The “Darker Side” to Dual Citizenship

A central thrust to Peter Schuck’s argument that it should be easier to deny citizens of judicial due process is that there are so many dual citizens. And dual citizenship, he says, has a darker side.

Dual citizenship has proliferated as easier travel and cosmopolitan mobility have fostered international relationships, which lead to more naturalizations and more marriages between people of different nationalities, who in turn can often transmit their different citizenships to their U.S.-born children. Government policies, both here and abroad, have also increased dual citizenship, mostly for good reasons. Traditionally, the State Department opposed dual citizenship out of concern about conflicted loyalties, military service requirements, diplomatic protection burdens and the like. Today the government no longer resists it, recognizing the legitimate causes of dual citizenship, the practical obstacles to preventing it and the fact that, in practice, it causes little harm.

But there remains a darker side to dual citizenship: Some citizens who spend most of their lives abroad now have only notional ties to the United States rather than a genuine communal or emotional connection. Al Qaeda will surely focus recruitment efforts on this group, even though only a few will turn on their country.

Which brings us to the case of Awlaki, a dual citizen of the United States and Yemen. The government claimed there was hard, actionable intelligence that he had plotted to kill Americans, and that he was our citizen in name only. He refused to return to the U.S. and could not be captured for interrogation and trial without putting troops on the ground and in danger (and perhaps not even then).

Does the Constitution really require that he receive the judicial process owed to a citizen who lives in our society and is charged with a serious crime? I think not.

I’m a dual citizen, having gotten Irish citizenship through my spouse. Does that mean I should forgo judicial process because I’m a suspect Irish terrorist? Was Peter King? Are Israeli-American dual citizens — a pretty common dual citizenship — suspect of being terrorists as well?

Of course, Schock doesn’t actually connect dual citizenship with increased likelihood that person will declare himself an enemy of the state (he even suggests that native-born Nidal Hasan was just dual-citizens Awlaki’s cat’s paw, all the evidence in the Webster report notwithstanding). He just uses it — and the prospect of all these dark scary people wandering around with US passports — to invoke fear before he proposes limiting due process to citizens.

Maybe his fear is what has led him, in the very same piece, to be so confused. He applauds our rigid treason laws, a stance utterly at odds with his suggestion suspect dual citizens should get different judicial due process.

The court has also held that the government may not take away one’s citizenship against one’s will, regardless of one’s actions, except for treason, which the Constitution properly makes hard to prove if, like Awlaki, you are not under a U.S. court’s jurisdiction.

How do you applaud the necessity of a court judgement, with rules about the standard of evidence, before someone gets labeled a traitor, and at the same time suggest that citizens (he really doesn’t limit it to dual citizens) should not have judicial process before they’re killed?

Apparently we now have Yale law professors so terrified by dual citizens he has decided American citizens — dual citizen or not — should have a lower standard of due process to be killed than to retain their citizenship.

Tweet about this on Twitter6Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook1Google+2Email to someone

6 Responses to The “Darker Side” to Dual Citizenship

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @janehamsher Next thing you're gonna tell me CIA was warned that invading Iraq would result in chaos. @onekade @FearDept
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JohnWMAnthony There was confusion abt which church it was, but several people briefed on the raid now. @iamcoreyevans
5mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Dear #Ferguson police: please look up the meaning of the word "sanctuary" in relation to churches and victims of oppression. Not just a bldg
7mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @jamiekilstein: So "looting" is ok when it's cops doing it to a church?
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Folks, of COURSE the cops were going to raid a Church. They're ticking off each part of the First Amendment systematically.
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade Well, sure. It was Chertoff. Selling "Homeland" Security. Of course it was looting. Can I rent you Keith Alexander next? @FearDept
17mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @OKnox: @aterkel Look, you're in a "First Amendment Area," he's in a "Second Amendment Area." What's so hard to understand?
24mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @aterkel: Note that the “go fuck yourself” cop was mostly waving the gun at media — it was right in front of the press area. #Ferguson
25mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV So now the Ayatollah has joined Egypt in trolling the US over #Ferguson. Time for president and governor to intervene, shut down cops.
26mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @khamenei_ir: If US govt hadn't systematically ban its ppl from knowing the truth, movements like the 99% would've been formed in a larg…
27mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @elonjames: Churches. Places that have been SANCTUARIES for CENTURIES are being raided in an effort to stop any sort of resistance to th…
31mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV We'll get it right this time for sure! MT @APDiploWriter: WASHINGTON (AP) — Military weighs plan 2 send small no. additional troops 2 #Iraq.
37mreplyretweetfavorite
February 2013
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728