the foreign-born children to those born here (from 32 percent to 49
percent). These findings, he correctly states, are indicative of a
"significant assimilative trend." He notes the most
assimilative groups appear to be the Latin Americans, "with the
very notable exception of Mexicans. Among the U.S.-born less than 4
percent of Mexican American-descent youth identified as American (the
lowest proportion of any group)..."
(1994, 765, emphasis mine).
Moreover, among second-generation
Mexicans, "a very substantial number identified as Chicano,
virtually all of them U.S. born and all of them in California; in fact a
quarter of all Mexican-descendant second generation students
self-identified as Chicano, a historical and problematic identity unique
to that group..." In other words, compared to other
second-generation immigrant children, Asians for example, Mexicans were
far more likely to select a pan-racial/ethnic identity that did not
include some American component.
The same kinds of difference showed
up in language use, one of the key elements of integration into a new
society. Rumbaut measured facility by relying on self reports, a method
ripe for methodological errors like those brought about by social
Even so, he found a Mexican difference:
Three quarters of the total
sample preferred English, including substantial majorities in every
group...the single exceptions are the Mexicans, who are the most
loyal to their native tongue, although even among them 45 percent
preferred English. More than one-third speak English only with their
parents, although, interestingly, a smaller proportion speak English
only with their close friends (who are also children of immigrants)
(1994, 767, emphasis added).
And finally, when one examines the
rate of naturalization for those qualified to seek it, Mexicans again
stand out. The proportion
of naturalized citizens among the foreign-born population in 1997 was 53
percent for those from Europe, 44 percent for those from Asia and 24
percent for those from Latin America. Why are the Latin American
naturalization rates so low? Primarily, "because of the low
figure for the population from Mexico (15 percent)" (U.S.
Department of Commerce 1997, 20, emphasis mine).
Does dual citizenship inhibit
naturalization in the United States? Hispanic advocacy research groups
argue it does not. De la Garza and his associates (1996) compared a
group of Central and Latin American countries which do and do not grant
dual citizenship and ask whether dual citizenship affects naturalization
rates. They conclude it does not. However, they erroneously include six
countries that do grant dual citizenship (Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Brazil) in their list of 10 who do not.31
Moreover, they are only able to conclude there is no difference
by excluding the single largest immigrant-sending country with (at the
time) no dual citizenship provisions — Mexico — from their analysis.
A more careful analysis of the
impact of dual citizenship on naturalization rates was undertaken by
Philip Q. Yang (1994) as part of a large empirical analysis of
naturalization using national census data. He notes:
In spite of the [statistical]
significance of its coefficient, the negative effect of dual
citizenship also contradicts the dual citizenship hypothesis that
dual citizenship encourages naturalization. The odds of
naturalization for immigrants from countries which recognize dual
citizenship are about 20 percent (-.201=.799-1) smaller than the
odds for those from countries which do not. Perhaps, immigrants
may...have confusion about and difficulty in maintaining dual
allegiances to both the country of origin and the host country.
Thus, immigrants may be reluctant to identify themselves with
Americans and are therefore much less likely to naturalize (1994,
The ambivalence that immigrants
feel because of the pull of dual loyalties can be resolved in several
different ways. The pull of the old country can recede, and the
attachment to the newer one can grow. The pull of the old country can
retain its original strength and even grow given modern technology
and/or efforts by the "old country" to stimulate it. Or, the
immigrants can continue to have strongly mixed feelings essentially
making them feel never truly at home.
Yet rates of naturalization by
themselves, like rates of political participation by themselves, without
other information do not tell us very much. The latest figures on
Mexican naturalization (U.S. Department of Justice 2000, 170) show that
while it is still comparatively low, it is "inching up." For
example, "Mexico was the leading country of birth of persons
naturalizing in 1998 with 112,442 or 24.3 percent of the total."
Perhaps not coincidently that is the first year after Mexico's new dual
citizenship law went into effect allowing their nationals to retain
their Mexican citizenship while at the same time becoming U.S. citizens.
One can look on increasing
naturalization rates among immigrants as a positive development.
However, one can also wonder if groups that are more likely to become
U.S. citizens only when they are able to retain citizenship in their
"home" countries are the kinds of committed citizens that our
democracy envisions. Conflicted, and to that extent shallow, citizenship
seems as problematic for a country, as affairs are for a marriage.
Loyalties: Then and Now
We are now in a better position to answer a question that arises in
connection with the spread of dual citizenship. Plainly stated the
question is this: Other immigrants have come here, established
themselves, and yet still retained an active interest and involvement in
the affairs of their home countries, even after several generations.
Irish and Jewish Americans come easily to mind here.
It's a fair question. Certainly
many Irish Americans were concerned with "the troubles" in
Northern Ireland and some provided financial support for the positions
they favored. In the annals of lobbying, the efficacy of those lobbying
for the state of Israel is legendary and a model for those who wish to
use their dual citizenship to emulate it. So why isn't what's
"good" for Irish and Jewish Americans equally good for Mexican
or Nigerian dual nationals?
While no one answer is likely to be
definitive, it seems that there are at least five differences between
then and now:
(1) America: Accepted vs.
Contested Culture: Yes,
culture is always in transition. However, when transition arises from a
questioning of the basic legitimacy and fairness of core social and
political institutions it is quite a different set of circumstances.
Ongoing and expected cultural evolution and development which
builds on and refines basic cultural and political institutions is one
matter. Building on the ruins of what was previously accepted is
So, when Irish and Jewish Americans
expressed and even acted on their continuing interests in their
"home" countries,32 they did so
in a context in which one set of basic elements of an American identity,
a commitment to its core institutions and cultural arrangements, was not
(2) American National
Psychology: Self-Confident Individualism Fading?
The term "American national psychology" does not mean
there is one American psychology or an indelibly etched American
"national character." It does reflect the fact that the blend
of opportunity and freedom, framed by a constitutional republic which
reflected and encouraged both, created a group of citizens who were
determined to realize their ambitions and make use of their
opportunities, were independent and fair minded, and optimistic and
secure enough to take risks, but temperate enough to allow pragmatism to
Obviously, not every American
displayed these characteristics in whole or in part. However, America
would not have been built without these characteristics being
substantially distributed in its population. Echoes of those earlier
characteristics survive and have been adapted to our new millennial
circumstances, but the number of Americans who combine them appears to
be shrinking. Other-directedness saps independence, and "thou shall
not judge" provides a cover from doing so.
So, in the past whatever interests
Irish and Jewish American had in their respective "home
countries," it was filtered through the lens of a more widely
shared national psychology which didn't shy away from independent-minded
judgments. What kinds of judgments might these be in these circumstances
of multiple attachments? One such set of judgments would surely involve
setting boundaries and priorities regarding one's attachments.
(3) Multiple Loyalties Then and
Now: The Psychology of Primacy: Consider the hyphenated Irish or
Jewish American identity. Does that mean such a person is an Irish-American,
a Irish-American, an Irish-American, or an American
of Irish decent? Each of these possible permutations reflects a
psychological identification with, and arrangement of, some of the basic
building blocks which form our identity.
It seems very unlikely that for
most Irish and Jewish Americans their "home country"
identifications were either equal to, or more important than, their
American identity. Moreover, had any of their fellow countrymen
suggested that they should be, it seems fair to say that most would
respond clearly, straightforwardly, and without much self-doubt: No.
They might be interested in some aspects of their "home
countries," but most, if not all, would say they were American
first and primarily.
Consider further the hypothetical
case in which the Irish and Jewish American equivalents of
"black," or Chicano (Hispanic) were available. Let's call them
"white" and "European." In fact, those terms, while
available, have never been embraced by Irish and Jewish Americans. Such
an embrace would effectively decouple one's identity from any
specifically stated identification with America.
Can anyone seriously argue that
such an identity would be chosen as Rumbaut (1994, 764 ,Table 2)
found was the case in second-generation immigrants from Mexico?
He found that almost half of his respondents selected a
racial/pan-ethnic identity, or that another 8 percent of these
adolescents would select an identity exclusively allied with national
origin. Would a random sample of Irish or Jewish American
second-generation children find over 50 percent whose selected
self-identification did not include an American element? I think not.
(4) Ninety-Three and Rising
Fast: The Problems of Scale: The
number of dual-citizenship- encouraging countries is rapidly rising.
More countries will be added to that list. Yet, there is an asymmetry in
the movement of immigrant populations. The flow is from economically
struggling, often less republican political countries to the more
economically secure liberal democracies. The weight of cultural economic
and political adjustment falls on the latter, not the former.
Few Americans not of Mexican origin
seek to become naturalized there. And if they did, they would learn that
Mexico, unlike the United States, requires those who would do so to
renounce their former citizenship, and is serious about that
requirement. If the foreigner makes such an affirmation, but does so in
a "fraudulent manner or without true intent to be definitely and
permanently obligated by them," the result can be a stiff fine
(Vargas, 1996, 32-33, emphasis mine). Who decides when and whether the
taking of an oath is done in this matter? The issue is "exclusively
dependent on the absolute discretionary powers of the Mexican
authorities." Moreover, the Mexican government does not even issue
birth certificates for the children of non-Mexicans born in Mexico
(Vargas, 1994, 35).
Even if Mexico were to liberalize
their naturalization laws for people other than their nationals living
abroad, it would have little discernable impact on the nature of their
political, cultural, and social institutions because the numbers are so
small. The same cannot be said of the circumstances of the United
The United States takes in more
immigrants, from more countries, than any other country in the world. It
is also the destination of substantial numbers of illegal immigrants,
now estimated to total between 8.5 and nine million people, much higher
than earlier estimates.
These three facts, coupled with the
reality of 92 immigrant-sending countries which encourage dual
citizenship for their nationals (but not necessarily for immigrants
arriving in their countries), leads to an inescapable conclusion. No
other country in the world takes in so many immigrants, from so many
dual-citizenship-allowing countries, and as a result has such a vast and
swelling population of its citizens with dual citizenships and multiple
So, in the past, Irish and Jewish
Americans, to the extent they had interests and some level of attachment
to their "home countries," were the numerical exception, not
the rule. Today, with 85 percent of the large number of immigrants we
have accepted in the last four decades from dual-citizenship-encouraging
countries, the situation is fast being reversed. Dual citizens are
increasingly becoming the rule, not the exception, in certain
geographical areas in the United States.
(5) Compatibility of Interests,
Then and Now: Some Distinctions:
Immigrant involvement in "homeland issues," as Mona
Harrington (1980, 680-686; see also Tony Smith, 2001) terms them, is not
new. The Irish in the United States made U.S. relationships with
Ireland's archenemy, England, a campaign issue as far back as the 1840s.
(Harrington, 1980, 682). Ancestral
quarrels like those between Greece and Turkey have periodically spilled
over into American legislative politics. Yet, is it accurate to say as
Spiro does (1997, 1477) that a "dual Mexican American who advocates
policies that benefit Mexico is little different from a Catholic who
advocates policies endorsed by the church or by a member of Amnesty
International who writes his congressman at the organization's
The first question that needs to be
asked is the relationship of the policy advocacy to the person's (or
group's) self-identity. Any American citizen who espouses a policy
position is likely to be in accord with one advocacy group or another.
Does the citizen who agrees with the Amnesty International position
define himself as a "world citizen" and not a U.S. one? Or, is
he basically an American citizen who supports the position of an
international organization? Is every American citizen who supports the
work of the United Nations an example of dual loyalties, about which we
should worry? Obviously not. Neither Amnesty International nor the
United Nations is a "home country" with all the emotional
attachments that follow from that experience.
