A question of allegiance
August 22nd, 2009 by Manuel BuencaminoJohn Fonte, a Senior Fellow of the conservative Hudson Institute, raised the issue of dual allegiance in dual citizenship.
He argued in “Dual Allegiance is Inconsistent with American Democracy” that American citizenship demands complete and unswerving allegiance to America.
He wrote, “in today’s interconnected post-9/11 world of mass immigration, world-wide terrorism and transnational loyalties, it is more important than ever to insist that new (and native-born) citizens are politically loyal to the United States and only the United States. It is precisely because we want to continue to benefit from legal immigration in the new circumstances of the 21st century that we must be serious about national allegiance.”
“American dual allegiance citizens involved in foreign politics do not always spread tolerant democratic values. Indeed, sometimes the opposite is the case. Diaspora activists, isolated from the reality of daily experience, are often dogmatic ideologists. Supporters of the IRA, ethnic Balkan nationalists, Meir Kahane, hard-line Latin American exiles of the right and left, Muslim and Hindu extremists–who have either attained, or were born with, American citizenship–come to mind.”
“the fact that Britain and Canada are democracies (and close allies) does not alter the moral principle or practical consequences involved. America is a different nation than Britain or Canada. Our constitution, interests, principles, and culture, while similar to that of Britain, Canada, and other democracies, are neither identical nor interchangeable. American citizens should be loyal to the American constitution, not simply a generic form of democracy detached from the American nation.”
Fonte recommends legislation that would subject to legal sanctions “specific acts such as voting in foreign elections and serving in foreign governments.”
“These foreign interests and commitments—of objective practical necessity, as well as moral obligation–dilute their commitment, attachment and allegiance to the United States. There is a clear distinction between the nominal status of dual citizenship and the active exercise of dual allegiance. Some people are dual citizens for a variety of reasons (e.g., one parent is American, the other is not). The status of dual citizenship per se is not necessarily a problem. However, dual allegiance, in the sense of the active exercise of loyalty and allegiance to a foreign state, is inimical to American democracy.”
He quoted an opinion from US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter:
“Taking an active part in the political affairs of a foreign state by voting in a political election involves a political attachment and practical allegiance thereto which is inconsistent with continued allegiance to the United States…these actions reveal, not only, something less than complete and unswerving allegiance to the United States, but also elements of an allegiance to another country in some measure, at least inconsistent with American citizenship.”
Is dual allegiance a legitimate issue? How does it affect Fil-Ams?
August 22, 2009 at 3:54 am
john fonte opining that “dual citizenship is inconsistent with american democracy” is like manuel buencamino theorizing that pgma should be impeached for having dinner in new york. neither the u.s. constitution nor its statutes prohibit dual citizenship status. but while it’s not forbidden or encouraged, the concept is traditionally accepted since the birth of the union. if fonte is advocating for a constitutional amendment consistent with his idea, he has a long, long way to go.
August 22, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Bencard,
You’re attacking me for bringing to your attention an issue that some Americans are taking seriously. Fonte is a well-known conservative but I came across his article in “Foreign Policy in Focus” a publication associated with some of the more liberal think tanks in America. I thought it significant that Fonte’s idea resonated not only with conservatives but with liberals as well.That’s why I brought it to the attention of this global blog.
Fonte was advocating specific legislation prohibiting certain acts like voting in foreign elections and serving in foreign governments. He was not asking for a consitutional amendment prohibiting dual citizenship.
Fonte is worried about dual allegiance, the issue of loyalty. If a conflict arose between erstwhile allies, whom will the dual citizen stand with?
During WWII, Roosevelt placed Japanese-Americans in prison camps. Was he correct?
Fonte’s ideas appear to be the beginning of a slippery slope. If accepted, then a data base of dual citizens will be established so that, if and when conflict arises between erstwhile allies, those dual citizens can be placed under surveillance or, at worst, held in prison camps like the Japanese Americans of WWII.
The issue goes beyond legalisms. It is political. If Fonte’s thinking prevails then US laws will change accordingly because most, if not all laws, are just a reflection of the people’s will. In other words, the politics of the issue will dictate the eventual legal framework that will govern dual citizenship.
August 22, 2009 at 11:12 pm
bring it to my attention, buencamino? thanks but no thanks. i happen to practice u.s. immigration and nationality law and extremists’ views such as fonte’s are not exactly unfamiliar to me.
yes, the issue is more political than legal. allegiance and loyalty, like love, hate, or compassion, cannot be legislated. one can take a thousand oaths of allegiance but true loyalty is in the heart and mind. u.s. laws have adequate provisions to properly deal with physical acts of disloyalty, including loss of citizenship or nationality, or even revocation of permanent resident status or naturalization.
btw, the japanese wwii quarantine may have been justified in the context of the time after the sneak attack on pearl harbor, and indications of espionage within the country. it was more of a precautionary measure. in any event, monetary reparations were made after the fact which only an enlightened, humane, society would think of doing, i believe.
August 23, 2009 at 12:52 am
Bencard,
By the grace of God, you were not Japanese. Anyway, it seems like you think the wholesale internment of Japanese-Americans was justified. Am I correct ?
August 23, 2009 at 3:57 am
Interesting Read – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#Rebuttals_of_charges_of_espionage.2C_disloyalty_and_anti-American_activity
Rebuttals of charges of espionage, disloyalty and anti-American activity
Critics of the internment argue that the military justification was unfounded, citing the absence of any subsequent convictions of Japanese Americans for espionage or sabotage.
Architects of the internment, including DeWitt and Army Major Karl Bendetsen, cited the complete lack of sabotage as “a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken” (Memorandum to Secretary of War, 13 FEB 1942).
Critics of the internment also note that it seems unlikely that Japanese Americans in Japan had any choice other than to be conscripted into the Japanese army, given (1) that it was near-impossible for them to return to the U.S. from Japan, and (2) that the United States had already classified all people of Japanese ancestry as “enemy aliens.”[28]
An additional reason to question the necessity of internment was an official report by Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Ringle, a naval intelligence officer tasked with evaluating the loyalty of the Japanese American population. LCDR Ringle estimated in a 1941 report to his superiors that “more than 90% of the Nisei (second generation) and 75% of the original immigrants were completely loyal to the United States.”[citation needed] A 1941 report prepared on President Roosevelt’s orders by Curtis B. Munson, special representative of the State Department, concluded that most Japanese nationals and “90 to 98%” of Japanese American citizens were loyal. He wrote: “There is no Japanese ‘problem’ on the Coast… There is far more danger from Communists and people of the Bridges type on the Coast than there is from Japanese.”[32]
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover also opposed the internment of Japanese Americans. Refuting General DeWitt’s reports of disloyalty on the part of Japanese Americans, Hoover sent a memo to Attorney General Francis Biddle in which he wrote about Japanese American disloyalty, “Every complaint in this regard has been investigated, but in no case has any information been obtained which would substantiate the allegation.” Hoover was not privy to MAGIC intercepts, although he was sometimes sent sanitized synopses.
General DeWitt and Colonel Bendetsen kept this information out of Final Report: Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast – 1942, which was written in April 1943 — a time when DeWitt was fighting against an order that Nisei soldiers (members of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team and the Military Intelligence Service) were to be considered “loyal” and permitted into the Exclusion Zones while on leave. DeWitt and Bendetsen initially issued 10 copies of the report, then hastily recalled them to rewrite passages which showed racist bases for the exclusion. Among other justifications, the report stated flatly that, because of their race, it was impossible to determine the loyalty of Japanese Americans. The original version was so offensive — even in the atmosphere of the wartime 1940s — that Bendetsen ordered all copies to be destroyed. Not a single piece of paper was to be left giving any evidence that an earlier version had existed.
