Each culture is also deeply committed to the perpetuation of its sartorial stereotypes.

A Bavarian and a Texan walk into a bar, where they meet a Scotsman…

The Bavarian says, "Nice hat."
The Texan says, "Nice knife."

Nobody will ever know what that Scotsman said in reply.

To the question of Brexit, I think that the EU makes a lot of sense for about 15% of the population of each country. If you're a heavily-credentialed professional or a business owner, it's really easy to see why the EU is in your interest. Everything is just easier if you can import goods and labor.

For the other 85%, the sense that they are being screwed is always in the back of their minds.

It is not very different from the discussions of immigration and tariff policy in this country.

When I was working on getting a second passport in a Latin American country, I was told by my local attorney that I would have to renounce my US citizenship before an official in that country. Because the US has rigorous requirements to renounce US citizenship that would not be met by doing this, the only practical effect of this would be that I would not be able to claim US citizenship if I ever got in a jam while in that country. Not a huge loss in my opinion given the benefits of the second passport.

My wife and son have dual citizenship. My wife was born and raised in Brazil. Her family is still there. She came to the US legally and we went through the entire process of her having US citizenship. I definitely wanted her to get it once our son was born.

Brazil allows a person born to a citizen to have citizenship. So even though our son was born and raised here, he has Brazilian citizenship.

My wife's family is all still in Brazil and in our will, my wife's sister and husband will be our son's guardians if anything happens to us. I am glad he has Brazilian citizenship.

I would have to go live in Brazil for 5 years (I think that's the number of years) to get my Brazilian citizenship and I would definitely do it and hope to in retirement.

1. Do you think that immigrants should be required to renounce their original nationality at the time of naturalization? No

2. Do you think that native born American citizens should be required to renounce their secondary nationality, if they are aware of it? No

3. Do you think that it should be illegal for an American to buy a second nationality? No

Quote:

---

When I was working on getting a second passport in a Latin American country, I was told by my local attorney that I would have to renounce my US citizenship before an official in that country. Because the US has rigorous requirements to renounce US citizenship that would not be met by doing this, the only practical effect of this would be that I would not be able to claim US citizenship if I ever got in a jam while in that country. Not a huge loss in my opinion given the benefits of the second passport.

---

That is absolutely fascinating.

It doesn't matter, the left's next trip will be that anyone can identify as any nationality. Feeling Chinese today...fine, Indian tomorrow....fine, German the day after, why not.


...this is making me hungry too.

My opinion:
Yes
No
No

What does the constitution say about it? (Seriously, I don't know)

Wife and I are legal immigrants.

Renounced our original citizenship
For us it was a No brainer. You have to be all-in.

I can see practical reasons for dual citizenships, if you have roots and family in other countries.

Theres a way around it though - people stay on green cards for years, sometimes decades, so they can effectively be citizens of two countries. You can't vote on a green card, but lets face it there's plenty of states in the US that don't care if you do.

Just ask which foreign country would be hurt if dual citizenship was not allowed. If you answer honestly then you will know why it will never change.

BMX Bandit said:

---

can anyone give a reason why you need to be a dual citizen?

We require those becoming citizens to renounce all others, there's no reason to allow citizens to make new allegiances.

---

I can give you a reason. I'm a US citizen, my ex-wife and mother of my children was a UK citizen and my children who were born in the US are dual citizens by virtue of their parent's respective citizenship passing on to them and being recognized by both the USA and UK.

They live here in the US, and they are not required by the UK to renounce their UK citizenship.

What's the problem? Answer: there isn't one in this case.

I think dual citizenship is fine for ordinary US citizens. But elected officials at state or federal levels should be required to renounce the citizenship of other countries because they are representing US citizens.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

One advantage I can think of for the US. If a dual citizenship holder commits and is convicted of a serious crime we just deport them so we don't have to pay for their care and feeding.

---

You would deport an American citizen? No civilized country has done this in 75 years.

---

Fine. Half of every year then.

Well-played, sir!