A second question that needs to be
asked concerns numbers. Assuming those who wrote in favor of Amnesty
International positions were self-identified as "world
citizens." How many such "world citizens" are there who
do not primarily identify as Americans? Are they the same numbers of
possible dual citizens as Mexico possesses, over seven million? Further,
are they concentrated in a few states and metropolitan areas where their
combined weight might tip the scales of deliberative policy, as is the
case, for example, with Mexican Americans (U.S. Department of Commerce,
What of Catholics voting in
accordance with the Vatican position on an issue? This starts to get
closer to the issues raised by dual loyalties to another country, but
falls far short as a accurate model. Few, if any, Americans were born,
raised, and emigrated from the Vatican. As a result, whatever doctrinal
beliefs they learned in church were also learned in an American
community, embedded in American cultural and social institutions and
surrounded by others with the same core American experiences. Moreover,
policy positions of whatever sort are primarily cognitive, attachments
to one's country more fully affective. Policy preferences are not often
deeply held, and even when they are, rarely organize the person's sense
of core identity.
Moreover to my knowledge, the
Vatican has never sought to substitute its positions on say, birth
control, for the more general, fundamental, and important set of beliefs
that constitute the "American Creed." One can easily be an
American Catholic who supports the Vatican's position on this issue or
an American Catholic who does not, but one will remain above all, an
Do not Irish and Jewish Americans
lobby on behalf of what is, in fact, a foreign government or group? Yes,
but again it pays to make distinctions. The Irish have certainly
successfully labored to involve the American government in the solution
to the "troubles." And Jewish Americans have lobbied the
American government to support the establishment of,
and, more successfully, the continued existence of Israel. These
do not, however, constitute lobbying for policies that are against the
interests and long-term policies of the United States. Resolving
tensions between the Irish and our historic allies, the British, is not
against American interests. And supporting the right of existence of a
democratic state of Israel isn't either. Can the same be said of
organized efforts for repeated major amnesty programs which subvert the
attempt to make immigration an orderly, fair, and supportable policy?
Can it be said of organized efforts in support of open borders with
countries that stand to reap many more advantages from that policy than
the United States? Can it be said of organized efforts to make the
United States a multilingual country where there is no longer a common
language and understanding? I think important differences are clear in
There is, as well, the issue here
of the effects on American culture and politics of having such a large
group of those living here advocating positions which are consistent
with their country of origin or dual identifications, but not
necessarily with those of the United States. Return to the metaphor of
dual citizenship as analogous to a marriage. Advocates claim that
different views between marriage partners are normal and need not cause
undue concern. And what if such partners do disagree on matters of
principle? No harm done, they claim, the individuals just agree to
However, what if the spouses'
parents or family intervened in the marriage on behalf of their
principles and their son/daughter took their side? What if this happened
on a number of issues? Would there still be a pleasant agreement to
disagree? I think not.
What are the effects of siding with
your family at the expense of your spouse — on the relationship of the
husband and wife and on the spouse whose views were trumped by the
spouse's family? Translated into the concerns we are raising here, the
question is: What is the effect of having groups of dual citizens side
with, or give strong weight to, the official views of their country of
origin or dual identification on both them, the United States, and the
country which asked for and received their agreement?
Finally, we must ask: Does it
matter if the successful results of such policy interventions by foreign
countries and their multiple-citizen allies change the basic cultural,
psychological, social, institutional, and political organizations that
have been the foundations of this country's republican democracy for
over 200 years? Yes. Of course it matters.
Cultures, One Nation
America reached its present state of political, economic, and social
development by providing enormous personal freedom and abundant economic
opportunity. In doing so, it leveraged personal ambitions as a tool to
transform individuals' social and economic circumstances. In the
process, it helped develop and reinforce psychological elements which
were consistent with personal success and civic prudence in American
democracy. An emphasis on consistency, hard work, delay of immediate
gratification, prudence, pragmatism, and optimism were among these
In return, it asked of immigrants
that they learn the country's language, culture, and political
practices. Thus oriented toward their new home, immigrants could become
part of the fabric of American cultural and political life. Leaving a
life behind, even one that immigrants wanted to leave, was of course
difficult. Yet generations of earlier immigrants thought the sacrifice
Dual citizenship and its associated
bifurcation of attention and commitment changes that traditional and
successful recipe. Immigrants increasingly come from countries that
encourage dual citizenship. Their purposes in doing so are primarily
self-interested. It may be to ensure the continued flow of financially
critical remittances from those working in the United States. Or, it may
be to organize their nationals to further their home country's policy
preferences; amnesty for
their nationals who entered this country illegally, for example, or the
support of bi-lingual language policies which help to maintain and
facilitate ties to the "home" country. Whatever the specific
purposes, sending countries are increasingly mobilizing to retain
immigrants' emotional attachment and to further develop commitment to
the "home" country from which they emigrated.
These developments set the stage
for a direct conflict of interest among new immigrants and citizens,
many of whom retain deep attachments to their home country.
Given the geographical distribution of such immigrants, it is
possible that whole states and certainly some localities will have a
substantial portion of dual citizens with active and deep connections to
their "countries of origin" being asked to put aside these
experiences and connections in favor of America's national or community
interest. Whether that is possible as a matter of psychology or politics
remains to be seen. I mean no implication that such immigrants will be
"fifth column." However, it is prudent to consider that in
such circumstances they are likely to be conflicted.
This poses a dilemma for the United
States. It has traditionally taken in immigrants with the assumption
that they would eventually become anchored to an American identity and
nationality over time. In the past this was a reasonable assumption. It
no longer is.
Dual citizenship seems well suited
to an age in which advocates, theorists, and politicians tell us there
are no limits on what we should expect to have, without incurring any
costs. Do you want the benefits of freedom and opportunity buttressed by
a 21st century infrastructure and unlimited access to consumer goods,
but still want to maintain and further develop your emotional, economic,
social, and political ties to your "home" country? No less an
authority on self-interest without responsibility than former President
William J. Clinton (1999) found the idea of dual citizenship publicly
appealing.33 And why not? To the immigrant,
it dramatically lowers the costs of immigration while raising its
Yet, to a democracy — especially
one facing issues of cultural coherence and solidarity — the costs of
admitting and allowing large numbers of dual citizens, with multiple
loyalties and an increasing capacity to maintain these ties, and
pressures on them from their home countries to do so, are not so
favorable. In a time characterized by enormous worry regarding the
decline of social capital and its implications for American civic life,
the split attachments of large numbers of dual citizens are another
source of deep concern.
Reforming dual citizenship in the
United States is certain to be controversial. It will definitely be
politically difficult. Yet, such measures will have the advantage of
calling all Americans home to their country. This country
provides so much of basic human value to those fortunate enough to call
it home. Asking its citizens to have a primary and relatively
unconflicted interest in its affairs and a concern for its welfare seems
a small and legitimate sacrifice to ask of those who ask to share its
treasures — freedom and opportunity.
Efforts to make immigrants feel
welcomed are important to making them feel more at ease in their new
surroundings. Yet there remain valid questions as to the different forms
that welcoming can take, and whether some forms don't damage the very
outcomes of integration they seek to foster. Do we foster attachment to
American citizenship and its ideals by devaluing it? If we allow, or, as
some would have us do, encourage, immigrant loyalties to the "home
country," do we not put at risk the involvement and connection that
have traditionally been the hallmarks of other immigrant groups that
have become integrated into American society and culture?
Do we encourage a connection to
America and its government by averting our eyes as other counties send
us their immigrants, but do everything in their power to foster
connections with their old country instead of their chosen one? Should
we encourage our dual citizens to vote in their home country's
elections, and ours through the prism of their home country's self
interest? Should we encourage our dual citizens to run for, and hold
Earlier this year, Andres Bermundez
— who came to this country 28 years ago hidden in a car trunk and has
since become legal and an economic success — became one of three
Mexican Americans to campaign for office in Mexico (Mena 2001) and won (
James Smith, 2001). He and his supporters are quoted as hoping that he
will be the first of a wave of "bi-national politicians." Juan
Hernandez, President Fox's advisor on Mexicans abroad, sees many such
candidates in the future, "for Mexican state and federal
legislative posts (emphasis mine)." Does such encouragement really
help Mexican-American immigrants to become integrated in their new
country or their old? What does it do to American civic traditions and
the functioning of our political system when a large group of new
immigrants is asked to turn away from our political way of life, except
when it suits the purposes of the country that sent them?
No country, and certainly no
democracy, can afford to have large numbers of citizens with shallow
national and civic attachments. No country facing divisive domestic
issues arising out of its increasing diversity, as America does,
benefits from large-scale immigration of those with multiple loyalties
and attachments. And no country striving to reconnect its citizens to a
coherent civic identity and culture can afford to encourage its citizens
to look elsewhere for their most basic national attachments.
The question that America faces as
it heads into the 21st century is whether its cultural, psychological,
and political diversity lead to a fragmented, and thus dysfunctional,
As he had when he ran for president
in 1992, Mr. Clinton showed an accurate understanding of this basic
public dilemma.34 In a talk with reporters
It is really potentially a
great thing for America that we are becoming so multi-ethnic...But
it's also potentially a powder keg of problems and heartbreak and
division and loss. And how we handle it will determine, really, —
that single question may be the biggest determination of what we
look like 50 years from now...and what the children of that age will
have to look forward to. (1997a, 509)
Elsewhere he (1997b, 877) had
warned that the central problem facing this country was whether,
"we define what it means to be an American, not just in terms of
the hyphen showing our ethnic origins, but in terms of the our primary
allegiance to the values that America stands for and values we really
live by." As was often the case with this president, however, the
question was whether his actions would be consistent with his publicly
stated understandings and intentions (Renshon, 2001).
A key question is whether the
opposite of fragmentation is Anglo-western "domination"? Some
apparently think so. James Hunter in his book Cultural Wars argues
that (1997, 52, italics his), "cultural conflict is ultimately
about domination." Yet the word domination implies subjugation.
And those terms conjure up vast, powerful, and cold forces who suppress
— brutally if, necessary — what some would characterize as the
authentic striving of the noble but powerless.
This, of course, is a caricature.
Its primary logical problem is to explain how, if
"Anglo-conformity" dominates, it has been possible for the
level of pluralism that has always part of this country's heritage to
exist, much less to prosper (Abramson, 1980; see also Gleason, 1980).
The truth is that there have been pressures for immigrants to conform,
but they have been to national political values more often than strictly
cultural ones. Moreover, some
of the pressure to conform to "Anglo-values," as for example
in the case of learning English, have much more to do with wanting
newcomers to become integrated into the society in which they have
chosen to belong than they do with "subjugating" cultures of
origin. There are obviously strong arguments as well on the side of
those who said that uniting diverse peoples, an early understood task of
the new American republic, required some basic uniformities and language
was an obvious candidate.
Is it true that the goal of all
cultural conflict is domination? Not necessarily. I'm well aware that
the United States has a mixed, in some cases bad, historical record in
its treatment of American Indians, Americans of African decent,
Americans of Asian decent, women, and others. Yet, the strong and
ultimately more historically successful tradition in the United States
has been inclusionary pluralism, not domination and subjugation.
Those who believe otherwise have the difficult task of explaining how a
"hegemonic," "dominating" elite no longer dominates.
better and more useful question is not whether a society must have a
dominant culture, but whether in a democratically pluralist country like
the United States it is still important to have a primary one. Is
democratic inclusionary pluralism compatible with the cultural primacy
of certain core American traditions like individualism, opportunity,
merit, and responsibility? The wager that this country has made for
200-plus years is not only that it's important — but necessary.
26 The authors also argue that remittances
to "home countries" benefit the United States nationally.
Their argument is based on the fungibility of financial figures. Thus if
country x buys products from the United States and their immigrants
abroad send money home, this money can be viewed as helping to pay from
such imports. Examining in depth the few studies adduced (and their
data) to support this claim is beyond the purposes of this paper.
the authors do acknowledge that the vast majority of remittances come
from five states where such immigrants are generally located
(California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New York) and they are
substantial. The authors estimate (p.8) that over $3.1 billion
in remittances were sent home by immigrants from these five
states. They note (de la Garza et al., 1997, p. 8) that these
remittances, "Clearly, constitute a major resource, which if
invested locally [in the United States] could significantly improve
state and local economies in general, and the personal conditions in
which these immigrants live in particular."