United States District Court opinions
Official notice of exclusion and removal
In 1980, a copy of the original Final Report was found in the National Archives, along with notes showing the numerous differences between the two versions. This earlier, racist and inflammatory version, as well as the FBI and ONI reports, led to the coram nobis retrials which overturned the convictions of Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi and Minoru Yasui on all charges related to their refusal to submit to exclusion and internment.
The courts found that the government had intentionally withheld these reports and other critical evidence, at trials all the way up to the Supreme Court, which would have proved that there was no military necessity for the exclusion and internment of Japanese Americans. In the words of Department of Justice officials writing during the war, the justifications were based on “willful historical inaccuracies and intentional falsehoods.”
***
Loyalty questions and segregation
Some Japanese Americans did question the American government, after finding themselves in internment camps. Several pro-Japan groups formed inside the camps, particularly at the Tule Lake location.[50] When the government passed a law that made it possible for an internee to renounce her or his U.S. citizenship, 5,589 internees opted to do so; 5,461 of these were at Tule Lake.[50] Of those who renounced their citizenship, 1,327 were repatriated to Japan.[50] Many of these individuals would later face stigmatization in the Japanese-American community, after the war, for having made that choice, although even at the time they were not certain what their futures held were they to remain American, and remain interned.[50]
These renunciations of American citizenship have been highly controversial, for a number of reasons. Some apologists for internment have cited the renunciations as evidence that “disloyalty” or anti-Americanism was well-represented among the interned peoples, thereby justifying the internment.[51] Many historians have dismissed the latter argument, for its failure to consider that the small number of individuals in question were in the midst of persecution by their own government at the time of the “renunciation”:[52][53]
[T]he renunciations had little to do with “loyalty” or “disloyalty” to the United States, but were instead the result of a series of complex conditions and factors that were beyond the control of those involved. Prior to discarding citizenship, most or all of the renunciants had experienced the following misfortunes: forced removal from homes; loss of jobs; government and public assumption of disloyalty to the land of their birth based on race alone; and incarceration in a “segregation center” for “disloyal” ISSEI or NISEI…[53]
Minoru Kiyota, who was among those who renounced his citizenship and swiftly came to regret the decision, has stated that he wanted only “to express my fury toward the government of the United States”, for his internment and for the mental and physical duress, as well as the intimidation, he was made to face.[54]
[M]y renunciation had been an expression of momentary emotional defiance in reaction to years of persecution suffered by myself and other Japanese Americans and, in particular, to the degrading interrogation by the FBI agent at Topaz and being terrorized by the guards and gangs at Tule Lake.[55]
Civil rights attorney Wayne M. Collins successfully challenged most of these renunciations as invalid, owing to the conditions of duress and intimidation under which the government obtained them.[54][56] Many of the deportees were Issei (first generation Japanese immigrants) who often had difficulty with English and often did not understand the questions they were asked.[citation needed] Even among those Issei who had a clear understanding, Question 28 posed an awkward dilemma: Japanese immigrants were denied US citizenship at the time, so when asked to renounce their Japanese citizenship, answering “Yes” would have made them stateless persons.[57]
When the government circulated a questionnaire seeking army volunteers from among the internees, 6% of military-aged male respondents volunteered to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.[citation needed] Most of those who refused, however, tempered that refusal with statements of willingness to fight if they were restored their rights as American citizens. 20,000 Japanese American men and many Japanese American women served in the U.S. Army during World War II.[58]
The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which was composed primarily of Japanese Americans, served with uncommon distinction in the European theatre of World War II. Many of the US soldiers serving in the unit had their families interned at home while they fought abroad.
The famed 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which fought in Europe, was formed from those Japanese Americans who did agree to serve. This unit was the most highly decorated US military unit of its size and duration.[59] Most notably, the 442nd was known for saving the 141st (or the “lost battalion”) from the Germans. The 1951 film Go For Broke! was a fairly accurate portrayal of the 442nd, and starred several of the RCT’s veterans.
August 23, 2009 at 2:40 am
read my lips, buencamino. i said “in the context of the time”. extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures. btw, none of the internees was tortured, killed or maimed, i think, unlike many of our own countrymen who were detained, maltreated or killed (one of which was my uncle in capas after the death march) by the japanese in our own country. of course, i know that saying it was “justified” is not politically correct at this time. but it was then, this is now.
August 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm
The problem was you had Japanese-American children (who are natural born US Citizens) interned. But history must be viewed with distance. There is simply no way that an injustice can be justified even with damage pay outs. I know that Mr Bencard Esq is a cradle Catholic and correct me if I am wrong, a Thomasian and must submit to the Magisterium on this matter. But fortunately we have Thomas More to ask intercession for.
August 23, 2009 at 10:12 pm
the problem, blackshama, is that you, and the likes of you, are demanding perfection from the americans. assuming they indeed “erred” on the side of self-preservation, they are human too, and must be held to no more than the standard of fairness required of any other group of humans.
the internment was not even a shade of the barbarity and inhumanity inflicted by the japanese against filipinos and others, by the germans against the jews, etc., etc. it was more, in the language of the law, a kind of “preventive detention” – a common device in everyday law enforcement activities.
August 22, 2009 at 6:37 am
Sounds perfectly like a patronizing ‘FilipinoVoices’for Fonte, for America.
The US Congress that has legislated on dual citizenship could not have missed as central to its discussion the subject of dual allegiance and therefore, there is sufficient reason to believe that Fonte’s concern has been reasonably addressed and resolved.
To my mind, the strength and weakness of America rests upon its being historically an “Open Society” and I do believe that the perils of dual allegiance, if any, are taken into account in its US defense strategy and policy.
If Fonte’s thesis be pursued, we might see a reversed scenario – at least 3,000 Filipinos existing NAIA from US will be a daily sight because they all should go back to their motherland. Obliquely, it gives this country a chance to check whether its economy can survive without the OFWs whose remittances largely buoy up our domestic economy.
Who is John Fonte?
August 22, 2009 at 9:26 am
What Bencard says is right, US law does not require a citizen to surrender his US passport if he accepts one from another country; the US passport, however, will be the one that will continue to be officially recognized by the US government.
To offer an opinion by way of answering your questions, no, dual allegiance is not a legitimate issue in a country as multi-cultural as the US, although the noisy, WASPish hysterics of people like John Fonte might make it appear otherwise. And even if it were a real issue, Fil-Ams (largely being a pretty conservative lot) would not be anywhere near the top of the list of people the noisy WASPs would worry about.
August 22, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Remember the Japanese interment during WWII.
August 22, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Didn’t Michelle Malkin (daughter of Fil-Ams) write a booke defending Japanese internment during WWII?
August 22, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Yes, among other ludicrous ideas she champions. How come you never hear anyone in the Philippines praising that particular Fil-Am for her achievements like they do for others? Hmm.
August 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Chuck,
Michelle Malkin, I no longer try to follow her.. what a waste of such talent, pandering to the extremist conservative views… sayang talaga si Malkin. Such bias following in the form of Limbaugh and the rest of the out of touch “conservative base”.
August 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Nick, do you think Fil-Ams will oppose Fonte on the basis of the principle itself (of treating American citizens with ties to enemy nations/groups ‘differently’) or on whether they will agree on such principle but ask Fil-Ams to be exempted because they have proven to be loyal Americans?
