Uncategorized

Dual Allegiance is Inconsistent with American Democracy

The heart of American Democracy is the principle that sovereignty resides in “We the People.” For more than 200 years immigrants seeking American citizenship have taken an oath renouncing prior allegiances and transferring sole political allegiance to the United States. In the political sense, naturalized immigrants have left a previous “people” and joined the “American people.” This is the main reason for America’s great immigration success. The concept of “dual allegiance,” where some Americans have political allegiance to both the U.S. and a foreign state, is inconsistent with the moral foundation of American democracy. Dual allegiance citizens belong to another “we the people” (in the civic, not ethnic sense). Dual allegiance citizens exist in a political space beyond the American constitutional community and as members of another “people,” (i.e., a foreign political community) they have different (and in some cases, competing and conflicting) responsibilities, rights, interests, and commitments. These foreign interests and commitments–of objective practical necessity, as well as moral obligation–dilute their commitment, attachment and allegiance to the United States.

read more

Tyrant Finally has His Day in Court

Charles Taylor finally faces justice. The UN-backed Special Court in Sierra Leone stands ready to prosecute the former president of Liberia on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, stemming from his role in Sierra Leone’s 1991-2002 civil war.

read more

Politicizing Aid

Americans concerned about global hunger, disease, and deprivation have long argued that our country should take leadership in providing development assistance to impoverished populations abroad. After 9/11, even more citizens pointed to foreign aid as a means to create strong international ties, promote democratic institutions, and build a safer world. That the U.S. should catch up with European countries, which provide much larger infusions of foreign aid relative to the size of their economies, seemed like a reasonable and timely demand.

read more
The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time

The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time

The Bush Agenda is the first book to expose the Bush Administration’s radical economic agenda for global domination, a plan more extreme, unilateral and audacious than any of his predecessors, a plan that has created the greatest level of violent opposition to America and Americans in recent history.

This book addresses the history of U.S. economic relations throughout the world over the past 25 years, the key role of U.S. corporations, and the larger Bush economic agenda and what the potential impact of this agenda will be on the United States and the world. It concludes with specific alternatives to guide the U.S. on a more peaceful and sustainable course in the future. Using Naomi Klein’s No Logo and Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation as models, The Bush Agenda is based on hard analytic fact and presented so that it will not only be persuasive, but highly engaging and entertaining to a broad audience.

read more

Women are Africa’s Political Hope

Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf will address a joint session of the U.S. Congress today. This historic honor, bestowed sparingly on international dignitaries, is a fitting tribute for Africa’s first democratically elected female president. But Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is not an anomaly.

read more

A New Endgame in Iraq

Since the bombing of the golden-domed Askariya Shi’a mosque in Samarra on February 22, Iraq has been close to the outbreak of open civil war. While Iraqi leaders tried to bring calm it was clear that the masses behind them were not marching in step. As in the case of the nationalist Shi’ite leader Moqtadah al-Sadr’s movement, elites and militants pulled in opposite directions: while some of the most violent reprisals were apparently undertaken by his followers, al-Sadr and his top leaders sought to defuse tensions with the Sunnis throughout the conflict. Similarly, the legal political parties of the Sunnis and Shi’ites tried to limit the conflict while their followers were in the streets. The only thing common on all sides was placing blame on the American occupiers.

read more

In Iraq, "It’s the Oil, Stupid"

Amid all the talk of training Iraqi soldiers, heading off a civil war, and protecting a fledging democracy, one overriding agenda has been ignored in the debate over the timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. President George W. Bush will not withdraw our forces until U.S. oil companies have secure access to Iraq’s resources.

read more

The Benefits of Dual Citizenship

A tempest in a teapot has been brewing over the more than 150 nations—a number that is rising—that allow their citizens to hold passports of more than one country. Opponents of dual citizenship argue that it is dangerous for America because it can lead to conflicting dual loyalties. This overblown fear is based on two misconceptions: first, that immigrants’ efforts to improve their homelands represent misplaced loyalties that are bad for the United States, and second, that immigrants’ ties to their countries of birth are something new. In reality, dual citizenship benefits America by helping to promote U.S. ideals and values around the globe. It promotes U.S. understanding of and connections to the world, to our own benefit politically and economically, and removes practical obstacles to naturalization. Loyalty to another government certainly can be dangerous, especially in times of war. During World War II, some U.S. states were within their rights to ban meetings of the German-American Bund, a political group that portrayed itself as an American arm of Hitler’s Third Reich and promoted ethnic hatred. Yet this was the exception that proves the rule. In reality, citizens of hostile foreign governments are far more likely to oppose than to support the despots who rule their homelands. Throughout history—with the exception of the Iron Curtain nations during the Cold War—governments generally have been thrilled when their opponents flee into exile. Because those who leave a land are most likely to be displeased with its existing government, until recently the fiercest opponents of dual citizenship and absentee voting have been unpopular ruling governments that feared the paper votes of citizens who already voted with their feet. Emigrés often have other reasons for wanting to vote in their homelands that have nothing to do with emotion but everything to do with practical issues—especially if they have left behind family they care about and want to visit and support financially. In many countries, you must be a citizen to own land, work legally, or participate materially in certain kinds of business. Jesús Galvis, a Hackensack, New Jersey City Councilman, ran for a newly created seat in Colombia’s Senate in 1988, because he felt that it was important that Colombians abroad to have a say in policies that affected them, like the excessive time and cost for renewing passports and delays in getting packages through customs. (He never expected to win, but if he had would have had to give up his U.S. citizenship, like other dual citizens elected or appointed to national office.)

read more