Jorge A. Vargas is of Mexican nationality and a former professor of law
in Mexico City, now visiting at the University of San Diego Law School.
These include aggressive government strategies to develop and maintain
contact with important groups of Mexicans abroad, the creation and
proliferation of sixteen Mexican Cultural Institutes and Centers, a
promotional campaign in the favor of NAFTA (North American Free Trade
Agreement), a considerable increase in the number of Mexican consulates,
the development of special programs to provide legal and diplomatic
protection to both documented and undocumented migratory workers, and
the publication of a new bilingual newsletter, "La Paloma."
The quotation marks are mine and reflect the findings of biologists and
anthropologists which suggest that race is a socially constructed
political category. Rumbaut (1994, 763) says that the last two
categories (three and four) are exclusively identities "made in
America," and the last (four) represents "a denationalized
identification with racial ethnic minority groups in the country of
destination, and self-conscious differences in relation to the white
[sic] Anglo majority population." He then counts together those who
select a plain American identification (11 percent) and those who select
a pan-racial/ethnic identification (21 percent) and concludes they are
not connected to their origins but to their "American
is certainly incorrect to state that the hyphenated identity is not also
a "made in America" one. Yet, a larger and more important
question arises from his characterizations of his identification data.
From the standpoint of national coherence and integration, the major
question of these data is how much identification with an American
identity each category represents. It is quite clear that the plain
American identifications (11 percent) are that. It is also likely that
the national-origin identifications (27 percent) are not. Moreover, it
is unclear how much identification with the United States is contained
in the largest category, the hyphenated American identity (40 percent).
And the same is also very true for those who eschew any category with
the name American in it (21 percent).
There are reliability and validity problems with such data as well. For
example, Rumbaut (1994, 760) reports correlations of the respondents'
self reports with performance with the objective Stanford reading
achievement test score. He reports there was a "strong
correlation" of 0.42 (p=0.0001).
these numbers don't reveal is that in a sample of over 5,000 respondents
it is fairly routine to get findings of such magnitude and to reach
"statistical significance." Moreover, a correlation of 0.42
sounds high, but it means that of all the variance in the relationship
between self-report and object test measures, only 16 percent is
actually explained. Or to put it another way, the objective test results
"explain" or account for only 16 percent of the level of
proficiency reflected in the self-report.
They base their list on a publication by Blaustein and Flanz entitled
Constitutions of the World, but
give no date for the publication.
Of course, the number of immigrants from Israel to the United States is
low, both in numbers and percentages, in comparison to, for example,
Mexico or the Philippines. The dual citizenship/loyalty issue arises
primarily because of the historical circumstances preceding the
establishment of the state of Israel and the fact that the ‘law of
return' promises any Jew Israeli citizenship on immigration. So, for
most American Jews the question is not returning to a state from which
they once lived, but emigrated, but rather their attachment to the
existence of a Jewish homeland after a 2000 years' diaspora.
Jerry Rawlings, President of Ghana, mentioned in a news conference with
President Clinton that he was sponsoring a bill to allow to allow
present and former nationals of Ghana dual citizenship. Part of that
Would it be dual loyalty?
Rawlings: Well, I guess that what we have a bit of — we don't
have any problem with that...I have a problem with you because you're
demanding loyalty to the American Constitution and yet I cannot
command the same type of loyalty in my country.
Clinton: ... Almost all countries allow some form of dual
citizenship...it certainly won't hurt to get more Americans interested
in Ghana and contribute to Ghana's future. I thought it [dual
citizenship] was quite a clever idea myself.
Elsewhere, I (Renshon, 1998, 3-33) have described the basic public
dilemma as a fundamental unresolved question concerning public
psychology and governance facing the president on taking office. It is
not a specific question about public policy, but rather the public's
psychological connections to its institutions, leaders, and political
process. This unresolved public concern underlies and frames more
specific policy debates.
- How do I give up my U.S.
A person wishing to give up or
renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and
with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described
above have no legal effect. Americans cannot effectively
renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or
while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held
certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be
- appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic
- in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or
- sign an oath of renunciation
- If an American citizen were to
apply for citizenship in another country, must s/he give up
the U.S. citizenship? If not, what are the conditions? What
about dual citizenship?
If one takes up citizenship in
another country, then the U.S. will consider that person to
no longer be a citizen. Incidentally, the same is not
necessarily true the other way around. If a person of
another country becomes a U.S. citizen then, depending upon
the laws of the home country, that country may still
consider her/him to be a citizen. There are situations where
the U.S. may recognize dual citizenship. For example, a
person may have acquired U.S. citizenship through a parent
and still be a citizen of another country. The dual
citizenship situations generally pertain to
citizenship-by-birth, not when the U.S. citizen naturalizes
in another country.
- Do Foreign Citizenship Oaths
Strip you of Previous Citizenships?
In general, no, although some
countries (such as the US but not Canada or Australia) have
verbal oaths that state that all former citizenships are
relinquished, there are few (if any) modern cases in which
this has happened to dual citizens. Most citizenship oaths
are historical and have little legal power. In general, most
countries that allow dual citizenship require very specific
acts for you to relinquish your citizenship, and routine
verbal oaths delivered in a foreign country are rarely
considered valid. Marc Rich (of Clinton pardon fame) is one
of the well-known cases (Action and Deltamar v. Rich, 951
F.2d 504 (2nd Cir. 1991)). Rich assumed an oath in Spain
would remove his US citizenship. The Spanish naturalization
oath he took included an explicit renunciation of US
citizenship. Due to a variety of circumstances the court
judged that he was still a US citizen. The US State
Department's position is:
The Department has a uniform administrative standard of
evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to
retain United States citizenship when they obtain
naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to routine
declarations of allegiance to a foreign state, or accept
non-policy level employment with a foreign government. Both
the Australian and Canadian citizenship oaths do not require
giving up previous citizenships. The renunciatory language
in the Canadian naturalization oath was ruled illegal by a
Canadian court in 1973 on technical grounds and was
subsequently removed. The Australian Oath of Allegiance
became a Pledge of Commitment in 1994. The Citizenship
Council recommended in February 2000 that the pledge remain
unchanged and the Government stated in May 2001 that it
accepted this recommendation. The Pledge reads:
From this time forward, under God
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose Democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect,
and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
New Citizens can choose to take the pledge in the form of an
oath, which includes the words 'under God', or in the form
of an affirmation, which does not.
- I heard that the US and Canada
don't allow Dual Citizenship. Is this true?
This is incorrect. Both the US and
Canada now allow their citizens to hold multiple
citizenships. Most references to the contrary are out of
date since this has been resolved for at least ten years in
the case of the United States and over twenty in the case of
Canada. Note that the respective governments often couch
dual citizenship in negative terms as few governments like
to lose control over their citizens.
The official US position on dual citizenship reads in
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists
but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of
the problems it may cause.
The official Canadian position on dual citizenship reads
Unlike the law in effect in Canada up to 1977, the present
Citizenship Act allows a Canadian citizen to acquire foreign
nationality without automatically losing Canadian
citizenship. Since February 15, 1977, a Canadian citizen may
retain Canadian citizenship, unless he or she voluntarily
applies to renounce it and the application is approved by a
citizenship judge. The present Act thus makes it possible to
have two or more citizenships and allegiances at the same
time for an indefinite period. Also, both the US and Canada
require specific acts to give up citizenship. Canada
requires that someone who wants to give up their Canadian
citizenship has to go to a Canadian embassy or consulate and
sign a special form in the presence of Canadian officials.
The US requires that "A person wishing to renounce his
or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to
relinquish U.S. citizenship appear in person before a U.S.
consular or diplomatic officer, in a foreign country
(normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and sign an oath
- Which Countries Allow/Prohibit
Countries Which Allow Dual
Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Egypt, El
Salvador, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, France, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon,
Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan*,
Portugal, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa*, Spain (only
in certain cases), Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tonga (only
in certain cases), Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of
America, Western Samoa.
* Persons retain their former citizenship if they
apply to retain it before taking out Australian citizenship.
Countries Which Prohibit Dual Citizenship:
Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Burma, Chile, China, Denmark,
Ecuador, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia,
Iran*, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius,
Nepal, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland,
Romania, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Venezuela,
* Iran does not recognise dual citizenship but
continues to recognise its citizens as Iranian.
* Note that Germany has recently amended its
citizenship laws so that in some exceptional circumstances,
dual citizenship is now allowed. Consult the German Foreign
Office website for details.
* Also, India announced on 8 January 2002 that it
will shortly change its law to allow dual citizenship for
Indians settled outside India.
This information was taken from Attachments A and B of
the Government's June 2001 Discussion Paper with updates
that we have become aware of since then. Please note however
that laws may change in some countries and we cannot
guarantee that this list is completely up to date.
Dual Citizenship and
American National Identity
By Stanley A. Renshon
Dual Citizenship and
Conflict: The War of 1812 Redux?
Advocates of dual citizenship look to the past, and
reassure us that we are unlikely to go to war over dual citizenship, as
we did with the British in 1812 (Spiro, 1997, 1422-1423; see also David
Martin, 1999, 20) . That conflict arose when the British, then following
the "perpetual allegiance" theory of citizenship, forcibly
tried to repatriate American citizens at sea. Yes, it is true that we
will not go to war with Britain over these kinds of matters (Russett,
1993). However, Spiro takes his argument further. He says we we should
"embrace dual nationalism" because:
The prospective spectacle of
millions of Mexican-American dual nationals lining up at their
consulates to vote in Mexican elections, on the one hand, and the
possibility of their voting in high concentration in some U.S.
elections on the other, suffices to justify the enterprise [e.g.,
reappraising dual nationality]...however the oddity of these
developments should not by itself provoke resistance. In fact, under
the standard of earlier times, dual nationality now poses little
threat to the polity. (1997,
1460; see also 1468, fn 246)
What are these standards of earlier
times to which Spiro refers? Is it the fact that
"democracies rarely make war on each other?" Clearly
so, because he argues that it was war "that ultimately made dual
citizenship so problematic in hostile world. In a malign incarnation
they could undermine from within by doing the command of their other
allegiance, threatening the polity at a fundamental level." (1997,
Spiro is raising the spectre here
that dual citizens might be treasonous because of their mixed loyalties
in wartime, but asks us not to worry about this because democracies now
rarely go to war. This is an extremely odd argument for an advocate of
dual citizenship to make. If mixed loyalties are so dangerous to this
Republic that treason is a major issue — and I am not arguing
that it is — then the fact that we rarely go to war with other
democracies is small comfort.
The fact of the matter is that many
of the 92 immigrant-sending, dual-citizenship-encouraging countries are
not democracies. Of the
top-20 immigrant-sending countries to the United States (see Renshon,
2000a, 6 — Table 2), which account for 84 percent of our total
number of immigrants each year, only two — Canada and the United
Kingdom — are relatively peaceful and mature democracies. Most are not
democratic (Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc.) and the rest are fledgling
democracies often with large and deeply rooted authoritarian strains
(Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Russia, Ukraine, etc.) or continued
histories of religious and communal violence.
Moreover, democracies do still have
armed conflicts with non-democracies. And, as David Martin (1999,
8, fn 23) points out, "If relaxed rules on dual nationality are
adopted or expanded over the coming decades, persons with such a mix of
citizenship (one democratic and one non-democratic) will doubtlessly
make up a significant percentage." Martin adds the "especially
worrisome cloud" of the rise of ethnic tensions and identity
politics which increase the structural fault lines in a large number of
what he terms "polyglot nations," of which the United States
is surely now one.
He is not wrong to worry. In Santa
Ana, Calif., former Vietnamese communists and their non-communist
counterparts scuffled during a protest against an art show's positive
depiction of the communist regime (The New York Times, 1999). In
a similar incident, the decision of a Vietnamese immigrant to drape a
communist flag across the front of his store sparked thousands to
protest (Sanchez, 1999).