August 23, 2009 at 1:21 am
If it were a real issue, Fil-Am’s will be among top-of-list to be suspect, evidenced by the conviction of a naturalized Filipino name Aragoncillo. A short-clip of a news story on the ex-Marine is as follows:
August 23, 2009 at 4:09 am
The Americans not only remembered it – the US Supreme Court also struck the policy down.
***
footnote as part of due diligence ;)
Internment ends
In December 1944 (Ex parte Endo), the Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal citizens unconstitutional, though a decision handed down the same day (Korematsu v. United States) held that the exclusion process as a whole was constitutional.
On January 2, 1945, the exclusion order was rescinded entirely. The internees then began to leave the camps to rebuild their lives at home, although the relocation camps remained open for residents who were not ready to make the move back. The freed internees were given $25 and a train ticket to their former homes. While the majority returned to their former lives, some of the Japanese Americans emigrated to Japan.[60] The fact that this occurred long before the Japanese surrender, while the war was arguably at its most vicious, weighs against the claim that the relocation was a security measure. However, it is also true that the Japanese were clearly losing the war by that time, and were not on the offensive. The last internment camp was not closed until 1946;[61] Japanese taken by the U.S. from Peru that were still being held in the camp in Santa Fe took legal action in April 1946 in an attempt to avoid deportation to Japan.[62]
One of the WRA camps, Manzanar, was designated a National Historic Site in 1992 to “provide for the protection and interpretation of historic, cultural, and natural resources associated with the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II” (Public Law 102-248). In 2001, the site of the Minidoka War Relocation Center in Idaho was designated the Minidoka National Historic Site.
Hardship and material loss
Many internees lost irreplaceable personal property due to the restrictions on what could be taken into the camps. These losses were compounded by theft and destruction of items placed in governmental storage. A number of persons died or suffered for lack of medical care, and several were killed by sentries; James Wakasa, for instance, was killed at Topaz War Relocation Center, near the perimeter wire. Nikkei were prohibited from leaving the Military Zones during the last few weeks before internment, and only able to leave the camps by permission of the camp administrators.
Psychological injury was observed by Dillon S. Myer, director of the WRA camps. In June 1945, Myer described how the Japanese Americans had grown increasingly depressed, and overcome with feelings of helplessness and personal insecurity.[63]
Some Japanese-American farmers were able to find families willing to tend their farms for the duration of their internment. In other cases, however, Japanese-American farmers had to sell their property in a matter of days, usually at great financial loss. In these cases, the land speculators who bought the land made huge profits. California’s Alien Land Laws of the 1910s, which prohibited most non-citizens from owning property in that state, contributed to Japanese-American property losses. Because they were barred from owning land, many older Japanese-American farmers were tenant farmers and therefore lost their rights to those farm lands.
To compensate former internees for their property losses, the US Congress, on July 2, 1948, passed the “American Japanese Claims Act”, allowing Japanese Americans to apply for compensation for property losses which occurred as “a reasonable and natural consequence of the evacuation or exclusion.” By the time the Act was passed, however, the IRS had already destroyed most of the 1939-42 tax records of the internees, and, due to the time pressure and the strict limits on how much they could take to the assembly centers and then the internment camps, few of the internees themselves had been able to preserve detailed tax and financial records during the evacuation process. Thus, it was extremely difficult for claimants to establish that their claims were valid. Under the Act, Japanese-American families filed 26,568 claims totaling $148 million in requests; approximately $37 million was approved and disbursed.[64]
Reparations and redress
During World War II, Colorado governor Ralph Lawrence Carr was the only elected official to publicly apologize for the internment of American citizens. The act cost him reelection, but gained him the gratitude of the Japanese American community, such that a statue of him was erected in Sakura Square in Denver’s Japantown.[65]
Beginning in the 1960s, a younger generation of Japanese Americans who were inspired by the Civil Rights movement began what is known as the “Redress Movement”, an effort to obtain an official apology and reparations from the federal government for interning their parents and grandparents during the war, focusing not on documented property losses but on the broader injustice of the internment. The movement’s first success was in 1976, when President Gerald Ford proclaimed that the internment was “wrong”, and a “national mistake” which “shall never again be repeated”.[66]
The campaign for redress was launched by Japanese Americans in 1978. The Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) asked for three measures to be taken as redress: $25,000 to be awarded to each person who was detained, an apology from Congress acknowledging publicly that the U.S. government had been wrong, and the release of funds to set up an educational foundation for the children of Japanese American families.
In 1980, Congress established the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to study the matter. On February 24, 1983, the commission issued a report entitled Personal Justice Denied, condemning the internment as “unjust and motivated by racism rather than real military necessity”.[67] The Commission recommended that $20,000 in reparations be paid to those Japanese Americans who had been victims of internment.
In 1988, U.S. President (and former California governor) Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been sponsored by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson — the two had met while Mineta was interned at a camp in Wyoming — which provided redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee, totaling $1.2 billion dollars. The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate.[68]
On September 27, 1992, the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional $400 million in order to ensure that all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, who also issued another formal apology from the U.S. government.
Some Japanese and Japanese Americans who were relocated during WWII received compensation for property losses, according to a 1948 law. Congress appropriated $38 million to meet $131 million of claims from among 23,000 claimants.[69] These payments were dispersed very slowly, the final dispersal occurring in 1965.[69] In 1988, following lobbying efforts by Japanese Americans, $20,000 per internee was paid out to individuals who had been interned or relocated, including those who chose to return to Japan. These payments were awarded to 82,210 Japanese Americans or their heirs at a cost of $1.6 billion; the program’s final disbursement occurred in 1999.[11]
Under the 2001 budget of the United States, it was also decreed that the ten sites on which the detainee camps were set up are to be preserved as historical landmarks: “places like Manzanar, Tule Lake, Heart Mountain, Topaz, Amache, Jerome, and Rohwer will forever stand as reminders that this nation failed in its most sacred duty to protect its citizens against prejudice, greed, and political expediency”.[70]
********
In the Philippines, the government just turns Mindanao into one big internment camp sabay litanya ng promise – The Land of Promise – puro lang promise -
August 23, 2009 at 7:28 am
to be quite clear about it : at least one Fil-Am has proven to be so disloyal an American that he – Agoncillado — almost received the death penalty.
August 23, 2009 at 10:54 am
Ben K, Michelle Malkin can count on Fil-Am Bencard (along with his family) as a fan. BTW, he was the first one to comment against Fonte.
August 23, 2009 at 9:35 pm
slight correction, cvj. i did not comment AGAINST fonte. i commented that his IDEA is hare-brained. there’s a bit of a difference, you see. btw, what has that got to do with my being a fan of malkin?
August 23, 2009 at 9:47 pm
benk, you asked why nobody in the philippines, particularly in the media, mentions malkin? i guess it’s the damn pinoy INGGIT. what michele accomplished, and still achieving, are something they can only fantasize about. pinoy or not, michele speaks the truth about what’s wrong with the leftist agenda in america. she’s the proverbial prophet who is not recognized in her own country.
btw, nick, what happened to my comment affirming my admiration for malkin? why was it deleted or am i asking a “stupid” question?
August 23, 2009 at 10:19 pm
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I do not like Michelle Malkin at all. I think she’s inflammatory, irrational, and just plain wrong most of the time. However, my opinion (or yours) is neither here nor there. What I find curious is just what I said before: anyone with at least a few PPM of Filipino blood in them who is successful somewhere else in the world usually attracts some notice here, why not her? Most Fil-Ams I know, after all, tend to be conservative – unless my relatives & their acquaintances happen to be extremely unusual in that respect?