Regardless of your opinion on individuals, absolutely should not be able to run for a federal office while holding dual citizenship.

pic.twitter.com/kZf3qak6UG

— Diane Lynn (@Diana152281) August 11, 2026

hear hear. pic.twitter.com/6GUkQkR0ix

— SparksN123 (@SparksN123) August 25, 2026

Teddy makes a fair point but renouncing citizenship is akin to Cortes burning his ships. There's an underlying benefit of being able to enforce our laws on someone that would not be classified as a stateless person in the event their U.S. citizenship were to ever be revoked. Which is just one of the many reasons illegal aliens trash their passports after crossing the border and claiming asylum.

i think the reason people struggle with this is because they dont clearly have in mind what exactly citizenship is. people have begun to think of it as a privilege or an entitlement linked to a set of privileges.

but citizenship is not a possession but a function - specifically a person who participates or shares in judicial functions (judgment) and office (ruling) on the one hand, and who is capable of receiving those from others on the other. so it is a person who has reciprocal participation in political rule, governing and being governed.

once you clear this all out the view becomes much easier. the fact that we've attached benefits, rights, and entitlements to it makes it desirable, and the fact that we've stripped any and all requirements from it makes the kind of questions possible.

when you get back to the real view, which is functional, it is very, very, clear that dual citizenship is kind of logically nonsensical. how can a person both rule and be ruled by two separate and distinct states at once? it is flatly impossible.

deddog said:

---

Wife and I are legal immigrants.

Renounced our original citizenship
For us it was a No brainer. You have to be all-in.

I can see practical reasons for dual citizenships, if you have roots and family in other countries.

Theres a way around it though - people stay on green cards for years, sometimes decades, so they can effectively be citizens of two countries. You can't vote on a green card, but lets face it there's plenty of states in the US that don't care if you do.

---

Counterpoint, if you are a green card holder you do not have many of the other rights and protections of a citizen, and how many times has it been asked here, "Why didn't ______ ever apply for citizenship when they had x years to do it?" when we hear about a green card holder being deported for some ancient run in with the law or some other administrative issue?

neil88 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

can anyone give a reason why you need to be a dual citizen?

We require those becoming citizens to renounce all others, there's no reason to allow citizens to make new allegiances.

---

I can give you a reason. I'm a US citizen, my ex-wife and mother of my children was a UK citizen and my children who were born in the US are dual citizens by virtue of their parent's respective citizenship passing on to them and being recognized by both the USA and UK.

They live here in the US, and they are not required by the UK to renounce their UK citizenship.

What's the problem? Answer: there isn't one in this case.

---

Yup, its a case by case thing. As Iraq2xVeteran said, there are cases that it can become problematic.
Especially, when you are in charge of, or involved in policy decisions.

the problem is its nonsense. they are not governing and being governed by both states.

if you think of citizenship as "a bunch of perks" then sure. but you can't close the gap between duty or allegiance and selfishness then, and "case by case" falls apart as well.

also: ALL citizens are inherently in charge of or involved in policy decisions!

Why not? You're saying a person can't have valid interests in more than one county? A citizen is not a subject.

having interests in a country doesn't make you a citizen of that state. if that were the case, in a globalized economy citizenship would be nearly universal. having legal standing (ie being able to sue or be sued in a country) doesn't do it either for the same reasons.

a citizen is not a subject, but in a republic a citizen is definitionally a person who participates in government while also being subject to the government. they have a share in governance and are also in turn governed by their fellow citizens. the authority of the community over you and your authority over the community are reciprocal in citizenship.

so again - if you are not participating in the rule, and in turn being ruled, you're not being a citizen.

here, he says it better than me

https://web.mit.edu/classics/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html

Zobel said:

---

having interests in a country doesn't make you a citizen of that state. if that were the case, in a globalized economy citizenship would be nearly universal. having legal standing (ie being able to sue or be sued in a country) doesn't do it either for the same reasons.

a citizen is not a subject, but in a republic a citizen is definitionally a person who participates in government while also being subject to the government. they have a share in governance and are also in turn governed by their fellow citizens. the authority of the community over you and your authority over the community are reciprocal in citizenship.

so again - if you are not participating in the rule, and in turn being ruled, you're not being a citizen.

here, he says it better than me

https://web.mit.edu/classics/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html

---

I understand the arguement you are making but it doesn't always work that way in practice.