In Miami, in the Elian Gonzalez
case, residents of South Miami, backed by their local government, said
they would defy federal orders to hand the boy over to immigration
authorities. A New York
Times reporter who covered the story wrote:
To many people here, some who cheered and some who shuddered,
it was a declaration of independence for a part of the country that
is, increasingly, a nation apart. People have even begun to greet
each other with: 'Welcome to the Independent Republic of Miami.' Latin
Americans make up the overwhelming majority, and English has faded
from homes, offices, and stores. But it is the Cuban exiles who
drive the county's economy, politics and culture, and it is Cuba's
flag, not the United States', in the windows of shops, on car
antennas and on the mural behind the Chevrolet dealership on Le
Jeune Road (Bragg, 2000).
During the recent outbreak of violence in the Middle East, large groups
of anti-Israeli/pro-Arab demonstrators held noisy protests here at which
several were arrested. (Waldman, 2000; see also Barry and Christian,
2000). During this period several Jewish synagogues were vandalized (Chivers,
And, in the aftermath of the World
Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, Americans focused on those
from Arab or Muslim countries living here. Allegations by Arab-American
advocacy groups have fueled concerns of "intolerant behavior"
(Edsall 2001). Leaders, in turn, have admonished against such behavior
(Sachs 2001). Yet beneath the obvious tensions toward Arabs and Muslims
caused by the religious identity of the terrorists and the obvious fact
that almost all Arabs and Muslims living here are not terrorists, lie a
more complicated set of issues.
In one of the few systematic
in-depth studies of identifications of Muslim immigrants with their
country of origin and the United States, GhaneaBassiri (1997), an
Iranian doctoral student at Harvard, found that they are extremely
ambivalent about this country. More specifically, GhaneaBassiri found
"a significant number of Muslims, particularly immigrant Muslims,
do not have close ties or loyalty to the United States." Indeed,
his questionnaire showed that 80 percent of his sample of Muslims in Los
Angeles and a third of those who had converted to the Muslim religion
felt more allegiance to a foreign country than to the United States.
Given these facts, the optimistic
belief of multiple-citizenship advocates that inter-nation conflict that
has implications for dual citizens is an historical relic seems to be a
case of wishful thinking. The evidence simply does not support such
naive optimism. Yet, while international military conflicts that engage
or test the loyalties of dual citizens in this country cannot be easily
ruled out, the real problem is not war, but cohesion.
Do Multiple Loyalties Equal
Loyalty is a complex concept and an even more complex emotion.
Psychologically, it is basically an attachment to, a sense of
identification with, and feelings "toward a person, place, or
thing."25 These can run from the
shallow to the profound, from the episodic to the immutable, and from
the singular to the diverse.
Primary nationality, the one that
we are born into, begins to take root very early, indeed before the
child is born. The history and practices that brought a particular
couple together are themselves influenced by the cultural expectations
and understandings that they acquired while growing up in their country
and culture. How they prepare for their child and how they relate to her
is also conditioned by the same factors. And of course, the parents
speak to the child in their own language, soon to be his, and as he
grows they are the guides and interpreters of the culture he must learn
and transverse. The process of being embedded in, and attached to, one's
country of origin begins early.
Children begin to incorporate the
symbols of their nationality and country very early. E.L. Horowitz
(1940) found that 25 percent of a sample of first-graders in Tennessee
chose the American flag as best, and that by seventh grade the number
doing so was 100 percent. E.D. Lawson (1963) later replicated that study
in an urban-suburban New York sample and found that from kindergarten,
children put the stars and stripes first.
Eugene A. Weinstein (1957) found that the first notions of
another country, ours as "good" and other countries as
"bad," began as early as five years old. The emotional
attachments to country clearly begin much earlier than the cognitive
development level necessary to sustain an intellectual understanding of
the concepts (Jahoda, 1973). Indeed, that is precisely the fulcrum of
their lifelong power.
Summing up a variety of such early
studies, A.F. Davis concludes:
The main lesson...is how early
[they develop] and how closely they conform to a relatively stable
and complex order of preferences appropriate to their American
nationality...it runs through all grades, it is common to boys and
girls, impervious to the syllabus, and remarkably resistant to
background factors like family social status or region. (1968, 114)
What is the point of these studies?
Just this: Loyalty to a nation and feelings of attachment to it begin at
a primal age and become increasing consolidated as the child develops.
Which is why people are willing to die for their country, why great
national accomplishments bring pride, and why the symbols of a country
— the flag, a constitution — carry such great emotional weight and
It is why a New York Times reporter,
covering the attitudes of African immigrants to this country could
write, "Many African immigrants say that whether they stay here for
two or 20 years, Africa is, and always will be, home." (Waldman,
1999) It is why the
Funeraria Latina — owned by funeral industry giant Service Corporation
International — transports 80 percent of its bodies out of the United
States (Finley, 1998). It
is why Alejandro Ruiz, who left Mexico and began work on landscaping
crews around Denver, became a U.S. citizen, raised 10 children, 40
grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren here, can still say he
wants to be buried at "home," meaning Mexico. He says,
"My heart is here, but it's also there...Even though here I made
money, enough to feed my family — it was easier for me to make a
living here — I will go back to Mexico. When I die, I must go back to
Mexico." (quoted in Finley, 1998)
It is why Lan Samantha Chang
(1999), a novelist writing in response to the Wen Ho Lee case, could say
in a New York Times op-ed piece entitled "Debunking the Dual
Loyalty Myth," "True, many immigrants have strong ties to
their countries of birth...But cultural or familial loyalties are on a
different level from political allegiances...I love China, but I am a
citizen of the United States." Ms. Chang appears to want to
distinguish a love for one's "home" country from being willing
to commit treason against one's adopted one. This is obviously a fair,
reasonable, and appropriate distinction.
Yet, in the process of making such
a distinction, she acknowledges the duality of her feelings. The issue
is not between love of one's country of origin and treason, but rather
the multiple loyalties that appear to be part of many immigrants'
Consider the case of Aida Ridanovic,
an immigrant from Bosnia. She
says: "On one hand, I've become so American that, if I go back,
there will be tons and tons of things I'll miss. On the other, I am so
much a Sarajevan that every day I pray to God that somebody will offer
me a job there. . . I live my life on two tracks, one here, one there.
And I am assimilated. I have a quite ordinary American life. I have a
job. My husband has a job. We have our kids in day care. We pay taxes.
We have a new holiday, Thanksgiving, which I really do care about. And
we celebrated the Fourth of July...[however] I want to die in
Sarajevo." (quoted in Finley, 1998)
She adds, refugees forced to leave
their homes "may not like America, but all of them agree on one
fact: They have a better life in America."
Or, consider the reactions of some
Mexican Americans interviewed about whether they would apply for U.S.
citizenship in light of Proposition 187. Some of the answers were (1)
"Never, I was born in Mexico, raised in Mexico, and I want to die
in Mexico... (2) [G]iving up my Mexican citizenship is like giving up a
child of mine... (3) It's as though I'm betraying my country, my people
and my culture..." (Corchado and Anderson, 1994)
point here is not that immigrants are disloyal. They are, however,
conflicted. And increasingly, governments of dual-citizen-sending
countries are taking steps to ensure that the loyalties and attachments
that many immigrants feel for their country of origin are maintained and
even stimulated. A good illustration of the issues involved in these
developments can be found in examining the case of Mexico and its
immigrants to the United States. (SEE ABOVE- MEXICAN CITIZENSHIP)
It’s a little dated, but will be a good starting point for
anyone whose ever been curious about obtaining dual citizenship. There’s
a good chance you may already be eligible for it and not even
know. Do your research and do it well. Find out
which countries recognize dual citizenship - Denmark, Norway,
Finland, Japan, and Thailand are just a few that don’t.
The U.S. will allow dual citizenship so long as the other
country allows it as well. Then again, after
9/11 re-entry into the states could just become one huge
headache. How life-changing dual citizenship is and
whether it is worth all the trouble is up to you. Just
something to think about.
CBC News Online | July 29, 2004
Most countries define citizenship based on one or more of these
Canada's Citizenship Act allows people to be citizens of two or
more countries at the same time. This also means a person should
know the rights and obligations required of them when they are
in those countries of citizenship. The law of the country where
you are at the time take priority over the laws of any other
country where you hold citizenship. International treaties,
though, may override local laws.
- You were born on territory belonging to, or claimed by,
- One or both of your parents were citizens of that country.
- You married a citizen of that country.
- You (or one or both of your parents) obtained that
country's citizenship by going through a legal process of
naturalization (i.e. living there for a period of time,
passing a citizenship exam)
- You lived in that country for an extended period of time.
Some people may have dual nationalities and not realize it. In
some countries, if your grandparents or parents were born there,
they will consider the children citizens, even if they were born
|How do I
find out if I'm a citizen of more than one
Contact the embassy or consulate of the country
in question. You will have to provide your place
and date of birth, citizenship of your parents
and/or grandparents and immigration details.
If the country has no representatives in
Canada, you can contact:
The Protocol Service of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Ottawa, ON K1A 0G2
Contact the Citizenship and Immigration call
centre: 1 888 242 2100
Some countries allow dual citizenship, while others take away
citizenship the moment the person acquires another nationality.
Numerous countries do not recognize dual citizenship. These
include: Burma, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Norway,
Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Sweden, Syria, Thailand,
Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
Other countries allow dual nationalities until a certain age. In
Germany, for instance, children of foreign-born parents have
dual nationality until the age of 23 – that's when they must
decide which passport to keep. Only in exceptional cases, for
instance, if ''unreasonable conditions'' are imposed for giving
up a foreign passport, will dual citizenship be permitted to
Some countries have loosened their restrictions on dual
citizenship. In 1998, Mexico changed its laws permitting
Mexican-born citizens of other countries to reclaim their
Mexican citizenship. Previously, the citizenship of Mexicans was
automatically rescinded when they took on their new citizenship.
The law also applied to anyone born outside Mexico whose mother
or father was born in Mexico.
In the U.S., new citizens have to forsake their previous
national standing unless that country permits dual citizenship.
Dual citizenship can cause difficulties. Since the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, the U.S. has made it more difficult for
certain Canadians to enter America. Canadians with dual
citizenship in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria may come under
suspicion at the border and be fingerprinted.
Certain countries may forbid a person travelling with two
passports, so your Canadian passport may be confiscated or you
may be subjected to a fine. You may be required to enter and
exit a country using the same passport. Also, if you run into
trouble, Canadian consular services may try to help, but if the
country considers you one of its citizens, there is little
Canadian officials can do – their interference would be seen
as outsiders meddling in internal affairs.
Some countries require their citizens to perform compulsory
military service, or pay special taxes. Others may require you
to reimburse the costs of the free post-secondary education and
inheritances may not be allowed for people with dual
citizenship. Some countries do not accept ignorance of the law
as an excuse. You may be imprisoned or sent to military service.
Even dual citizens who have passed the age for active military
service may be considered in breach of their obligations for
failing to report at the required time.
Sometimes, marriages performed in Canada may not always be
considered legal in other countries. As well, Canadian divorce
and child custody documents may not always be recognized.
The Canadian government encourages people to travel with their
Canadian passports, so it can intervene should something happen
abroad. For instance, the government has an agreement with China
that anyone of Chinese ancestry who enters China with a Canadian
passport is recognized as a Canadian citizen.
If you run into problems abroad, you can place a collect call to
the Operations Centre, Consular Affairs Bureau, Foreign Affairs
Canada: ( 613) 996-8885. If you prefer to get rid of your other
citizenships, you may be required to go through an official
process to renounce your nationality. This will entail formal
approval from the authorities of that country. Even then, some
countries don't recognize renunciation.
