Posted by: Stiffler April 6, 2012
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
When you are starting an argument, you have to have an open mind to think both ways, otherwise it will just be bitching, for lack of a better word.
Me, including others, have repeatedly asked you why are you oppose to it but you cannot point to one good reason why we shouldn't get the dual citizenship. The only point you keep making is how other countries have not instituted this and we could still get lots of things done w/o citizenship; that doesn't tell me why getting one is wrong.
I thus took upon myself to do more research on why dual citizenship is bad for a country. And I did find some good reasons, why Dual citizenship is not recommended.
There might be several other issues with dual citizenship, but one important reason has to do with a country's security. A country like India has good reasons to be worried about dual citizenship. Everybody knows that citizenship comes with many perks and ease of access. Many sensitive area job in US comes with citizenship requirement.
Citizenship in US requires an oath of loyalty, "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty." Whether somebody follows this or not is a different question; but say hypothetically, US is in war with another country (e.g. Japan), who should you claim your loyalty to? Say you chose one country over other, now you could be a serious potential threat (a traitor) to the other country since you have all the access and privileges as the citizen of the other country.
India has a good reason to be afraid of this (China, Pakistan), this is why they mulled the idea completely. But wouldn't you think US would have this issue too? They must have given a good consideration on this (there were certain instances in the past where this issue was raised) and yet they allow dual citizenship.
Nepal might not be as vulnerable, as say China or India is. But that's not to say the things won't change in the future.
I am still not fully convinced that dual citizenship is not a good idea; but now I do understand some reasoning why it could be considered wrong. Citizenship is not a membership to a club; it is an exclusive allegiance to a country and oath of loyalty. How can you be loyal to two entities, specially when those two entities could come in odds with each other in the future?
Me, including others, have repeatedly asked you why are you oppose to it but you cannot point to one good reason why we shouldn't get the dual citizenship. The only point you keep making is how other countries have not instituted this and we could still get lots of things done w/o citizenship; that doesn't tell me why getting one is wrong.
I thus took upon myself to do more research on why dual citizenship is bad for a country. And I did find some good reasons, why Dual citizenship is not recommended.
There might be several other issues with dual citizenship, but one important reason has to do with a country's security. A country like India has good reasons to be worried about dual citizenship. Everybody knows that citizenship comes with many perks and ease of access. Many sensitive area job in US comes with citizenship requirement.
Citizenship in US requires an oath of loyalty, "I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty." Whether somebody follows this or not is a different question; but say hypothetically, US is in war with another country (e.g. Japan), who should you claim your loyalty to? Say you chose one country over other, now you could be a serious potential threat (a traitor) to the other country since you have all the access and privileges as the citizen of the other country.
India has a good reason to be afraid of this (China, Pakistan), this is why they mulled the idea completely. But wouldn't you think US would have this issue too? They must have given a good consideration on this (there were certain instances in the past where this issue was raised) and yet they allow dual citizenship.
Nepal might not be as vulnerable, as say China or India is. But that's not to say the things won't change in the future.
I am still not fully convinced that dual citizenship is not a good idea; but now I do understand some reasoning why it could be considered wrong. Citizenship is not a membership to a club; it is an exclusive allegiance to a country and oath of loyalty. How can you be loyal to two entities, specially when those two entities could come in odds with each other in the future?