I am a U.S. and U.K. citizen that lives in the United States. I am not subject to the governance of the UK while I live in the United States.

• I don't pay UK taxes
• I don't have to follow all UK laws
• I can't stand for office in the UK
• I also can't vote in UK elections

Neither government seems to define or "practice" citizenship in the way you have presented.

yes, i think generally speaking people have totally lost the understanding of what it means to be a citizen and how republics work. this is important to point out.

calling something citizenship doesn't make it so. for example, asking "should the united states give a bunch of privileges and perks to people who are also receiving privileges and perks from other countries" is very different than "should they allow dual citizenship". the fact that most read these two sentences as synonymous is kind of the problem.

but the reason it matters is because the cognitive dissonance of introducing concepts like "duty" or "allegiance" is impossible when citizen = recipient of perks. you can't close the gap.

the fact that our government / population doesn't understand some of the fundamental principles of its own workings isn't exactly good news. i guarantee you the founders read and understood Aristotle and were very clear on their understanding of citizenship, and i also guarantee you they didn't think it meant "gets a bunch of perks".

Zobel said:

---

the problem is its nonsense. they are not governing and being governed by both states.

if you think of citizenship as "a bunch of perks" then sure. but you can't close the gap between duty or allegiance and selfishness then, and "case by case" falls apart as well.

also: ALL citizens are inherently in charge of or involved in policy decisions!

---

No it's not non-sense. In the case of my now adult children, they cannot enter the UK to see their grandparents on the US passport. They MUST use their UK passport unless they renounce their UK citizenship. You really don't want our government getting in the middle of this despite thinking so. There are a lot of implications and potential unwanted consequences.

Zobel has made a clean philosophical argument, which is intellectually consistent and thoughtful. I respect that argument.

He has correctly articulated what citizenship should be. The modern reality of nationality law is messier, and less intellectually consistent.

That said, split allegiance is nothing new.

La Fayette was both a citizen of the United States and a citizen of France. In fact, he was a citizen of the United States before he was a citizen of France.

In the aftermath of Poitiers, after returning from captivity with Philip VI at the court of Edward III, Enguerrand VII of Coucy was vassal of both Edward III and Philip VI. Enguerrand had married Edward's daughter. Enguerrand was probably as rich in English land titles as in French land titles.

allegiance and citizenship aren't synonymous though.

neither france nor england in these time frames you're describing were republics, so the question of citizenship is instead of either lordship / land tenure / fealty or subject.

a lord could hold lands under multiple sovereigns and as a result owe obligations to each, but that's not conceptually similar to having citizenship in two separate communities.

so this actually clears it up nicely - vassalage is being related to a lord, citizenship is membership in a polity. or in a more modern sense, a person can have legal status, property, privileges in multiple communities, but citizenship in a republican sense presupposes / requires membership in one political community.

the real question to test this is - can two independent political communities both have an ultimate claim on the same "citizen"? i dont see how this answer can be yes.

Sadly, I think that your argument exposes one of the lines along which our republic is regressing into a state that is neofeudalism.

In other news:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/08/naturalized-citizens-ban-elected-office-trump/688415/

Quote:

---

In recent months, an idea once confined to the fringes has gained mainstream traction across the country. Republican legislators in several states have introduced proposals that would restrict naturalized citizens and dual citizens from running for a range of elected positions, including sheriff and governor. In Congress, at least five Republicans have sponsored various proposals to bar naturalized or dual citizens from serving in roles including federal judgeships, Cabinet posts, and ambassadorships, and in Congress itself. Florida lawmakers this year enacted a law requiring candidates for several state and federal offices to disclose whether they hold another citizenship in addition to being a citizen of the United States.

The movement has been fueled in part by the rise of a new class of foreign-born politiciansmost prominently New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the Ugandan-born son of parents of Indian extraction, whose ascent has become a favorite target of the right. His victory, along with the success of other progressive candidates born outside the U.S., has come to symbolize something dangerous in the eyes of President Trump's MAGA base: the ability of people born elsewhere to acquire American citizenship and the possibility of political power. Now Republican lawmakers are pledging to do something about it.

---