Dual citizenship folly
By Bruce Fein

Washington Times
March 1 2005

The United States should end its folly of tolerating dual citizenship
for persons who vote, serve in office, or otherwise demonstrate
allegiance to a foreign government.
As the New Testament sermonizes, “No man can serve two masters:
for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will
hold to one, and despise the other.” The United States Constitution
thus prohibits any federal officeholder, without the consent of
Congress, from accepting “any present, emolument, office, or title of
any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Most would be stunned to learn, however, that under U.S. law (8
U.S. Code, section 1481), a person may retain citizenship despite
enrolling in the armed forces of a foreign nation at war with the
United States, serving as president of a foreign state, or even
committing treason. Raffi Hovannisian on becoming Armenia’s foreign
minister, declared, “I certainly do not renounce my American
citizenship.” Muhamed Sacirbey, foreign minister of Bosnia in
1995-1996, did not lose his U.S. citizenship. The chief of the
Estonian army from 1991-1995, Aleksander Einseln, likewise enjoyed
dual citizenship. As Thomas M. Franck has chronicled, several
Americans have represented their other country of citizenship as
ambassadors to the United Nations.
Last month, the Mexican Chamber of Deputies passed legislation
endowing 10 million Mexican and Mexican-Americans with the
opportunity to cast absentee ballots from the United States in the
2006 Mexican presidential elections. The Central Mexican state of
Zacatecas embraces Mexican migrants as candidates for electoral
office. Andres Bermudez, a wealthy California grower christened the
“Tomato King,” captured a mayoralty. Two other immigrants garnered
seats in the state legislature. Mexican candidates routinely
motorcade in the U.S. seeking political support from
Mexican-Americans.
The magnitude of the dual citizenship-divided loyalty problem is
elusive. Approximately 60 countries permit expatriates or migrants to
vote via absentee ballots, including Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil and
Honduras. The number permitting dual citizenship has been variously
estimated at from 37 to 89. The U.S. government neither records nor
estimates the number of its dual citizens. But baseline figures and
trends are troublesome. The foreign-born population in the United
States probably approaches 30 million to 35 million, or approximately
10 percent. That percentage is climbing because of disproportionate
youth and high fertility.
And immigrants to the United States characteristically arrive
from nations that accept dual citizenship. In sum, the problem of
split allegiances cannot be swept under the rug as an inconsequential
crumb.
Patriotism is the alpha and omega of national strength, even if
occasionally misappropriated as the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Undivided devotion to the United States and embrace of its hallowed
ideals and heroes are what make the nation flourish. Single
citizenship finds expression in eagerness to enlist in the armed
forces or to support its soldiers; to participate in the nation’s
political affairs; to join voluntary private organizations, like the
Rotary Club, the League of Women Voters or the PTA; to cooperate with
law enforcement; to make donations to domestic charities; and, to
promote America’s signature culture by living and breathing social
equality, nondiscrimination, individual rights, the rule of law and
freedom of speech.
Dual citizens who demonstrate political attachments to a foreign
government, in contrast, will be less resolute in celebrating and
advancing the interests of the United States. They will be less
inclined to sacrifice to make the nation like a sparkling “city that
is set on an hill,” in the manner that Augustus Caesar “found Rome a
city of bricks and left it a city of marble.” Furthermore, if dual
citizenship is indulged with official nonchalance, the lofty ideals
associated with American citizenship will be dimmed.
Accordingly, Americans who vote in a foreign election, occupy any
office in a foreign state, enlist in a foreign army, attempt to
overthrow the U.S. government, or otherwise affirm allegiance to a
foreign nation should forfeit their citizenship. Accomplishing that
is clouded by the United States Supreme Court decision in Afroyim v.
Rusk (1967). There, a narrow 5-4 majority held unconstitutional a
statute that made voting in a political election in a foreign state a
justification for revoking citizenship acquired by naturalization.
Writing for the court, Justice Hugo Black broadly sermonized that
the 14th Amendment permits loss of citizenship only by voluntary
relinquishment. Obeying that edict, current federal law makes a
specific intent to relinquish United States nationality the
touchstone for its loss.
Congress should either propose a constitutional amendment to
overcome Afroyim; or, enact legislation that deletes the specific
intent requirement in the expectation that the high court will
reconsider the precedent. Dual allegiances do not imminently threaten
the fabric of the United States. But they fuel a yawning indifference
to American customs and civic spirit indispensable to national
vitality.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international
consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.