compiled by Dee Finney


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 with permission

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 settlers

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 generation.

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 industries.

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 excluded.

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 settlers.

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 environment.

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.


Citizenship USA

(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. citizenship include:

  • All the rights listed in the Constitution including the right to vote
  • Right to have a U.S. passport
  • Right to work in the U.S.

Some of the responsibilities implied by the U.S. citizenship are:

  • 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.

  • Be a permanent resident for five (5) years having a continuous residence in the United States
  • Having a physical presence in the United States
  • Having the required time within the USCIS district or State
  • Having a good moral character
  • Having sufficient English and U.S. civics knowledge
  • Declaring attachment to the U.S. Constitution

    These requirements vary depending on whether the applicant has special circumstances that the USCIS recognizes for naturalization. The Eligibility Worksheet provided in the Citizenship USA Self-Help US immigration Kit will help you to determine if you are eligible for naturalization.





(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 you do.

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 American.

Read on to see the whole AWSJ article.

Dave Aldwinckle

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.



(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 them.

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 dodge taxes.

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 for life.

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 sent away.

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.


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 five children.

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 British.


"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 hospitals free.

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.


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 life.

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 snubbed America.

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.


"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 wife.

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 Henry Haugen.

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 $25,000.

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.


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 ax."

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.


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" renunciation.

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.
Tom Rodriguez

Posted by BETSY on February 04, 1997:

Hi Tom;

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

Mexico's Dual Citizenship Decision:
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 country."

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 development.

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 Mexican leaders.

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." (1996, 10)

Mexican 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 politics.

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 desirability factors.30  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, 473-74).

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.

Multiple 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 another.

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 in doubt.

(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 temper them.

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 States.

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 loyalties.

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 behest"?

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, 1997, 14-17).

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 American.

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 these cases.

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 disagree.

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.

Many 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 characteristics.

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 worthwhile.

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 benefits.

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 office, elsewhere?"

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, national identity.

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 he said:

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.

A 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.

End Notes

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. 

However, 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."

27 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.

28 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."

29 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 present."

He 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).

30 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).

What 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.

31 They base their list on a publication by Blaustein and Flanz entitled Constitutions of the World,  but give no date for the publication.

32 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.

33 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 exchange follows:

Q: Would it be dual loyalty?

President 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.

8.0in"President Clinton: ... Almost all countries allow some form of dual 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.



  1. How do I give up my U.S. Citizenship?

    A person wishing to give up or renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
    1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
    2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
    3. sign an oath of renunciation
    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 ineffective.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 part:
    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 in part:
    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 of renunciation".

  5. Which Countries Allow/Prohibit Dual Citizenship?

    Countries Which Allow Dual Citizenship:
    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, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.

    * 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, 1461)

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, 2000).

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 Conflicted Loyalties?

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 how early [they develop] and how closely they conform to a relatively stable and complex order of preferences appropriate to their American 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 political power.

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' psychology.

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)

The 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)



Dual 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.


Dual citizenship
CBC News Online | July 29, 2004

Most countries define citizenship based on one or more of these traits:
  • You were born on territory belonging to, or claimed by, that country.
  • 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.
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.
How do I find out if I'm a citizen of more than one country?

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 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 in Canada.

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 continue.

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.

Duelling Laws

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.


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 foreign country."
August 13, 2002

Hon. John Ashcroft
Attorney General
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 General's office.

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 against terrorism.

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 monitor.

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 proceeds.

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 site.

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 event: 9-11. 

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 media-hyped lies.

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? 

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 Birnbaum.

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 Judaism.

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).

The 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

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.

The Bush Neocons and Israel

Former CIA political analysts

[Editors' 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.]

Since 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 Palestinian, interests.

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.

The Begats

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 Murdoch-owned magazine 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 Testimony

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, a 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 for him."

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 state.

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 Podhoretz, 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 Henhouse

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 councils.

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, he said:

"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 same."

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.

Bill Christison 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 Afghanistan.

Kathleen Christison, 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:


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 for the cozy military arrangements organized by Israeli citizens themselves operating within our own government!

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 outrageous?!

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 intelligence.

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 good. Theodore E. Lang  



... benefits of citizenship, they were active petitioners of government. They petitioned for the rights of citizenship, against slavery, and for temperance. ... 

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 reared. ... -

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 had ...

CEC - Center for Environmental Citizenship CEC - Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA) (in Spanish, French and English) ... 

In 1994 he was formally disowned by his Saudi relatives and stripped of his Saudi citizenship for "irresponsible activities". ...

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. ... -

Block and Sibley, who decried government controls over individuals and renounced their US citizenship, were on the run at the time to avoid being sentenced ...

... define women as marginal service members, thereby fostering sexual harassment and denying women their right to full citizenship; ... -

From: The Horizontal and Vertical Communities of our Dual Citizenship The spiritual is the cause of the natural; therefore, the two are in correspondence. ... 

ceremony / citizenship / city planning / commerce /. communications / community empowerment / conflict resolution /. consumer protection / dance / debt ... -

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 ...

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 ... -

Indian Nations: The United States and Citizenship 1983. Map of Native American Tribes, Culture Areas, and Linguistic Stocks Smithsonian Institution ... -

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 ... -

By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had been granted citizenship in the US and given prominent positions in the American scientific community. ...

``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 ... -

US 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 ... 

... Arab residents of Jerusalem were offered full Israeli citizenship. ... living in Jerusalem chose not to accept Israeli citizenship, but nevertheless, ... -

At 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, ... -

... 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 ...


People without citizenship or resident alien status are forbidden from secured areas of the airport. "We are looking at security issues," said David Barnes, ... -


A State Department official said because the Cuban government does not recognize dual citizenship, the prisoners have been denied access to the US consulate ... -

... 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. ... 

... renounced Our old connections (ie, citizenship) to this World - which, of necessity includes the United States (Much as A New immigrant to America, ... 

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 ...

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 ...