THE PROBLEM WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP
Classified by Ashcroft: FBI Infiltrator With
Dual Citizenship Stymied 911 Investigation
|Here is a copy of the letter retroactively
CLASSIFIED by Ashcroft relating to Sibel Edmonds' now classified
testimony in the 911 investigation. It discusses her supervisor
(monitor) who stymied pre-911 FBI investigations that were
following the terrorists. Excerpt: "[Sibel Edmonds FBI]
monitor may hold dual citizenship with the United States and a
foreign country and may possess a valid passport issued by that
|August 13, 2002
Hon. John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear General Ashcroft:
We are writing jointly in order that you might allay our concern
about the status of the investigation into allegations made by
Sibel Edmonds, a former contract linguist in the Washington
Field Office of the FBI. Although we understand that the matter
is currently under investigation by the Inspector General, we
are troubled that the Department of Justice, including the FBI,
may not be acting quickly enough to address the issues raised by
Ms. Edmonds' complaints or cooperating fully with the Inspector
By way of background, Ms. Edmonds first raised concerns about
security problems and the integrity of important translations
earlier this year. Unfortunately, nearly every person at the FBI
who was notified of the situation reacted by questioning why Ms.
Edmonds was "causing trouble." Indeed, the FBI's first
internal security action in this case focused on Ms. Edmonds,
instead of the allegations that she raised in good faith as a
whistleblower and which bore on national security and the war
Ms. Edmonds has made a number of serious allegations, some of
which the FBI verified during an unclassified briefing for
Judiciary Committee staff on June 17. First, Ms. Edmonds has
alleged that a contract monitor in her unit
("monitor") chose not to translate important,
intelligence-related information, instead limiting her
translation to unimportant and innocuous information. The FBI
has verified that this monitor indeed failed to translate
intelligence-related information, but has attributed the failure
to a lack of training as opposed to a malicious act.
That conclusion is directly related to Ms. Edmond's second
allegation. Ms. Edmonds alleged that the same contract monitor
once worked for an organization associated with the target of a
counter-intelligence investigation and that the monitor had
unreported contacts with a foreign national who was a member of
the target institution. Additionally, Ms. Edmonds states that
some of the mistranslated recordings on which the monitor
actually worked contained conversations by this same foreign
national with whom the monitor had such contacts. Finally, the
foreign national disclosed in recorded conversations that he
handled intelligence matters. This fact was among the
information that was not translated or summarized by the
Even after verifying these allegations, the FBI downplayed the
importance of this matter and seemed to imply that it had ceased
looking into the complaints as a security matter until after the
Inspector General Office finishes its investigation. Anyone who
remembers the long-time treachery of former FBI Agent Robert
Hanssen would be concerned at this reaction. For years,
Hanssen's bizarre actions were also written off as minor
security breaches and unworthy of serious consideration. If even
routine diligence had been exercised earlier, Hanssen could have
been stopped from doing untold damage. The FBI needs to learn
from its mistakes.
In addition to general concerns raised by this case, we have
several specific concerns we wish to raise for your review.
First, we have learned that a person central to the
investigation -- the monitor referred to earlier -- will be
leaving the country in early September, which most likely will
be before the investigation is resolved. If you or your staff
would like to know the identity of the monitor, please contact
Inspector General Fine's office, with whom Senator Grassley's
staff has been in touch. The monitor may hold dual citizenship
with the United States and a foreign country and may possess a
valid passport issued by that foreign country. Thus, there will
be little or no assurance that the monitor will return or
cooperate with an investigation in the future. Based on these
facts, we would like your assurance that you are satisfied that
there has been and will be no delay that will prejudice, in any
way, the outcome of this investigation.
Furthermore, we would like your assurance that the Department of
Justice, including the FBI, will fully cooperate in all aspects
of the inquiry. For instance, we draw your attention to the fact
that the FBI currently opposes depositions of the monitor and
her husband as part of the investigation into this case. The FBI
takes this position despite the fact that the monitor is no
longer employed by the FBI, that the monitor's husband never
worked at the FBI and even though the military agency that
employs the monitor's husband does not oppose a deposition.
Moreover, we understand that the monitor and her husband have
signed a letter stating they will make themselves available for
depositions. It is unclear, then, why the FBI is taking this
position in the wake of such important allegations bearing on
national security. We hope that you will ensure that the FBI is
fully compliant with the Inspector General's inquiry as it
Finally, we are concerned about the most crucial evidence in the
case -- the recordings that were allegedly improperly
translated. Because these bear directly on the veracity of Ms.
Edmonds' allegations, we seek your assurance that the recordings
will be properly maintained, turned over to the Inspector
General's Office and promptly translated by a competent and
independent authority. That way the validity of the complaint
can be quickly evaluated.
We know that you share our concern that the FBI address issues
bearing on national security in a prompt manner, regardless of
whether or not they cast the FBI in a positive light. Only by
honest evaluation can the FBI learn from its past mistakes. We
thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. We
request a reply in writing by Wednesday, August 28, 2002.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy
Sen. Chuck Grassley
Chairman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
Swish! - Horrific Media Spikes
By Ted Lang
©. 2005 All Rights Reserved
I have yet to lose my lust for news and
my constant search for the truth. Regrettably, the vast
majority of news consumers in our nation believe that the
truth is everywhere to be found; it is not. I am very
fortunate in having found a source of news and views that
is totally devoted to the truth. My previous effort
directed the reader to this
The belief that truth is easily realized
was one of the great misconceptions attributable to our
Founders when Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of
Independence: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident." Equal in importance as regards truth
is the timing of its realization, the reputation of the
source, its believability in terms of common acceptance,
and the degree of importance to the public. For truth, to
be of any real value, must have all these elements.
Another way to describe "importance
to the public" would be to use the term
"impact." Consider the impact of a known news
We are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan because
of such impact. And yet, we now know that the reason for
our invasion of these sovereign, self-governing nations
was based upon a series of manufactured and fraudulently
Clearly, an operation whose central
mission is the communication of news events must be
cognizant of those factors relative to truth, ensuring not
only the conveyance of highly relevant news events, but
guaranteeing their accuracy as well. As a watchdog of
government actions, truth is the press's chief weapon not
only in fighting the State's fraud, waste, abuse and
corruption, but most importantly, the State's lies!
Zionist domination of the media has been
repeatedly proven, and this domination
is evident in both the electronic and print media. The
commonality of "news" reporting in all the news
media, to include major leading newspapers and both
network and cable TV journalism, was definitively exposed
in Bernard Goldberg's two best-selling books: Bias and
Arrogance. And indeed, the common thread throughout the
media is its "Jewishness" as opposed to the
ongoing bigger-fish-eats smaller fish corporate
centralization and the dominance of The New York Times.
|NOTE: What is Zionism?
the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their
homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel,
advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews
of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to
form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals.
Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish
state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term
"Zionism" was coined in 1890 by Nathan
Zionism is not a part of the Jewish religion, but rather is parasitic
upon it. Most Zionists are Jews, but not all Jews are Zionists. To condemn
Zionism as immoral (racist, vicious and depraved) is not to condemn
Zionists claim that Jews have the right to possess all land between
the Nile and the Euphrates because (they say) this land was given to
them by some entity they call "YHWH" as claimed in the Old
Testament (Genesis 15:18). But this would not be the first time that
documents written by humans were used to justify land grabs. (And this
"YHWH" appears, from accounts in the Old Testament, to be a
particularly repulsive entity, vain, jealous, given to fits of rage and
directing his followers to massacre civilian populations — an entity
who, if he existed, would be quite unworthy of the devotion of anyone
with a sense of justice and morality.)
Zionists also lay claim to Palestine because this was territory
controlled by two Jewish mini-states, Judah and Samaria, until their
destruction by the Romans in the 1st C. CE. To which may be
replied: If Zionist claims to a Jewish "homeland" in
Palestine, based on Jewish occupation of that area 2000 years ago, are
accepted as valid then the claims of North American Indians to their
former homeland (all of the United States) and the claims of Australian
Aborigines to their former homeland (all of Australia) should also be
accepted as valid, and those homelands returned. Not to mention the
descendants of the inhabitants of countless mini-states which have risen
and fallen over the course of thousands of years of human history. Jews
have no more rights than anyone else.
Zionists are not content with having acquired a state of their own in
Palestine, they also want this state to be for-Jews-only, thus the
desire and intention to expel from Israeli-controlled territory all the
indigenous inhabitants (a practice sometimes known as ethnic
cleansing, a concept derived from the Nazi practice of
"cleansing" areas of all Jews so that those areas are then Judenrein).
idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very
beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary. In practice,
the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time they began
purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants....
"Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist
dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With
few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of
forced transfer — or its morality. — Tom Segev, One
Palestine, Complete : Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate,
quoted at http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
The Palestinians, being Arabs, are Semites. By their open contempt
for, and racist persecution of, the Palestinians the Israelis show that
it is they who are the real anti-Semites, and their accusations of
anti-Semitism (and the accusations of their American and European
coreligionists) cast at all who criticise Jews or Israel amount to no
more than blatant hypocrisy.
Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism
Zionists are experts at propaganda, disinformation, distorting facts and
claims, and outright lying. Any criticism of Zionism or of Israel is
labelled as "antisemitism", where this is interpreted to mean
"anti-Jewish". This is a slanderous falsehood. Criticism of
Zionism is criticism of a particularly ugly political movement, not
criticism of a religion or of the adherents of a religion. One may be
critical of Zionism and of Zionists while at the same time being quite
tolerant of, or well-disposed toward, or even an adherent of, the Jewish
religion (as we see from the websites cited above).
Whether one approves of or dislikes the beliefs and practices of
Judaism it remains that Jews have a right to hold those beliefs and
maintain those practices. No-one, however, Jewish or non-Jewish, has a
right to drive out people from their homes on land where they and their
forebears have been living for centuries, to deprive people of their
human rights, to cripple their society and to damage the welfare of
others by a parasitic subversion of the government of another country
for base political purposes, which is what Zionists have done and
continue to do.
Bush Neocons and Israel
KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
Note: This is a slightly revised version of essay that originally
appeared in CounterPunch in December 2002. The piece also appeared in The
Politics of Anti-Semitism.]
the long-forgotten days when the State Department's Middle East policy
was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the
Arab world has increasingly become the purview of officials well known
for tilting toward Israel. From the 1920s roughly to 1990, Arabists, who
had a personal history and an educational background in the Arab world
and were accused by supporters of Israel of being totally biased toward
Arab interests, held sway at the State Department and, despite having
limited power in the policymaking circles of any administration, helped
maintain some semblance of U.S. balance by keeping policy from tipping
over totally toward Israel. But Arabists have been steadily replaced by
their exact opposites, what some observers are calling Israelists, and
policymaking circles throughout government now no longer even make a
pretense of exhibiting balance between Israeli and Arab, particularly
In the Clinton administration, the
three most senior State Department officials dealing with the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process were all partisans of Israel to one
degree or another. All had lived at least for brief periods in Israel
and maintained ties with Israel while in office, occasionally
vacationing there. One of these officials had worked both as a
pro-Israel lobbyist and as director of a pro-Israel think tank in
Washington before taking a position in the Clinton administration from
which he helped make policy on Palestinian-Israeli issues. Another has
headed the pro-Israel think tank since leaving government.
The link between active promoters of
Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders
of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people
who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United
States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for
Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people, who can
fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government,
from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary
level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security
Council staff and in the vice president's office.
We still tiptoe around putting a name
to this phenomenon. We write articles about the neo-conservatives'
agenda on U.S.-Israeli relations and imply that in the neo-con universe
there is little light between the two countries. We talk openly about
the Israeli bias in the U.S. media. We make wry jokes about Congress
being "Israeli-occupied territory." Jason Vest in The Nation
magazine reported forthrightly that some of the think tanks that hold
sway over Bush administration thinking see no difference between U.S.
and Israeli national security interests. But we never pronounce the
particular words that best describe the real meaning of those
observations and wry remarks. It's time, however, that we say the words
out loud and deal with what they really signify.
