Any thoughts on this matter? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40713748 It seems Australia has the sense to prohibit dual citizens from holding office, while the US does not.
Well I used to have dual citizenship, but think you get to a point where you need to choose where your loyalties lie and especially if you run for public office. I don't particularly care about enforcing the rule but certainly see someone with dual citizenship as potentially having divided loyalties.
Yes, it seems to me that if a person has loyalties to 2 different countries, one should not be in the government of either country. Too many potential conflicts.
Please note that this is in the Australian section. The US does recognize dual citizenship, and it allows it for elected representatives and other high officials. Rahm Emmanuel and others are dual citizens.
I realize that this is the Australia section, which is exactly why I was asking what the US has to do with this. You brought up the US in your very first post. And as far as the US government is concerned, Rahm Emmanuel isn't a dual citizen.
As a matter of comparison, that's all. Is comparison allowed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law It appears your previous claim in post #4 was in error. I'm betting that if Henry Kissinger and Madelaine Albright were dual citizens, high probability that Emmanuel is too. Does the Australian prohibition on office holders being dual citizenship reflect higher standards on their part? I think so.
If a politician thinks so much of their "other" citizenship they cannot relinquish it, or in other words they do not think enough of Australia to have it as their only citizenship then how could we trust them?
That does seem to be the heart of the matter---when push comes to shove, to which country/government does the individual show loyalty? That obvious conundrum seems to easily support the idea that those elected to government positions, or even appointed I would guess, should not be allowed to hold dual citizenship.
