Now, now! With the Honorable Rahm Emanuel, you can have dual citizenship now with 63% more Gun Control! ;)

Rahm "Israel" Emanuel only wants goy gun control.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=armed+israeli+settlers&FORM=HDRSC2

Bing, seriously?

I use Google to find Bing.

Im with you. Wheres the petition I can sign!?

In the meantime, I will fully endorse any Iran-USA duel citizens who run for congress or president.

You first need to sign the petition to make petitions actually do something.

The conflict of interest seems pretty obvious to me.

Does it? Here's my point of view:

I have dual citizenship, US and New Zealand. I was born in the United States, raised here my entire life. Most time I've spent out of the country in 1 trip is 3 weeks. I've been to New Zealand 4 times, for a total of about 3 months. I have family there but I almost never talk to them and some I've never even met.

Who would have more of a conflict of interest: me or someone who is only a US citizen, but often travels to, say Russia, has many Russian friends, maybe a Russian side of the family, possibly several government contacts in Russia, etc.

This law would prevent me for running for mayor of a small town, yet this other person could be a governor, senator, even the president.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this law would help anything. All that would happen would be dual-citizens already in government would renounce their foreign citizenship.

4 supreme court justices are dual citizens? that would explain why anonymous testimony is now allowed from israeli mossad agents.

What, what, and what? Wow.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/scotus_to_consider_fate_of_jailed_muslim_charity_leaders/

IIRC there is such a law.

However, Israel is excepted from this law.

Source?

The 1940 Nationality Act

Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, "shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by...voting in a political election in a foreign state."

This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.

But then something very odd happened.

In 1967 an American Jew, Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship -- right? Wrong.

After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act -- the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.

Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court. Here, with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson's former attorney and one of the most powerful Jewish Americans, casting the swing vote, the court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to "rob" Afroyim of his American citizenship!

The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown "intent" to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections. Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Brownell

Subsequent developments

The court reversed itself in 1967 with its decision, in Afroyim v. Rusk, that section 401 of the Nationality Act of 1940 is unconstitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from taking away citizenship without the citizen's assent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk

I see, thank you.

Now based on my understanding of the United States legal system, the second case (Afroyim v. Rusk) set another precedent, correct? Not only for Jews with dual citizenship in Israel but for any citizen with dual citizenship. I think it may have come up to the individual beliefs of the justices rather than anything else.

VERY MISLEADING. Afroyim v Rusk has nothing to do with Israeli exception. It has to do with voluntary loss of citizenship. Dual citizenship is okay for even non-Israeli's. Read the wiki.

He volunteered to give up his citizenship when he voted in a foreign election.

"IIRC there is such a law.

However, Israel is excepted from this law."

That's what I'm arguing against. Debate on the decision itself i'm not arguing for/or against.

Lie. Look up afroyim vs rusk.

[deleted]

Well played, sir.

Just another layer of the onion. No peeling....that's a low level threat.

Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith

What proof do you have that Leon Panetta is a dual citizen?

It would be a nice gesture, but it wouldn't make a difference. Those who currently have dual citizenship would be exempt from the process we peons face should we wish for citizenship elsewhere.

Think Rahm Emanuel would be made to wait, or do you think strings would be pulled and he'd have his passport in minutes?

The issue is the undue influence, not the dual citizenship.

Interesting concept, but discriminatory against non-Zionists as much as Zionists... As a quadruple citizen (none of them Israel) here is my take: make multinationals surging in government take an oath to act only as a servant of the US and not other countries, and make violation of said oath punishable by law.

Don't let a few (OK, a LOT) of fucked up Zionists make you think that all multinationals are shills for other governments...

New to r/conspiracy, but why should this have to be done?

The moat dangerous duel citizens usually come from Israel. And judging by there political history they might be more Israeli than American

"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning." Herzl also said at this meeting: "We are one nation. We are neither American nor Russian Jews, but only Jews!" He also said: 'With a few exceptions that do not figure at all, the entire press of the world is in our hands."

Well it's a conflict of interest. You are creating/governing laws/citizens of the U.S. If your loyalty does not reside here in the U.S.(thus doing what you can for this country WITHOUT OUTSIDE influence) then you should not be allowed to create or govern here. It's that simple. I don't hate anyone with dual citizenship, but I cannot help but feel that you would be swayed by influences from another country.

Because many Israeli dual citizens were critical in carrying out 9/11.

I'm more of a believer in the theory that the US government carried out the "attack", with the collaboration of others. Nonetheless, I can see why some people would want to stop dual citizens from being in the American government, but I'm sure that there's a lot of people out there who can do an excellent job, even if they're not 100% American.

I'm sure that there's a lot of people out there who can do an excellent job, even if they're not 100% American.

I'm sure there are. That doesn't change the fact that Americans should be governed by Americans.

Well, seeing as most Americans only have to go back two or three generations to return to their Irish, Italian, Polish, Japanese, etc. roots, that argument is baffling.

Would you vote for a President who is clearly better qualified, has been more successful and has better ideas than the other candidate, or would you vote based on the fact that they are partially German? Moreover, if the half-German candidate has been born and raised in the States, seeped in the American culture (which is virtually meaningless considering how globalised the country is), surely he/she deserves to be considered American?

I can understand your point, but I must insist - I completely disagree. At best it seems ignorant and "elitist", and at its worst, borderline racist.

Edit: I'm half English and half Spanish myself, and only 17, so perhaps I hold a biased and - to an extent, ignorant - point of view, but I stand by what I have said.

seeing as most Americans only have to go back two or three generations to return to their Irish, Italian, Polish, Japanese, etc. roots

Yeah, those people weren't citizens. Their children were. This is what's called "birthright citizenship."

I think he's getting at the fact that these people, while only American citizens, may still hold as much love for their 'root' country. Say a Chinese man is born and raised in the US, but has Chinese born and raised parents, would it not be possible for such a person to have as strong interests as a person with dual citizenship?

While only able to vote in the US this person could still heavily sway thing to go their way via other means.

It goes a bit further than that. Dozens of Israeli spies were rounded up following 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo

I wonder who was head of the criminal division of the Justice Department at the time. Dual citizen of Israel, Michael Chertoff.

Jews.

i know some very nice dual citizens that do a lot of good in our country.

if we go this "American-only" route, it just stirs up more divisiveness. Plus, it limits some great minds from helping us restore proper balance.

Yay nationalism.

Hear, hear...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

I say ban banning, and those who would ban, banish the banners, let the gonfalons fly....not one word matters since the act of 1871....your corporation has been owned by foreign interests for over 100 years...we owe our souls to the company store

Saint Peter dontchu call me cause I cant go, I owe mah soul to the Company Stooooo:-D