Dual loyalties. The issue we are
dealing with in the Bush administration is dual loyalties -- the double
allegiance of those myriad officials at high and middle levels who
cannot distinguish U.S. interests from Israeli interests, who baldly
promote the supposed identity of interests between the United States and
Israel, who spent their early careers giving policy advice to right-wing
Israeli governments and now give the identical advice to a right-wing
U.S. government, and who, one suspects, are so wrapped up in their
concern for the fate of Israel that they honestly do not know whether
their own passion about advancing the U.S. imperium is motivated
primarily by America-first patriotism or is governed first and foremost
by a desire to secure Israel's safety and predominance in the Middle
East through the advancement of the U.S. imperium.
"Dual loyalties" has always
been one of those red flags posted around the subject of Israel and the
Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces horrified gasps and rapid
heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish disloyalty to the United
States and the common assumption that anyone who would speak such a
canard is ipso facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish friend who is not
bothered by the term in the least, who believes that U.S. and Israeli
interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural for
American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the United
States. But this is clearly not the usual reaction when the subject of
dual loyalties arises.)
Although much has been written about
the neo-cons who dot the Bush administration, the treatment of the their
ties to Israel has generally been very gingerly. Although much has come
to light recently about the fact that ridding Iraq both of its leader
and of its weapons inventory has been on the neo-con agenda since long
before there was a Bush administration, little has been said about the
link between this goal and the neo-cons' overriding desire to provide
greater security for Israel. But an examination of the cast of
characters in Bush administration policymaking circles reveals a
startlingly pervasive network of pro-Israel activists, and an
examination of the neo-cons' voluminous written record shows that Israel
comes up constantly as a neo-con reference point, always mentioned with
the United States as the beneficiary of a recommended policy, always
linked with the United States when national interests are at issue.
First to the cast of characters.
Beneath cabinet level, the list of pro-Israel neo-cons who are either
policy functionaries themselves or advise policymakers from perches just
on the edges of government reads like the old biblical "begats."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz leads the pack. He was a
protégé of Richard
Perle, who heads the prominent Pentagon advisory
body, the Defense Policy Board. Many of today's neo-cons, including
Perle, are the intellectual progeny of the late Senator Henry
"Scoop" Jackson, a strong defense hawk and one of Israel's
most strident congressional supporters in the 1970s.
Wolfowitz in turn is the mentor of
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of
staff who was first a student of Wolfowitz and later a subordinate
during the 1980s in both the State and the Defense Departments. Another
Perle protégé is Douglas
Feith, who is currently undersecretary of
defense for policy, the department's number-three man, and has worked
closely with Perle both as a lobbyist for Turkey and in co-authoring
strategy papers for right-wing Israeli governments. Assistant
Secretaries Peter Rodman and Dov Zackheim, old hands from the Reagan
administration when the neo-cons first flourished, fill out the
subcabinet ranks at Defense. At lower levels, the Israel and the
Syria/Lebanon desk officers at Defense are imports from the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank spun off from the
pro-Israel lobby organization, AIPAC.
Neo-cons have not made many inroads at
the State Department, except for John
Bolton, an American Enterprise
Institute hawk and Israeli proponent who is said to have been forced on
a reluctant Colin Powell as undersecretary for arms control. Bolton's
special assistant is David
Wurmser, who wrote and/or co-authored with
Perle and Feith at least two strategy papers for Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu in 1996. Wurmser's wife, Meyrav
Wurmser, is a co-founder of
the media-watch website MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute),
which is run by retired Israeli military and intelligence officers and
specializes in translating and widely circulating Arab media and
statements by Arab leaders. A recent investigation by the Guardian of
London found that MEMRI's translations are skewed by being highly
selective. Although it inevitably translates and circulates the most
extreme of Arab statements, it ignores moderate Arab commentary and
extremist Hebrew statements.
In the vice president's office, Cheney
has established his own personal national security staff, run by aides
known to be very pro-Israel. The deputy director of the staff, John
Hannah, is a former fellow of the Israeli-oriented Washington Institute.
On the National Security Council staff, the newly appointed director of
Middle East affairs is Elliott
Abrams, who came to prominence after
pleading guilty to withholding information from Congress during the
Iran-contra scandal (and was pardoned by President Bush the elder) and
who has long been a vocal proponent of right-wing Israeli positions.
Putting him in a key policymaking position on the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict is like entrusting the henhouse to a fox.
Pro-Israel activists with close links
to the administration are also busy in the information arena inside and
outside government. The head of Radio Liberty, a Cold War propaganda
holdover now converted to service in the "war on terror," is
Thomas Dine, who was the very active head of AIPAC throughout most of
the Reagan and the Bush-41 administrations. Elsewhere on the periphery,
William Kristol, son of neo-con originals Irving Kristol and Gertrude
Himmelfarb, is closely linked to the administration's pro-Israel coterie
and serves as its cheerleader through the Rupert
that he edits, The Weekly
Standard. Some of Bush's speechwriters --
including David Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" for
Bush's state-of-the-union address but was forced to resign when his wife
publicly bragged about his linguistic prowess -- have come from The
Weekly Standard. Frank
Gaffney, another Jackson and Perle protégé and
Reagan administration defense official, puts his pro-Israel oar in from
his think tank, the Center for Security Policy, and through frequent
media appearances and regular columns in the Washington Times.
The incestuous nature of the
proliferating boards and think tanks, whose membership lists are more or
less identical and totally interchangeable, is frighteningly insidious.
Several scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, including former
Reagan UN ambassador and long-time supporter of the Israeli right wing
Jeane Kirkpatrick, make their pro-Israel views known vocally from the
sidelines and occupy positions on other boards.
Probably the most
important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush administration
policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs (JINSA). Formed after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war specifically to
bring Israel's security concerns to the attention of U.S. policymakers
and concentrating also on broad defense issues, the extremely hawkish,
right-wing JINSA has always had a high-powered board able to place its
members inside conservative U.S. administrations. Cheney, Bolton, and
Feith were members until they entered the Bush administration. Several
lower level JINSA functionaries are now working in the Defense
Department. Perle is still a member, as are Kirkpatrick, former CIA
director and leading Iraq-war hawk James Woolsey, and old-time rabid
pro-Israel types like Eugene Rostow and Michael Ledeen. Both JINSA and
Gaffney's Center for Security Policy are heavily underwritten by Irving
Moskowitz, a right-wing American Zionist, California business magnate
(his money comes from bingo parlors), and JINSA board member who has
lavishly financed the establishment of several religious settlements in
Arab East Jerusalem.
By Their Own
Most of the neo-cons now in government
have left a long paper trail giving clear evidence of their fervently
right-wing pro-Israel, and fervently anti-Palestinian, sentiments.
Whether being pro-Israel, even pro right-wing Israel, constitutes having
dual loyalties -- that is, a desire to further Israel's interests that
equals or exceeds the desire to further U.S. interests -- is obviously
not easy to determine, but the record gives some clues.
Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect
in public, writing primarily about broader strategic issues rather than
about Israel specifically or even the Middle East, but it is clear that
at bottom Israel is a major interest and may be the principal reason for
his near obsession with the effort, of which he is the primary
spearhead, to dump Saddam Hussein, remake the Iraqi government in an
American image, and then further redraw the Middle East map by
accomplishing the same goals in Syria, Iran, and perhaps other
countries. Profiles of Wolfowitz paint him as having two distinct
aspects: one obessively bent on advancing U.S. dominance throughout the
world, ruthless and uncompromising, seriously prepared to "end
states," as he once put it, that support terrorism in any way,
velociraptor in the words of one former colleague cited in the
Economist; the other a softer aspect, which shows him to be a
soft-spoken political moralist, an ardent democrat, even a bleeding
heart on social issues, and desirous for purely moral and humanitarian
reasons of modernizing and democratizing the Islamic world.
But his interest in Israel always
crops up. Even profiles that downplay his attachment to Israel
nonetheless always mention the influence the Holocaust, in which several
of his family perished, has had on his thinking. One source inside the
administration has described him frankly as "over-the-top crazy
when it comes to Israel." Although this probably accurately
describes most of the rest of the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz is
guilty at least by association, he is actually more complex and nuanced
than this. A recent New York Times Magazine profile by the Times' Bill
Keller cites critics who say that "Israel exercises a powerful
gravitational pull on the man" and notes that as a teenager
Wolfowitz lived in Israel during his mathematician father's sabbatical
semester there. His sister is married to an Israeli. Keller even
somewhat reluctantly acknowledges the accuracy of one characterization
of Wolfowitz as "Israel-centric." But Keller goes through
considerable contortions to shun what he calls "the offensive
suggestion of dual loyalty" and in the process makes one wonder if
he is protesting too much. Keller concludes that Wolfowitz is less
animated by the security of Israel than by the promise of a more
moderate Islam. He cites as evidence Wolfowitz's admiration for Egyptian
President Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel and also draws on a
former Wolfowitz subordinate who says that "as a moral man, he
might have found Israel the heart of the Middle East story. But as a
policy maker, Turkey and the gulf and Egypt didn't loom any less large
These remarks are revealing. Anyone
not so fearful of broaching the issue of dual loyalties might at least
have raised the suggestion that Wolfowitz's real concern may indeed be
to ensure Israel's security. Otherwise, why do his overriding interests
seem to be reinventing Anwar Sadats throughout the Middle East by
transforming the Arab and Muslim worlds and thereby making life safer
for Israel, and a passion for fighting a pre-emptive war against Iraq --
when there are critical areas totally apart from the Middle East and
myriad other broad strategic issues that any deputy secretary of defense
should be thinking about just as much? His current interest in Turkey,
which is shared by the other neo-cons, some of whom have served as
lobbyists for Turkey, seems also to be directed at securing Israel's
place in the region; there seems little reason for particular interest
in this moderate Islamic, non-Arab country, other than that it is a
moderate Islamic but non-Arab neighbor of Israel. Furthermore, the
notion suggested by the Wolfowitz subordinate that any moral man would
obviously look to Israel as the "heart of the Middle East
story" is itself an Israel-centered idea: the assumption that
Israel is a moral state, always pursuing moral policies, and that any
moral person would naturally attach himself to Israel automatically
presumes that there is an identity of interests between the United
States and Israel; only those who assume such a complete coincidence of
interests accept the notion that Israel is, across the board, a moral
Others among the neo-con policymakers
have been more direct and open in expressing their pro-Israel views.
Douglas Feith has been the most prolific of the group, with a
two-decade-long record of policy papers, many co-authored with Perle,
propounding a strongly anti-Palestinian, pro-Likud view. He views the
Palestinians as not constituting a legitimate national group, believes
that the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel by right, and has long
advocated that the U.S. abandon any mediating effort altogether and
particularly foreswear the land-for-peace formula.
In 1996, Feith, Perle, and both David
and Meyrav Wurmser were among the authors of a policy paper issued by an
Israeli think tank and written for newly elected Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu that urged Israel to make a "clean break" from
pursuit of the peace process, particularly its land-for-peace aspects,
which the authors regarded as a prescription for Israel's annihilation.
Arabs must rather accept a "peace-for-peace" formula through
unconditional acceptance of Israel's rights, including its territorial
rights in the occupied territories. The paper advocated that Israel
"engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism" by
disengaging from economic and political dependence on the U.S. while
maintaining a more "mature," self-reliant partnership with the
U.S. not focused "narrowly on territorial disputes." Greater
self-reliance would, these freelance policymakers told Netanyahu, give
Israel "greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of
pressure [i.e., U.S. pressure] used against it in the past."
The paper advocated, even as far back
as 1996, containment of the threat against Israel by working closely
with -- guess who? -- Turkey, as well as with Jordan, apparently
regarded as the only reliably moderate Arab regime. Jordan had become
attractive for these strategists because it was at the time working with
opposition elements in Iraq to reestablish a Hashemite monarchy there
that would have been allied by blood lines and political leanings to the
Hashemite throne in Jordan. The paper's authors saw the principal threat
to Israel coming, we should not be surprised to discover now, from Iraq
and Syria and advised that focusing on the removal of Saddam Hussein
would kill two birds with one stone by also thwarting Syria's regional
ambitions. In what amounts to a prelude to the neo-cons' principal
policy thrust in the Bush administration, the paper spoke frankly of
Israel's interest in overturning the Iraqi leadership and replacing it
with a malleable monarchy. Referring to Saddam Hussein's ouster as
"an important Israeli strategic objective," the paper observed
that "Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the
Middle East profoundly" -- meaning give Israel unquestioned
predominance in the region. The authors urged therefore that Israel
support the Hashemites in their "efforts to redefine Iraq."