August 23, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Since the question has been advanced more than once, I hesitatingly advance the notion that maybe it is because of pernicious “crab mentality” for which the Filipino has been accused of as adhering to the nth degree.
Many FilAms here bandy that term around in the midst of their many intra-fights. Read the local papers here to confirm that.
Re whether FilAms lean conservative, there are no data for that that I know, but typically in California Asians taken as a group vote 50-50 split between the 2 leading parties. In the BayArea, I would venture to say FilAms definitely lean Democratic.
August 24, 2009 at 3:34 am
who cares if not a single filipino appreciates malkin? does it make her less credible, less articulate, less brave, less intelligent? she has a respectable following in the u.s. and the western world not enjoyed by any filipino “journalist” dead or alive. her recent book, “a culture of corruption” is #1 in the n.y. times best seller list for a few weeks now. this is something the likes of jarius bondoc or de quiros can only salivate about in their wet dreams.
August 22, 2009 at 10:45 am
Did not British subjects then in the 18th century rise up against their government and threw them out. The different colonies then went about their own way and slowly evovled into a nation based on a set of principles and ideas.
Today you have extremists of all kinds within the U.S. Each type fighting their own perception of injustice. Imposing a standard of citizenship based on an exclusive document will not change anything.
Even amongst the Pinoy community you have the left represented in the U.S. They are railing against U.S. imperialism and they hold U.S. passports.
But that is what makes the U.S. different from all other countries.
The original plan for 9/11 was hatched in Germany by men from different countries carrying different passports.
The freedoms guaranteed by the basic law in the U.S. is followed in more ways than not. The U.S. is a live experiment following a vision of equality.
The open society guaranteed by law also protects the rights of wackos. Where in the world can you see a country where people openly call their President a racist, a Nazi and heavens wonder why, a socialist.
But it also happens to draw the best and the brightest simply because a lot of the people around the world know that they actually work to protect those rights and freedoms for the individual.
It is because their are open one can readily indentify the wackos. A perfect example is Sarah Palin. The author mentioned here is another example.
August 22, 2009 at 10:06 pm
calling sarah palin a “wacko” tells more about you (a mean-spirited, contemptible name-caller and infantile heckler,) utterly devoid of any sense of civility and decency). you are nothing but a “trying hard, copy cat” leftist looney.
August 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Tina Fey has caricatured what that wackiness is. Now THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I LOVE THE US OF A. The First Amendment!
August 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm
fey got some money for her effort and gained bubble popularity, especially among liberals who are now finding it more and more difficult to continue supporting obama.
as to these liberals, what have they got? obama!
August 22, 2009 at 11:32 am
However you take the US citizenship oath which says
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies”
Does the citizenship oath carry much legal value nowadays?
It is not just a matter of law or of reason but of love. Recall the patron saint of lawyers, Thomas More who refused to give allegiance to Henry VIII as Head of the Church in England, while conceding that Henry can be given earthly allegiance. More lost his head. Now can our esteemed lawyers afford to lose their practice? on a matter of an oath?
Dual citizenship is different from transanational citizenship such as EU citizens have. EU citizens don’t have split allegiances. Similarly the Commonwealth does not require member citizens to renounce their allegiances to their flags but just to recognize the Queen as Head but they don’t owe her allegiance unless she is Queen of their respective states.
Now WASPish questions (I don’t know if Fonte is Episcopalian, but Episcopalians are now most inclusive, Fonte would be an anachronism under Jefferts-Schori. So to label him as a WASP is indeed prejudice)
are needed to rethink the direction wrt to the foundations of the USA.
The citizenship oath to the Republic of Philippines leaves room for being a dual citizenship in good conscience
“I,[name], solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and local orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto, and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”
And so does the Australian one which is a pledge
“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. ”
The US Citizenship oath is considered as antiquated by some sectors of American society and proposals have been made to revise it. But Congress has axed it. Nonetheless, none of the proposals involved deleting
“I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen”
It is clear from the words of the oath that originally the founders of the USA never intended dual allegiance. So if American law has progressed on this matter then a constitutional amendment is not needed but a revision of the oath.
As for FilAms who have an ambivalent attitude to dual nationality, these words from an old uncle of mine should make us rethink.
“I have great affection for the Philippines but my allegiance now is only to the USA and since I have taken the oath”
Personally I am not in favour of dual citizenship. Transnational citizenship yes! I am a Philippine citizen who is also an ASEAN citizen!
August 22, 2009 at 11:37 am
But I agreee that Fonte is extreme. The Papal Nuncio to the Philippines will be guilty of treason since this archbishop is American but serves the interests of another state.
August 22, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Blackshama,
It sounds extreme. But I found the article in “Foreign Policy in Focus,” a very liberal publication. The confluence of liberal and conservative views over the issue is what caught my attention.
It seems that this idea is something that serious American thinkers have been grappling with for a long time. I’m pretty sure that this idea is something that yahoos will easily buy into.
I think dismissing the idea would be reckless. The internment of Japanese Americans in WWII should serve as a warning to all dual citizens.
August 23, 2009 at 2:44 am
Fortunately, the US government has learned from the lessons of the internment camps. The Japanese Americans showed to the world that foremost, they were AMERICANS.
Moreover, in the aftermath of 9/11 – which is a disaster of Pearl Harbor proportions – Arab Americans were under scrutiny, but there were no internment camps containing Arab Americans. Instead Arab Americans were tapped to become assets of the American campaign. At the end of the day, when push comes to shove and the hyphnes are dropped – the only thing that remains is…. American. Or as BHO would say, there is no red america or blue america – there is only one united states of america.
as far as i am concerned my allegiance is to the planet – I am a citizen of planet earth. and in dealing with issues of nationality – one goes through the motions using the concept of “controlled folly”.
August 22, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I mean WASPish in terms of attitude rather than literal heritage; Fonte doesn’t seem like a particularly Anglo-Saxon name.
It is a terribly extreme view, and Fonte is being disingenuous in casting it in the terms he does, because it is simply an attempt on his part to put a scholarly or philosophical spin on the issue of immigration reform in the US. He’s not the first to do this, he won’t be the last, and he’s certainly not the best. Manuel sees it the same way those of us who aren’t quite so right-wing see it – the logical conclusion to the line of argument is a repeat of the experiences of WWII.
Obviously, being who and where I am, I find transnationalism quite appealling. If more of my countrymen felt the same, perhaps they would find the rest of the world a little friendlier place for Americans than it is now.
August 22, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Dual allegiance would only affect those with particular problems relating to it, like having citizenships in two countries that are at war with each other.
Ideally, it’s better to have no allegiance problems… nationality is just a construct of people and those in power often use it to turn people against each other.
Hmm, Fonte’s points makes me wonder if he’s racist. They sound like a well-dressed racist view.
August 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I gather the question of allegiance during times of conflict is also Fonte’s (who is of Italian descent) concern:
From here.
August 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Sorry for the bad formatting.
August 22, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I gather that’s the reasoning all right, CVJ.
Fonte probably wants to eliminate dual citizenship with this Bushist utterance in mind:
“Either you’re for us or against us.”
Bushist Bullcrap.
August 22, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Pat Buchanan has espoused similar.
August 22, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Ben K,
I agree with you.
