Hacker News Reader

> Where do the loyalties of naturalized US (and Canadian) citizens truely lie?

See, for example, the Cricket Test. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_test

> The cricket test, also known as the Tebbit test, was a controversial phrase coined in April 1990 by the British Conservative politician Norman Tebbit in reference to the perceived lack of loyalty to the England cricket team among South Asian and Caribbean immigrants and their children. Tebbit suggested that those immigrants who support their native countries rather than England at the sport of cricket are not significantly integrated into the United Kingdom.[1]

I think it's dumb, but a bunch of English people at the time seemed to think it was useful and relevant.

Supporting a country in cricket and supporting a country in a war are two very different things. To be very clear, we weren't talking about cricket, soccer, or the Olympics; so bringing it up is useless.

That's the thing about dual citizenship. It's not irrational to support your country of origin, unless you're part of a class of persecuted people. That is the place where you were born and raised, and where you derive your (initial) cultural values which you may or may not keep.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dual-citizen...

"But the concept of dual citizenship is problematic both symbolically and practically, and could become divisive if more immigrants decide to avail themselves of the privileges of U.S. citizens — as we believe they ought to do. U.S citizens with strong ties to their ancestral countries have been accused of divided loyalties in the past even when they didn't possess citizenship in those countries — witness the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. But when a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country, the accusation is even easier to make."

Ending dual citizenship would help prevent a future version of Japanese internment in the US.

The better solution would be to not have people be 'loyal' to any country at all. The whole thing is just a way to be able to demand all kinds of services where no obligation to provide should exist in the first place and where - usually - there is no loyalty in the reverse direction.

Any country that wants my loyalty to a flag or some abstract concept has lost my vote of confidence right at the gate. Countries - just like people - should be judged by their actions and loyalty should be earned rather than demanded.

Like completely ending corruption or racism, it would be a better solution, but is it a realistic one that you can achieve within a decade?

> countries - just like people - should be judged by their actions and loyalty should be earned rather than demanded.

I agree. On that note, maintaining a dual citizenship is an action that will be judged. Even with the constant influx of immigrants, it's rare to see. Less than half of 1% of a population of about 300 million people maintain dual citizenships. Most immigrants that attain US citizenship do not maintain a dual one.

This is the same thinking that put hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

How would ending dual citizenship lead to internment camps? Did you even fully read my comment?

Because you buy into the idea of opposing ideologies, of national identity, of otherness, of suspicion based on nationality.

You can, rather, look at this from the perspective of arguing parents, where they want you to pick one or the other. The only way to win is to not play, and to derive identity from your self, rather than what patch of dirt you happened to be born upon.

> Because you buy into the idea of opposing ideologies, of national identity

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have things like this or racism; but it's extremely naive to pretend it doesn't exist. If you have any familiarity with current events in East Asia, you'll know that nationalism is on the rise.

On a related note, did you not read this portion of my comment? "I'm guessing (and hoping) that most naturalized US citizens are way more loyal than that and I feel that Chinese Americans born and raised in the US don't have this issue at all." Everything isn't black and white.

> You can, rather, look at this from the perspective of arguing parents, where they want you to pick one or the other. The only way to win is to not play, and to derive identity from your self, rather than what patch of dirt you happened to be born upon.

There are multiple problems with this analogy. 1. You only get the 3rd choice if you're willing not to live in either parent's house when we're talking countries. 2. Another problem is that you're looking at this from a Western perspective. In the East, especially in Asia; you derive your identify more from the group and not the individual; so if you consider yourself more 'Chinese' than 'American', you're going to symphatize more with one side. It's a different culture that you're obviously not familiar with.

Actually, grew up in Hong Kong and Beijing, and am of no particular culture, so saw this all the time. I know it's the reality, but it doesn't make it right.

I never said it was right. I'm just not ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist.

I also don't appreciate being made to look like I'm demonizing ALL naturalized US citizens, when I've made it very clear that I wasn't, especially since I'm one of them. Really, you should fully read a comment before making a rash post. This isn't reddit.

> what would happen if China and the US ever declared war on each other?

> they're essentially comtemplating treason solely due to their race.

Do you realize how racist you sound? You sound the same as the people who would put Japanese-Americans in internment camps but not German-Americans or Italian-Americans.

How exactly am I racist? I'm just repeating what they said. If they had to choose sides, they wouldn't know who to choose (because on the one hand they're Chinese, while at the same time they identify with US culture). It wasn't committed, but it is the contemplation of treason which is insane since the only given rationale was their race. At least with mainland Chinese they can logically point out that they were born and raised there.

> You sound the same as the people who would put Japanese-Americans in internment camps but not German-Americans or Italian-Americans.

Considering I'm also of Chinese descent, I obviously don't want that. I guess you didn't read my entire comment, since I also mention countries besides China? You're making a really strong and ridiculous assumption about me with a really shitty accusation. It's even more annoying when I've proposed ending dual citizenship as the solution. Please read comments fully before responding.

No. You certainly arent racist, and loyalties are very much a question for expatriate communities. Certainly in mine. For example, I can imagine people doing softer things such as irrationally advocating in support of their native land.