In a much longer policy document
written at about the same time for the same Israeli think tank, David
Wurmser repeatedly linked the U.S. and Israel when talking about
national interests in the Middle East. The "battle to dominate and
define Iraq," he wrote "is, by extension, the battle to
dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run," and
"the United States and Israel" can fight this battle together.
Repeated references to U.S. and Israeli strategic policy, pitted against
a "Saudi - Iraqi - Syrian-Iranian-PLO axis," and to strategic
moves that establish a balance of power in which the United States and
Israel are ascendant, in alliance with Turkey and Jordan, betray a
thought process that cannot separate U.S. from Israeli interests.
Perle gave further impetus to this
thrust when six years later, in September 2002, he gave a briefing for
Pentagon officials that included a slide depicting a recommended
strategic goal for the U.S. in the Middle East: all of Palestine as
Israel, Jordan as Palestine, and Iraq as the Hashemite kingdom.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld seems to have taken this aboard, since he
spoke at about the same time of the West Bank and Gaza as the
"so-called occupied territories" -- effectively turning all of
Palestine into Israel.
Elliott Abrams is another unabashed
supporter of the Israeli right, now bringing his links with Israel into
the service of U.S. policymaking on Palestinian-Israeli issues. The
neo-con community is crowing about Abrams' appointment as Middle East
director on the NSC staff (where this Iran-contra criminal has already
been working since mid-2001, badly miscast as the director for, of all
things, democracy and human rights). The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes
has hailed his appointment as a decisive move that neatly cocks a snook
at the pro-Palestinian wimps at the State Department. Accurately
characterizing Abrams as "more pro-Israel, less solicitous of
Palestinians" than the State Department and strongly opposed to the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process, Barnes gloats that the Abrams triumph
signals that the White House will not cede control of Middle East policy
to Colin Powell and the "foreign service bureaucrats." Abrams
comes to the post after a year in which it had effectively been left
vacant. His predecessor, Zalmay Khalilzad, has been serving concurrently
as Bush's personal representative to Afghanistan since the fall of the
Taliban and has devoted little time to the NSC job, but several attempts
to appoint a successor early this year were vetoed by neo-con hawks who
felt the appointees were not devoted enough to Israel.
Although Abrams has no particular
Middle East expertise, he has managed to insert himself in the Middle
East debate repeatedly over the years. He has a family interest in
propounding a pro-Israel view; he is the son-in-law of Norman
one of the original neo-cons and a long-time strident supporter of
right-wing Israeli causes as editor of Commentary magazine, and Midge
Decter, a frequent right-wing commentator. Abrams has written a good
deal on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, opposing U.S. mediation and
any effort to press for Israeli concessions. In an article published in
advance of the 2000 elections, he propounded a rationale for a U.S.
missile defense system, and a foreign policy agenda in general, geared
almost entirely toward ensuring Israel's security. "It is a simple
fact," he wrote, that the possession of missiles and weapons of
mass destruction by Iraq and Iran vastly increases Israel's
vulnerability, and this threat would be greatly diminished if the U.S.
provided a missile shield and brought about the demise of Saddam
Hussein. He concluded with a wholehearted assertion of the identity of
U.S. and Israeli interests: "The next decade will present enormous
opportunities to advance American interests in the Middle East [by]
boldly asserting our support of our friends" -- that is, of course,
Israel. Many of the fundamental negotiating issues critical to Israel,
he said, are also critical to U.S. policy in the region and
"require the United States to defend its interests and allies"
rather than giving in to Palestinian demands.
Neo-cons in the
The neo-con strategy papers half a
dozen years ago were dotted with concepts like "redefining
Iraq," "redrawing the map of the Middle East,"
"nurturing alternatives to Arafat," all of which have in
recent months become familiar parts of the Bush administration's
diplomatic lingo. Objectives laid out in these papers as important
strategic goals for Israel -- including the ouster of Saddam Hussein,
the strategic transformation of the entire Middle East, the death of the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process, regime change wherever the U.S. and
Israel don't happen to like the existing government, the abandonment of
any effort to forge a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace or even a
narrower Palestinian-Israeli peace -- have now become, under the
guidance of this group of pro-Israel neo-cons, important strategic goals
for the United States. The enthusiasm with which senior administration
officials like Bush himself, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have adopted strategic
themes originally defined for Israel's guidance -- and did so in many
cases well before September 11 and the so-called war on terror --
testifies to the persuasiveness of a neo-con philosophy focused narrowly
on Israel and the pervasiveness of the network throughout policymaking
Does all this add up to dual loyalties
to Israel and the United States? Many would still contend indignantly
that it does not, and that it is anti-Semitic to suggest such a thing.
In fact, zealous advocacy of Israel's causes may be just that --
zealotry, an emotional connection to Israel that still leaves room for
primary loyalty to the United States -- and affection for Israel is not
in any case a sentiment limited to Jews. But passion and emotion -- and,
as George Washington wisely advised, a passionate attachment to any
country -- have no place in foreign policy formulation, and it is mere
hair-splitting to suggest that a passionate attachment to another
country is not loyalty to that country. Zealotry clouds judgment, and
emotion should never be the basis for policymaking.
Zealotry can lead to extreme actions
to sustain policies, as is apparently occurring in the
Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith Defense Department. People knowledgeable of the
intelligence community have said, according to a recent article in The
American Prospect, that the CIA is under tremendous pressure to produce
intelligence more supportive of war with Iraq -- as one former CIA
official put it, "to support policies that have already been
adopted." Key Defense Department officials, including Feith, are
said to be attempting to make the case for pre-emptive war by producing
their own unverified intelligence. Wolfowitz betrayed his lack of
concern for real evidence when, in answer to a recent question about
where the evidence is for Iraq's possession of weapons of mass
destruction, he replied, "It's like the judge said about
pornography. I can't define it, but I will know it when I see it."
Zealotry can also lead to a myopic
focus on the wrong issues in a conflict or crisis, as is occurring among
all Bush policymakers with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The administration's obsessive focus on deposing Yasir Arafat, a policy
suggested by the neo-cons years before Bush came to office, is a dodge
and a diversion that merely perpetuates the conflict by failing to
address its real roots. Advocates of this policy fail or refuse to see
that, however unappealing the Palestinian leadership, it is not the
cause of the conflict, and "regime change" among the
Palestinians will do nothing to end the violence. The administration's
utter refusal to engage in any mediation process that might produce a
stable, equitable peace, also a neo-con strategy based on the paranoid
belief that any peace involving territorial compromise will spell the
annihilation of Israel, will also merely prolong the violence. Zealotry
produces blindness: the zealous effort to pursue Israel's right-wing
agenda has blinded the dual loyalists in the administration to the true
face of Israel as occupier, to any concern for justice or equity and any
consideration that interests other than Israel's are involved, and
indeed to any pragmatic consideration that continued unquestioning
accommodation of Israel, far from bringing an end to violence, will
actually lead to its tragic escalation and to increased terrorism
against both the United States and Israel.
What does it matter, in the end, if
these men split their loyalties between the United States and Israel?
Apart from the evidence of the policy distortions that arise from
zealotry, one need only ask whether it can be mere coincidence that
those in the Bush administration who most strongly promote "regime
change" in Iraq are also those who most strongly support the
policies of the Israeli right wing. And would it bother most Americans
to know that the United States is planning a war against Iraq for the
benefit of Israel? Can it be mere coincidence, for example, that Vice
President Cheney, now the leading senior-level proponent of war with
Iraq, repudiated just this option for all the right reasons in the
immediate aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991? He was defense secretary at
the time, and in an interview with the New York Times on April 13, 1991,
"If you're going to go in and try
to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got
Baghdad, it's not clear what you will do with it. It's not clear what
kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently
there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish
regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one that tilts
toward the Islamic fundamentalists. How much credibility is that
government going to have if it's set up by the United States military
when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay
to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens
to it once we leave?"
Since Cheney clearly changed his mind
between 1991 and today, is it not legitimate to ask why, and whether
Israel might have a greater influence over U.S. foreign policy now than
it had in 1991? After all, notwithstanding his wisdom in rejecting an
expansion of the war on Iraq a decade ago, Cheney was just as interested
in promoting U.S. imperialism and was at that same moment in the early
1990s outlining a plan for world domination by the United States, one
that did not include conquering Iraq at any point along the way. The
only new ingredient in the mix today that is inducing Cheney to begin
the march to U.S. world domination by conquering Iraq is the presence in
the Bush-Cheney administration of a bevy of aggressive right-wing
neo-con hawks who have long backed the Jewish fundamentalists of
Israel's own right wing and who have been advocating some move on Iraq
for at least the last half dozen years.
The suggestion that the war with Iraq
is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of
policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure
environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this.
The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a
Ha'aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists
"are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American
governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual
loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in
the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime
Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose
schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds
blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no
proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him . But the style is the
The dual loyalists in the Bush
administration have given added impetus to the growth of a messianic
strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied itself with Israel in
preparation for the so-called End of Days. These crazed fundamentalists
see Israel's domination over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward
fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli
relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view
warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to
Armageddon. These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound
influence on Bush and his administration, with the result that the
Jewish fundamentalists working for the perpetuation of Israel's
domination in Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists working for
the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each other's policies in
administration councils. The Armageddon that Christian Zionists seem to
be actively promoting and that Israeli loyalists inside the
administration have tactically allied themselves with raises the
horrifying but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian-Islamic
war. The neo-cons seem unconcerned, and Bush's occasional pro forma
remonstrations against blaming all Islam for the sins of Islamic
extremists do nothing to make this prospect less likely.
These two strains of Jewish and
Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast
imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced
by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a
president and vice president heavily invested in oil. All of these
factors -- the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policymakers
allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian
fundamentalists, and oil -- probably factor in more or less equally to
the administration's calculations on the Palestinian-Israeli situation
and on war with Iraq. But the most critical factor directing U.S.
policymaking is the group of Israeli loyalists: neither Christian
fundamentalist support for Israel nor oil calculations would carry the
weight in administration councils that they do without the pivotal input
of those loyalists, who clearly know how to play to the Christian
fanatics and undoubtedly also know that their own and Israel's bread is
buttered by the oil interests of people like Bush and Cheney. This is
where loyalty to Israel by government officials colors and influences
U.S. policymaking in ways that are extremely dangerous.
was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence
Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political
Analysis. He is a contributor to Imperial
Crusades, CounterPunch's new history of the wars on Iraq and
a former CIA political analyst, is the author of Perceptions
of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy and Wound
of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story.
They can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Repeatedly calling attention to the
Jewish media will draw much negative response and as well
as very nasty opposition, punctuated by such epithets as
"Jew hater," "Nazi" and
"anti-Semite!" And these smears will be set off
by a healthy dose of expletives. No one in their right
mind desires to be so assaulted, including me! But what
about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? And now, the Zionist ACLU mandates that I am no
longer required to pledge myself to the truth by saying,
"So help me God?"
For those who believe
"liberals" are the problem, please get out of my
classroom now, and stay out! "Liberal" is the
term used by shills for Bush and "Christian
Israel-first Fundamentalists." The term
"liberal" is as much of a smoke screen as is the
smear "anti-Semitism" or the term "neoconservatism."
Professor Kevin MacDonald offers, "While [neoconservatists]have
claimed to be simply 'conservatives' - there is nothing
conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the
case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to
rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of
Israel." And the statement by a Jewish writer,
offering that "Jews are hopelessly liberal," is
almost pure nonsense! Corrected it would read: Liberals
are hopelessly Jewish!