Nationalism is tribal in many respects, with some useful qualities in times of stress or war, but the broader view is that we are world citizens. I personally feel the life of a Filipino or a Spaniard or a Chilean is worth equally the same as that of an American, so why should I hunker down in a nationalistic bunker and defend against the world by claiming some tribal right. I’d rather explore the world.
Joe
August 22, 2009 at 7:09 pm
The other question to ask is about the prevailing and the niche-attitudes in the Philippines about dual citizenship.
A visible (or not-visible) is the extremely few Tsinoys in elected positions in the Philippines.
There are also vocal pundits, in particular, deQuiros, who consistently writes that loyalty-to-Pinas is already suspect once a Filipino has obtained residency (in Australia or Canada or USA or wherever).
August 22, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Namamangka sa dalawang ilog! Mga kaliwete! Taksil! Palamara!
August 22, 2009 at 11:19 pm
kung okay lang sa dalawa, anong problema mo?
August 23, 2009 at 4:30 am
A country that is not loyal to its citizens does not deserve any loyalty from its citizens at all.
August 23, 2009 at 1:00 am
We are in the Age of Globalization. People can travel and migrate easily from one country to another. We are not yet in the Age; where you can read somebody’s mind. And know what they are thinking. Terrorists pose themselves as: legitimate immigrants, visitors, or tourists. Then, commit terrorist acts.
This is the downside result of the Age of Globalization. We have no
easy answers yet for such problem. Dual loyalty of people can be
debated; ad infinitum; and you will never arrive in a sensible result.
August 23, 2009 at 2:34 am
The Japanese Americans proved that above all, they were… AMERICANS – and went to war against the Japanese Army.
August 23, 2009 at 1:01 am
The thing about this dual citizenship business is it is okay until a conflict arises between the two states. And then the issue of allegiance arises. Because one cannot stay neutral. And then you have internment camps.
August 23, 2009 at 1:10 am
The American government did that to the Japanese Americans during World War II. Those American citizens were born in America. Yet, they were interned in Camps.
August 23, 2009 at 2:32 am
Yes, Uncle Sam did it to the Japanese Americans – but has learned from the mistake since then.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks considered to be an attack of Pearl Harbor proportions – Arab Americans or Americans of Arab descent were not sent to the internment camps. Arrests were done based on the assessment of the actual threat. This time around enemy combatants were sent to Gitmo and some were sent for interrogation in allied countries.
August 23, 2009 at 1:29 am
It is not necessary that there be conflict between USA and the new citizen’s former country to wonder about loyalty of new citizens. Unfortunately a FilAm proved this to be the case. It remains the case that USA does not assume guilt of a nationality based on guilt of a person. Otherwise, Fil-Am’s will be among top-of-list to be suspect. The background is the conviction of a naturalized Filipino name Aragoncillo. A short-clip of a news story on the ex-Marine is as follows:
August 23, 2009 at 6:58 am
UP n,
The US does assume a Filipino, if issued a visa to visit the US, will abandon that visa and become an illegal immigrant. That is why a Filipino is considered “guilty” until providing an overwhelming amount of evidence that he or she will return. Thus, visas are limited to old folks and rich folks, in the main.
Joe
August 23, 2009 at 7:52 am
JoeAm: Granted visa to the USA include:
Filipinos who can contribute to the USA well-being because of their engineering-, accounting-, software-, nursing-, teaching and other similar skills;
.. or sons or daughters or parents who have been successfully petitioned by Filipinos-now-USA-citizens;
.. or IQ-of-120-and-higher who have received Fulbright-Hays or other academic scholarships;
.. or the directors or managers of PfizerPhilippines, AIG-Philippines, Citicorp and others who have business meeting at USA-corporate;
.. or investors (but this was the “money”-criteria that you focused on).
August 23, 2009 at 8:05 am
And then, there is this angle, JoeAm.
A few Americans think the purpose of Pinoys to go to USA is to steal American jobs and a few Filipinos think the sex trade (under-age, too!!!!) is purpose of a few Americans in Pinas.
Gets your blood to boil, doesn’t it?
August 23, 2009 at 8:19 am
UP n,
Yes it get’s the blood to boiling and spawns cramps in the jaw from tightly clenched teeth.
Joe
August 23, 2009 at 8:41 am
The Philippines is simply a hot spot for underage sex trade, and both countries are working (the Philippines probably less so) to stamp out the trade. The “customers” are of all colors despite their current countries of citizenship. One of the latest arrested: a FilAm — Edilberto Datan, 61,of San Diego — who likes visiting the home country. Datan was arrested and indicted under a tougher PROTECT Act (which made it easier for the US Justice department to prosecute and give tougher penalties to those who travel to foreign countries to engage in the underage sex-trade.)
August 23, 2009 at 8:47 am
Datan will not be visiting Pinas, Colombia, Cambodia even Las Vegas again. Fil-Am Datan admitted guilt — will most likely die in prison.
August 24, 2009 at 3:05 am
It is a stupid case of a Spy who came from the Cold…
The Spy was frozen by his own stupidity.
August 23, 2009 at 4:19 am
First, some insights on dual citizenship in the Philippine context.
When one elects to get back Philippine citizenship, the following documents are issued: ID certificate, Order of Approval (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition), and a sworn Oath of Allegiance. Philippine passports, either current or expired, are not required for proof after issuance. Thus, most dual citizens continue to hold only one valid passport.
Re citizenship rights, as far as I know only when a dual citizen aspires for any elective office will he/she be required to renounce allegiance to the other country. As far as I know also, dual citizens can register to vote. With this, there is the inherent difficulty in determining the political sentiments of a dual citizen, especially because voting is by secret ballot.
The practice of dual citizenship is quite pervasive. More than 90 countries practice it like France, Switzerland, etc. Any dramatic change in US policy will have to consider the negative ramifications of this reality.
Re Michelle Malkin, I guiltily confess that I follow her whenever and wherever I can – in her blogs, her syndicated columns, her guest appearances mostly on FOX but also in hostile fora like very liberal universities and yes, even in The View; and also in the countless reviews of several books of hers which have become bestsellers (that is based on the NY Times listing). Though I have not read in toto any book of hers, I have read countless pages of on-line reviews both positive and negative. Has any commenter read any of her books?
And I confess I do all the above because first and foremost she is like me, an ethnic Filipino. And secondly, that in spite of that inherent disadvantage in this country, she suffers from no inferiority complex and is quite smart, articulate, and a quick study.
Given that, would I judge her as a panderer, as espousing ludicrous ideas, or worst, a wacko? I do not necessarily agree with all her protestations. For one, I may find her too aggressive and abrasive with those who disagree with her, especially those who engage her with ad hominem attacks. Still, I do not.
Her two blogs, MM and Hot Air, combined arguably the most popular conservative blogs in the US. Her columns are carried by many newspapers, and additionally, quoted by many more. Again, her books are bestsellers. The current one, The Culture Of Corruption, again is an unchallenged bestseller.
Don’t you agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating?
August 24, 2009 at 12:03 am
to Amadeo: Applying/obtaining obtain citizenship in another country is one of the conditions that can lead to losing US citizenship.
August 24, 2009 at 12:13 am
How about a citation for the assertion?
August 24, 2009 at 12:57 am
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it . . .
August 24, 2009 at 5:23 am
As I recall, I believe it was in the US Dept of State website, there is no express prohibition on dual citizenship, though it is tacitly not encouraged. And for some good specific causes where citizenship becomes a critical factor. This particular situation comes to mind. Supposing a dual citizenship Filipino in the Philippines is arrested for a crime as a Filipino, can that same Filipino then appeal to the US Consulate for protection as a US citizen? The US consulate is obviously pushed into a dilemma.
