Let's say you were the Washington Post, and you were seeking a reviewer for the book "The 50% American" by Stanley A. Renshon. While I haven't read the book, it discusses the pernicious threat posed by dual citizenship.
Who would you choose to do the review? Well, obviously, if you're the WaPo, you could choose Frank Sharry, or perhaps the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or perhaps Bob Avakian. Unfortunately, the latter personage wasn't available or something, and they ended up choosing cheap labor cheerleader Tamar Jacoby.
Needless to say, she downplays the risk, even going as far as saying that Mexico offering dual citizenship is a good thing:
But now that they don't have to shed one association to embrace the other, many are much more comfortable becoming U.S. citizens.
Would you like to play? "Not being forced to decide which team I was on in the basketball game made playing much easier. And more fun!"
We're told that even for those who are conflicted, it's just a "passing phase":
First-generation Americans have always lived between two worlds, one foot in the old place and the other in the United States. And eventually they have always tilted in one direction or another, with some returning home and others putting down roots here.
Of course, the problem is that they'll tilt in the wrong direction while still remaining here. If someone is going to be a Mexican partisan, then they should do that in Mexico. Being so here is bad for this country. For just one example, consider the Mexican-"Americans" in the California legislature. And, of course, those foreign countries that provide dual citizenship do so in part to obtain political power inside the U.S.
Immigration2005b · Thu, 12/01/2005 - 22:50 · Importance: 1