The recently invoked current smokescreen
of "neoconservatism" is certainly worth
revisiting, and Professor Kevin MacDonald, who has offered
that communism was a product of Jewish intellectualism,
does a fine job tying the present Jewish domination of our
foreign policy to Israeli interests. Jewish author, Mona
Charen, in her book, the title of which echoes the
description coined by Bolshevik leader Lenin, "Useful
Idiots," wrote that communism was never voted into
power by a people, but required bloody rebellion and
revolution to establish itself. She is wrong. It was
adapted here in America by the Pilgrims, and after being
proven as a total economic failure causing famine and the
near extinction of their early settlement, the Pilgrims
scuttled it for an economy based upon achievement rather
than upon socialistic egalitarianism. We celebrate this
liberation from socialism each Thanksgiving!
Communism is not only a product of
"Jewish intellectualism" as offered by Professor
MacDonald, but has only been voted into existence in one
nation: Israel! And Israel cannot support itself without
the massive financial support from American taxpayers.
Israel wouldn't have anywhere near the military clout it
has without the massive and virtually free supply of
military equipment provided by US taxpayers if it weren't
cozy military arrangements organized by Israeli
citizens themselves operating within our own
Former Under Secretary of Defense,
Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer, Dov Zakheim,
quietly resigned from his top Pentagon position recently
without any modicum of presentation as a major news event
by the "American" Zionist press and media. Even
in the Pentagon's profile of Zakheim, no mention is made
of the fact that Zakheim was an ordained Jewish rabbi and
a citizen of Israel! Isn't this at least a little bit
One of the highest positions in American
federal government, a high-level job that you and I would
never qualify for save our American citizenship, and it is
staffed by an individual who has "dual
citizenship." It smacks of the same arrangement
orchestrated by disgraced former New
Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who appointed an
Israeli citizen, Golan Cipel, as head of that state's
newly-formed Department of Homeland security in order to
continue his homosexual relationship with him. And Cipel
wasn't a dual citizen but he did once serve with Israeli
This spike hides an account that is not
only the height of governmental absurdity and Zionist
media complicity, but add to it the fact that Zakheim
cannot or will not account for a one trillion dollar
discrepancy in the Pentagon's books!!! When I served as
Chief Financial Officer for a Defense Department position,
I not only had to take a loyalty oath to our government, I
had to sign an annual certification letter attesting to my
appropriate handling of government [taxpayer] funds as
well as filing an annual financial disclosure form
regarding my personal finances. How can one trillion
dollars disappear without a trace? Where's the FBI?!
Where's the IRS? Where's the GAO, the Government
Accountability Office that found the "errors?"
Where's the United States Congress, or at least the
Democrats there? Where's the press, the media?
Of course, the latter entity is the key!
The American people don't have the slightest idea what's
going on in the Bush administration, and that's because
our so-called "American" press isn't American at
all; its loyalty is to the Bush administration because
Bush is totally loyal to Israel! No further evidence is
required of the Zionist infestation of both our media and
our government other than this one particular spiked news
event. Yet, there's more!
Not all Jews support Israel! And
that is the case both here and in Israel itself!
Recently, orthodox Jews, regrettably the minority in the
Jewish community, demonstrated in front of the Israeli
embassy, and the media scarcely mentioned this massive
demonstration in New
York City. Nor was there any mention of Jews in Israel
being attacked by Zionists when protesting the desecration
of Jewish cemeteries by construction operations.
The AIPAC spy scandal was barely touched
by "our" Zionist media, and virtually no one in
America knows anything about the Israeli attack upon our
Navy's U.S.S.Liberty during the Johnson administration.
And what could prove to be the blockbuster headline of the
century, and possibly one of the biggest in all of
American history, namely, the White House homosexual
pedophile ring, will never see the light of day.
All these unfavorable-to-Israel or
unfavorable-to-the-Bush administration news events have
either been totally spiked, downplayed, late-timed or
summarily ignored by the media in order to protect Israel
and Bush's loyalty to that nation. Is the latter treason?
Of course it is, but AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, puts cash
in the pockets of both political parties thereby buying
our government out from under US.
And the ADL smears opponents with the
American badge of courage: "anti-Semite." And
the Zionist-formed NOW organization denigrates the white
males who founded and fought and died for this country,
slurring them with such monikers as "dead white
guys," or "male chauvinist pigs," or as
being "sexist," as they continue to plot and
assist in increasing the divorce rate, fatherless
children, broken and destroyed families and the breakdown
of our society's most important building block.
And to combat the USA PATRIOT Act, we
must now rely on the Zionist and Communist ACLU - they are
our new founding fathers?! All these things are what
Zionism has given US! And how was it made possible? The
media, that's how. Here's Professor MacDonald:
"Jewish intellectual and political movements have
typically had ready access to prestigious mainstream media
channels, and this is certainly true for the neocons. The
anchoring by the Washington Post of the columns of Charles
Krauthammer and Robert Kagan and by the New York Times of
William Safire's illustrates this. But probably more
important recently has been the invariable summoning of
neoconservatives to represent the 'conservative' line on
the TV Networks. Is it unreasonable to suppose that this
may be somewhat influenced by the famously heavy Jewish
role in these operations?"
MacDonald points out that communism, a
Jewish intellectual product, was okay with Jews until the
inevitable happens to people who live out each day of
their lives embracing lies and falsehoods: "[T]he
earlier generation of American Jewish Trotskyites ignored
the horrors of the Soviet Union until the emergence there
of state sponsored anti-Semitism." And how did
communism get a foothold in the Soviet Union, and how did
Nazism in Weimar Republic Germany? Hitler's first real
business transaction was to buy a newspaper. And Lenin
wrote many articles in newspapers preceding the Bolshevik
Revolution. And both Hitler and FDR regularly addressed
their dumbed-down street rabble via radio.
Newspapers, radio, TV network and cable
news, and even nightly TV entertainment, is totally
supportive of Zionism via its monopolization of
information. America is being brainwashed. Anything can be
justified to ensure the triumph of socialist Israel over
the individual freedoms of every man, woman and child in
America. And the medium for that inequitable exchange, our
individual freedoms, our families, our religion, and our
very existence, is our foolish loyalty to "our"
media, our "Eve of Destruction" in a garden once
Theodore E. Lang
CITIZENSHIP LINKS ON
LAW - DISENFRANCHISED WOMEN
|... benefits of citizenship, they
were active petitioners of government. They petitioned for the
rights of citizenship, against slavery, and for temperance. ...
AND WHITE - TWO TIMELINES - IS IT TIME TO MERGE?
|The 14th Amendment that granted
citizenship to the former slaves also authorized ... The 14th
Amendment, validating citizenship rights for all persons or ...
|In 1879, black Cherokees
petitioned for full citizenship in the Cherokee Nation,
declaring, "It is our country. There we were born and
|When he re-entered China after
attaining US citizenship in the mid-1990s, "from the
computer, they were aware” that he was the same Harry Wu they
|CEC - Center for Environmental
Citizenship CEC - Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA)
(in Spanish, French and English) ...
LINE - BLUE LINE - THE DREAM AND THE REALITY
|In 1994 he was formally disowned
by his Saudi relatives and stripped of his Saudi citizenship for
"irresponsible activities". ...
SNIPER CASE - THE FRENCH CONNECTION
|Anyway, he's a marksman, 25,
French citizenship, but maybe Yugoslavian ancestery-as per
related news story. And he's still missing. ...
|... declared a traitor and
outlawed, and went to France, where he was granted citizenship
and, in September 1792, elected to the National Convention. ...
THE DEATH PENALTY BE ABOLISHED?
|Block and Sibley, who decried
government controls over individuals and renounced their US
citizenship, were on the run at the time to avoid being
- BOTH SIDES
|... define women as marginal
service members, thereby fostering sexual harassment and denying
women their right to full citizenship; ...
THE THREE PHASES OF THE SUN (SON)
|From: The Horizontal and Vertical
Communities of our Dual Citizenship The spiritual is the cause
of the natural; therefore, the two are in correspondence. ...
ISLAND MILLENIUM GATHERING
|ceremony / citizenship / city
planning / commerce /. communications / community empowerment /
conflict resolution /. consumer protection / dance / debt ...
and RACE RIOTS
|Many Jews enjoyed Roman
citizenship, eg St. Paul (Acts, xvi, 37-39). In many places the
Jewish community formed a recognized organization with ...
|... Hammoud-Tsioumas bond turns
out to have been a complete fiction, just a way for him to
acquire citizenship and for her to earn a few thousand dollars.
|Augustus banned Roman citizens
from participating in Druidical practices, thereby excluding
Druids from Roman citizenship. Tiberius, the successor of ...
OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 8
|Bin Laden, who was stripped of
Saudi citizenship and has been living in Afghanistan since 1996,
is accused by Washington of running a global terrorist ...
THOUSAND LIES - THE NATIVE AMERICAN
|Indian Nations: The United States
and Citizenship 1983. Map of Native American Tribes, Culture
Areas, and Linguistic Stocks Smithsonian Institution ...
CALLS ON THE PHONE - THE POPE?
|Canada's Department of
Citizenship and Immigration has denied visas to 6000 foreign
registrants, even though it has waived the $50 application fee
and added ...
DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
|By 1955, more than 760 German
scientists had been granted citizenship in the US and given
prominent positions in the American scientific community. ...
SECURITY - HOLIDAY TERRORISM
|``We need a strong expansion of
economic citizenship, to democratize the markets. Only by doing
that can we develop the energy of the millions who have been ...
and Islamic Holidays 2002 - 2004 - Dream of Terrorism
|17, Citizenship Day, 17 day of
Sep, Display US Flag. 23. 23. 22, First Day of Autumn, See
Earth's Seasons, See FAQ Equinoxes ...
AND KING SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
|... Arab residents of Jerusalem
were offered full Israeli citizenship. ... living in Jerusalem
chose not to accept Israeli citizenship, but nevertheless, ...
the Oconaluftee Indian Village there is much to see
|Although American citizenship was
part of the agreement between the US ... Today, citizenship in
the Cherokee Nation is based on the very roll that was ...
|Although they are citizens in
every country in the world, they are denied citizenship in a
national home. Although banished, buffeted and bereaved, ...
- EARTHCHANGES - NEWS OF TERRORISM
|... an Algerian, entered Canada
in 1994 and applied for asylum, said Hugette Shouldice,
spokeswoman for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
|The latter three groups, entered
Iraq on the back of US tanks, without valid Iraqi citizenship
papers. The Kurdish militia are the Occupation's most loyal ...
- WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - PAGE 9
|People without citizenship or
resident alien status are forbidden from secured areas of the
airport. "We are looking at security issues," said
David Barnes, ...
THROUGH THE NIGHT - THE GUARDIAN ANGELS - CUBA
|A State Department official said
because the Cuban government does not recognize dual
citizenship, the prisoners have been denied access to the US
OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER - 9-11-2001 - DAY 5
|... on the back of the attack in
the US If we are going to consider such issues we need to do so
in a much broader context of citizenship and entitlements.' ...
|... the American Negro
"reformer" and founder of the NAACP who joined the
Communist Party officially in Ghana after renouncing his
American citizenship. ...
OF CABALA - PART II
|... renounced Our old connections
(ie, citizenship) to this World - which, of necessity includes
the United States (Much as A New immigrant to America, ...
SALAZAR - MEXICO - THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM GOES ON
|Create trusts in which the
citizenship participates as coadyuvante of the Pubilc
Adminstration in activities of social interest, dendowing them
with the ...
|He was charged with 16 counts,
including false representation of US citizenship and illegal
possession of a firearm. "Can I tell you who really I
am," he ...
REPO MAN - PRESIDENT CLINTON
|Graham also proposed cracking
down on individuals and companies who transfer assets offshore
or renounce US citizenship to escape taxation. ...
|some victims describe European
perpetrators who are difficult If not impossible to prosecute
Because of their citizenship. Economies in Europe are faltering
DREAMS OF THE GREAT
EARTHCHANGES - MAIN INDEX