On an unrelated note, a holder of a valid US driver’s license can go to any LTO office and through a speedy process sans most of the other necessary documentation and steps have a local license issued. The reverse would not be true in the US.
August 23, 2009 at 5:32 am
my wife and i are great fans of michele malkin. even my american-born son, a manhattan lawyer in his own right, and my daughter, admire her feistiness, intelligence, and journalistic talent. we’re proud of her. she is admired and respected by the likes of bill o’reilley, sean hannity, greta van susteren and former governor mike huckabee, among others. her works are well-documented and mostly unassailable. she is a far cry from the sensationalistic, speculating, fabricating and muckraking “journalists” plying their nefarious trade in our homeland.
August 23, 2009 at 7:34 am
That is what makes America unique… Mental cripples are allowed platforms. There will always be fringe groups around political discourse. In times of societal stress they start banging on empty drums. They make the loudest noise.
Jingoist nationalism is a dangerous element in open societies. Open societies though are designed precisely to give opportunity for these people to blow methane to dissipate their ignorance and outright stupidity… Highly flammable rhetoric gets headlines.. The tabloid nature of media in a digital connected globe where news travels at the speed of light is a double edged sword.
The Fox news crowd, Paris Hilton, Malkin appeal to the lower base of awareness. Fear mongering is a potent weapon… Unfortunately underdeveloped brain functions are easily manipulated by fear. The rightist fringe wacko groups have taken hold of the Republican party platform at a time where very little separates the right of center from the left of center.
Post partisanship, post racist line being taken by Obama reveals his skills as an organizer. However he has to draw his line in the sand soon before he becomes a victim of this mounting tide of radicalism.
The unipolar role of the U.S. has reached its peak. America will have to learn to live with the new global realities. The time for inhabitants of this planet to call themselves earthlings is still a long time away.
The white lumpen in the U.S. has been hit hard by this economic downturn. The same thing happened during the last Great Depression..
August 23, 2009 at 8:33 am
J_ag,
Nicely put.
Joe
August 23, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The White Lumpen as you describe it is so disturbingly close to the NSDAP
August 24, 2009 at 4:32 am
not so fast, “pal”. the disaster is already beginning to happen and it’s pouring. unemployment at double-digit and rising with no end in sight, lay-offs every which way, rising budget deficits, home foreclosures still an epidemic, bankruptcies of individuals as well as big and small businesses, trade deficits, balooning foreign debts, poor quality of life for the average american. now, give me facts in rebuttal to all these, please, if you can (other than your “bush-was-the-cause” mantra).
August 24, 2009 at 3:00 am
the unraveling of the obama presidency is well on its way. the failed billions of dollars “stimulus” programs, the bail-out fiasco, the cap in trade bill, the cash-for-clunker program, and now, the biggest of them all, the “obama-care” health reform plan that will lead to a 12 to 13 trillion dollar budget deficit in 10 years, along with countless other problems such as demise of medicare-medicaid, as we know it, health-care rationing, selective delivery according to age-based prioritizing, among other things, promise to result in the greatest economic debacle in u.s. history from which it may not be able to recover. the unintended consequence of “equalized poverty” will come to pass over time.
August 24, 2009 at 3:07 am
I was wrong about you. I had you pegged for someone with some critical thinking skills. Of course, your using the word “respected” in the same sentence with the names O’Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteren, and Huckabee earlier should’ve been a tip-off, I suppose. Go ahead and put your brain in park and believe everything the lunatic fringe tells you, if that works for you, I guess.
August 24, 2009 at 4:05 am
that argument won’t work benk (“buddy”). it’s not about whether i have critical-thinking skills or not, or whether or not i listen to the “lunatic fringe”. it’s about what is fact and what is word play, what makes sense and what is “idiotic”, what is a sugar-coated lie and what is for real.
btw, you keep blaming bush for obama’s inadequacy of leadership. when are you going to accept that obama is NOW the president and hold him responsible for every mishap or fiasco since 1/1/09?
August 24, 2009 at 4:16 am
Did the economic crisis begin before or after January 21, 2009?
Was there a budget surplus or deficit in the U.S. at the time George Bush took office in 2001?
Let fall the scales from your eyes.
August 24, 2009 at 4:50 am
did not ronald reagan reversed jimmy carter’s economic hemorrhaging from 1977 to 1981? but then again, obama is no reagan – not by any stretch. (see, i can play that “game” too, pal).
August 24, 2009 at 9:48 am
Spin and obfuscation from a typical mindless right-wing hack. Two simple questions, PAL. You got answers, or not?
August 24, 2009 at 10:22 am
are you looking at the mirror while saying that, dude? i don’t know about you but i am not a “hack”. btw, your “profound” question need no answer. obama is messing up the country, right here, right now. bush is history, therefore, not relevant. leave him alone.
August 24, 2009 at 10:30 am
You mean, they don’t need the answers you don’t want to hear. All right then. Keep up the lunacy, and the Democrats will keep the White House until 2016.
August 24, 2009 at 10:41 am
dream on. he’s worst than carter.
August 23, 2009 at 8:00 am
Bencards frame of mind as a white man is headed for the dustbin of history in the U.S. Our resident redneck neck white man Bencard’s line represents but a small segment of Americas mainstream…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902901.html
“Hard to believe, in fact, that they’ll ever be found, given the increasing rigidity, insularity and extremism of today’s Republican Party. The problem is that the GOP is no longer a truly national party in its geographical composition or its ideological breadth. Throughout U.S. history, our two major political parties have usually contained multitudes and contradicted themselves accordingly. For much of the 20th century, the Democrats were the party of the white South, the immigrant north and labor unions. The Republicans were the party of Wall Street bankers, Main Street merchants, professionals and Sun Belt cowboys.”
“But today’s Palinoidal Republicans have lost most of the professionals, much of Wall Street and an increasing chunk of suburbia. What they can claim is the allegiance of the white South and the almost entirely white, non-urban parts of the Mountain West. Of the 40 Republican members of the Senate, fully half — 20 — come from the old Confederacy, the Civil War border states where slavery was legal or Oklahoma, which politically is an extension of Texas without Texas’s racial minorities. Ten others come from the Mountain West. The rest of the nation — that is, of course, most of the nation — has become an ever-smaller share of Republican ranks.”
“All parties are home to distinct subcultures with distinct beliefs. What’s different about today’s GOP is that increasingly, it is home to just one, and a whole sector of the media — Fox News, talk radio — makes its money by emphasizing this subculture’s sense of separateness, grievance and alarm, and by creating its own set of “facts.” Asked in late July whether they believed Barack Obama was born in the United States, 93 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents said yes, but just 42 percent of Republicans agreed. Behind those numbers, 93 percent, 90 percent and 87 percent of Northeasterners, Midwesterners and Westerners, respectively, said yes, but just 47 percent of Southerners said they believed the president was born in this country. Obama, the Republican base is saying, personifies an America that is increasingly alien to them. It’s multiracial, as they are not. It puts Sonia Sotomayor, who sure doesn’t come from their America, on the Supreme Court. Increasingly, the Republicans have descended into white identity politics.”
“Republican ideology has shrunk alongside its geography and demographics. Where once its view of the role of government ran the gamut from Rockefeller activism to Goldwater libertarianism, today the party largely adheres to the religiosity and the anti-statism of the white South. (In its ideological uniformity, today’s GOP looks — O, the irony — more like a classic European party than an American one.)” Harold Meyerson
August 24, 2009 at 3:23 am
the economic disaster resulting from obamanomics is not a matter of ideology – conservative or liberal – but of wrong-headed agenda that want to artificially change the natural order of things. it is an affirmation of the arrogance of power, a desire to be god-like, to alter what cannot be changed solely through human pretensions.
but as long as “we the people” can make our voices heard – in town halls, public places, the internet, the unbiased portion of the press and media, and through the ballot, we can yet prevent this onrushing catastrophe from causing permanent havoc to the american way of life.
August 24, 2009 at 3:38 am
“economic disaster resulting from obamanomics” is not only an ideological statement, it’s also idiotic. The man INHERITED an economic disaster from a foolish administration that no president since Roosevelt has had to face. And how conveniently the retarded right forgets whose fault it is the economy is in the mess it’s in. How conveniently the retarded right forgets that they themselves inherited a healthy budget SURPLUS, and blew it all and then some.
We’ve already had eight years of trying it your way, pal. I’m willing to take my chances with something different, because there’s no way anybody in my family could be any worse off for it.
August 24, 2009 at 3:47 am
no sense debating what will be, benk. just you watch with eyes wide open and listen with unplugged ears. then try to rebut the facts as they unfold, if you can.
August 24, 2009 at 3:52 am
Right. And you can no more predict the future than I can. So maybe we ought to change the subject.
August 24, 2009 at 4:38 am
benk, my response to you is at 4:32am above.
August 23, 2009 at 8:28 am
J_ag,
Many republicans limp on one highly damaged foot, as they run around repeatedly shooting themselves in that foot, demanding such a small-minded, narrow allegiance that broader minded folks say “I don’t want to be tied to this useless chunk of cement.” So they lose in every vote, lose ground, and can’t for the life of them morph into more accepting people.
Joe
August 23, 2009 at 12:04 pm
The liberal left and the democrats are riding on the crest of a popular president at present. The crest is fast dessipating, and the popularity of Barrack O and his populist policies are too quickly eroding among the American citizenry. Their political future is uncertain.
August 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm
And your point is? That is a normal pattern for American presidents no matter who they are. George the Simple-Minded was in worse shape than Obama at this point in his presidency, and just got lucky that Al-Qaeda decided to bail him out.
August 23, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Bert,
I’ll add you to my list of known Obama dissers. Populating the list are Bencard, who hates the dude, Blackshama, who thinks he is ordinary, and yourself, who projects erosion.
A president who has the courage to do what the country needs, not what every interest bloc wants, will see his popularity erode. So far, Mr. Obama has stopped the economic crash, resurrected a dignified foreign policy, initiated many “populist” (your word) plans that must bear the brunt of republican condemnation to get into play, recast the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and generally worked hard and smart.
How refreshing to us whacko left-leaning conservative corporate types.
Joe
August 23, 2009 at 12:32 pm
My point is a personal observation. Since you agreed with my observation, then we have no disagreement.
August 23, 2009 at 12:33 pm
my comment at 12:32 pm is for Ben K.
August 23, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Joe,
I am one of your fan here in FV, glad to be buddy with an American in this Pinoy forum, but now you dissappoint me. My comment is a statement of fact based on my readings in American blogs, but you had labelled me an Obama disser, lumping me with some Obama hater.
I’m not an Obama hater, where did you get the idea?
August 23, 2009 at 12:55 pm
@Bert,
Ah so. I think too much can be read into momentary (un)popularity. This is Obama’s post-honeymoon hangover, and for a lot of us, it’s reminiscent of the Clinton’s first round, especially with the health care issue. Six months or a year down the line, and something will swing the pendulum back the other way. George the First had Kuwait, Clinton had the economy, George the Second had 9/11, Obama’s still waiting for his. It’s the inevitable march of history.
What Joe A says about the Republicans and the far-right is correct; but in another time, it’s the Democrats and the far-left shooting themselves in the foot. And so it goes.
August 23, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Aieeee, Bert, no no. I am a fan of yours, too. I said you dissed him, not hating him, but as I re-read, I see you were not really even dissing him, just reporting the facts of his sliding popularity ratings. My bad. You have dropped off the list, heh.
By the way, he is rising on my popularity gauge. on the foundation of his international policies and activities. I see he will be visiting China in a couple of months. You know, he has a great cabinet, overall. Not afraid to hire people who in some fields are stronger than him.
Ever worked for an insecure boss who only hired those weaker than him?
Sorry for my ill choice of words.
Joe
August 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm
i’m not a fan of yours, joe-am, but calling me an obama-hater, just because i don’t like his politics, is the kind of crap you peddle around here. i still don’t think you are who you say you are. no educated american would stoop that low.
August 23, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“The thing about this dual citizenship business is it is okay until a conflict arises between the two states. And then the issue of allegiance arises. Because one cannot stay neutral. And then you have internment camps.”-manuelbuencamino
In a conflict, one can always stay neutral! The story of the bat has proven it can be done. One can be a bird, or, one can be a beast, at will when necessary, depending on who’s winning the battle.
Of course we know what happened to the bat at the end of the story, heheh.
August 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Bert, in times of war, i don’t think the United States will accept neutrality among its citizenry.
So the question becomes one of national security versus collective punishment. Fonte (and Bencard) believes that given certain extraordinary circumstances, it is justified to treat a certain group differently for the sake of national security.
Is this principle valid? Assuming the answer is yes, UPn has already pointed out that Fil-Ams should not be exempt from this principle (because of the Aragoncillo case).
August 23, 2009 at 1:07 pm
cvj, are you insinuating that you’re foreseeing a fate for my Manoy Bencard more terrible than what happened to the bat at the end of the story?
August 23, 2009 at 1:17 pm
You mean Bencard’s “kung okay lang sa dalawa, anong problema mo?”…i guess that would be up to Mrs. Bencard.
August 23, 2009 at 9:13 pm
a “war” between the u.s. and philippines? c’mon guys. GROW UP!
August 23, 2009 at 8:22 pm
to cvj: On “…. in times of war, i don’t think the United States will accept neutrality among its citizenry.” or to manuelB: “one cannot stay neutral.”
Why not? Your thought-process seems to use neutrality as an excuse — “Neutrality : I will not serve my country because….”
In fact, evidence from history shows that the USA’s governance always has effort to go beyond paranoia and demagoguery, and USA civic society and the leadership among its civil servants finding ways that reconcile religious beliefs and the requirements of citizenry — neutrals wearing USA military uniforms providing service needed by a war effort still consistent with their moral beliefs (e.g. medical corps). The Japanese internment camp was a breakdown, but the thrust to accomodate a personal belief for neutrality goes all the way to Quakers during North-South civil war and Quakers of today.
August 23, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Upn, I don’t think the United States has ever been at war with Quakers in other countries.
August 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm
It must easier to pledge allegiance to Texas!
I pledge allegiance to the flag of Texas, and the Lone Star Republic for which it stands…….
August 23, 2009 at 3:28 pm
You and George “Cowboy” Bush.
Hahahahaha,
he can’t even ride,
prefers the SUV to roam the ranges.
Joe
August 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm
but seriously, when there is a war, what happens to the dual citizens? the law doesn’t have any stipulation about that?
August 23, 2009 at 6:19 pm
GabbyD: Just look to past 10 years for answer to your question. Iraqi-Americans and Afghani-Americans (along with FilAms, Mexican-Americans, others) wearing US Marine, Army, Navy uniforms as well as working with the CIA.
August 23, 2009 at 7:17 pm
are these dual citizens? i doubt it…
August 23, 2009 at 7:27 pm
@Gabby D,
No, they’re not. But neither is anyone else, as far as the US is concerned. A US citizen is a US citizen. As was pointed out above, the oath required of naturalized citizens requires them to renounce other citizenship. We born Americans could be granted dual citizenship by another country, but it will not be recognized by the US.
August 24, 2009 at 6:39 am
GabbyD: Just look to the past years to answer your question. Double-check the incidents and interpret to your heart’s desire:
(1) Week of Nine-Eleven : as USA airports were getting closed, a special flight was approved for members of Bin Laden clan to leave USA;
(2) months after 09/11 were chaotic, and then the identity of the 09/11 perpetrators were revealed. Take as long as you can — how many houses owned by Arab, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs (South-Asians do look alike) were torched? Note: I do know there were Sikhs who were attacked. You’ll have to cite your source, though, if you say that over twenty South-Asians were killed by USA mobs;
(3) Homeland Security was created as airport-security was tightened. Very quickly, the ACLU and other civil-liberties organizations started to protest against profiling;
(4) Homeland “do-not-fly” List was put in place. “Dual-citizenship” was apparently a minor criteria, if at all. Stopped from boarding planes included Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts;
(5) USA did tighten the criteria for entry into the USA and affected were practically ALL — including Pakistanis, Bangladesh, India, China, Thai, Filipinos, Indonesians, Africans, Eastern and Western Europe, too — except Australia, England, Denmark; the admittance-criteria keeps getting updated every year;
(6) Homeland Security/Immigration started tightening up. Filipinos from California, Illinois, others with felonies or improper VISA-paperwork saw themselves arrested and put on a plane to be returned to the Philippines; same situation for Indonesians, Mexicans, other nationalities. For supremo, Amadeo, the Ca t and others with “clean” papers — no problemo. Bencard and Abe Margallo’s kids — FilAm’s natural-born US citizens — no problemo (and some enlisted in the Army, National Guard, etcetera);
(7) Two US citizens were caught fighting for the Taliban — John Walker Lindh (Caucasian; born in Washington DC) and Hamdi (born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and shortly thereafter raised in Saudi Arabia by his parents). Lindh found guilty; currently in US Federal prison – 20-plus years sentence. Hamdi — allowed to return to Saudi Arabia on condition that he renounce his US citizenship;
(5) Homeland Security then, as now, hunts for terrorists or terrorist-sympathizers inside USA territory and among those arrested to-date include Jose Padilla (US citizen; Latino-American born in Brooklyn); the Buffalo Six (Yemeni-Americans); Liberty Six for a plot to blow up the Sears Tower, Chicago; a group in North Carolina recently arrested, led by 39 year-old Daniel Patrick Boyd;
Also arrested in past 3 years was an American couple spying for Cuba; others spying for Mainland China.
(6) The Aragoncillo-treason-arrest was about A FilAm spying in the White House. Love-for-Pilipinas was NOT the reason for Aragoncillo’s actions.
August 24, 2009 at 6:53 am
great research, upnstude.
August 25, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Personal choice is always the last arbiter…
August 23, 2009 at 4:52 pm
May nakatumbok na ng tinutumbok ni MB…
August 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Quiz:
Name the dedma King.
August 23, 2009 at 4:54 pm
The winner gets a mocha frap on me…
August 24, 2009 at 6:31 am
So far America is an evolving multi racial nation. Not multicultural. It’s greatest flaw till today is the slow shedding of its racial divisive past which unfortunately they institutionalized during the formation of their union.
In several government documents the word race is used to distinguish nationalities… It was not until President Johnson pushed the new immigration law extending immigration privileges to other countries apart from Europe in the 60’s did the racial mix of the U.S. truly get multi-racial.
It also has been observed that second to third generation Americans become more American than their parents.
However with the Pinoy hybrid culture many Pinoys went to the U.S. thinking that they were already Americans. There they realized that the Kano saw them as colored…
The entire genetic structure of America depends on immigrants sustaining their economy. The interaction of Europeans during the 19th century with their colonies allowed brought with it strict segregation policies. In time these all changed. The First World War and the Second World War were civil wars amongst the European powers. The French and German although they are racial cousins have been fighting each other for generations. They finally agreed to unite under the Steel Manufacturing Agreement that became the basis of the European community.
The Japanese being the most racially homogenous Asian country with a deeply seated warrior culture became the first to realize the domination of the Europeans was in invention and technology so under the Meiji emperor strived to catch up.
The seed of American culture is their deeply held ideals and principles that allows the differing traditions of differing races to interact. Just look at the fusion of food in American culture. Just look at the differing immigrants who brought with them their know how and invention that pushed America to where it is today.
The German scientist Von Braun was killing other Europeans and the Americans took him in because he had knowledge to assist America. The scientist around the Manhattan project were also from different backgrounds.
That is the basis of American citizenship.. They decide on matters of managing their labor requirements. It is basic economic policy…
August 25, 2009 at 7:19 am
J_ag,
Nice perspective, again. It is amazing how the US “culture” assimilates various ethnicities. The “American” — white former service guy — you typically see in the Philippines is far from the “American” you typically see in Los Angeles, which has perhaps the most diverse population in the planet. Take the gastrointestinal tour of the ethnic restaurants in LA and you will see that “white” America is rather small; yet the respect for laws and order pervades all . . . well, excepting a hoodlum or white collar ponzi specialist now and then.
I think the Philippines struggles too much with the Filipino identity and ought to simply abandon any notion of homogenous society and get on with welcoming talent and investment of any stripe.
Joe
August 24, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Fonte should have also mentioned the unique case of the allegiance of Filipinos born during the American territorial period.
Chief Justice Fuller in Fourteen Diamond Rings (1901) opined:
“The Philippines thereby ceased, in the language of the treaty … to be foreign country. They came under the complete and absolute sovereignty and dominion of the United States, and so became territory of the United States over which civil government could be established. The result was the same although there was no stipulation that the native inhabitants should be incorporated into the body politic, and none securing to them the right to choose their nationality. Their allegiance became due to the United States, and they became entitled to its protection.”
In other words, “although there was no stipulation” in the 1898 Treaty of Paris that Filipinos “should be incorporated into the body politic, and none securing to them the right to choose their nationality,” to Chief Justice Fuller–
“The result was the same … Their allegiance became due to the United States, and they became entitled to its protection.”
What this means, of course, is that Filipinos born in what was then regarded as the “unincorporated territory” of the Philippine Islands during the American territorial period owed allegiance to the United States at birth; otherwise, Filipinos born in the Philippine Islands during that period would have been BORN STATELESS, without any country to call their own, and to owe allegiance to, at birth.
What is significant here is that, in U.S. v. Rhodes (1866), as cited in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
“All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.”
August 27, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Last year, Speaker Nograles implied that he wanted Cha-Cha to enable overseas Filipinos to invest back here. The article further stated that “Nograles surmised that even a minimum of $1,000 investment for every US-based Filipino migrant would be substantial to fuel the country’s economic engine”. (Philstar article “House wants Cha-cha to deal with financial crisis”)
In a discussion with another poster in another blog, I stated that we don’t need to revise the Charter just for that.
My idea was based on the premise of dual citizenship. Filipinos who happen to be citizens of other countries definitely still enjoy the same investment rights/privilege as any other Filipino.