There is one largely unreported aspect of the recently completed Iraqi elections that I find deeply troubling, and that is the fact that polling places were set up across the U.S. providing Iraqi-Americans the opportunity to vote.
Leaving aside, just for the moment, the question as to whether or not exiles should have the right to vote, what concerns me is that in this election, like the 2005 Iraqi election, U.S.-Iraqi dual nationals voted and the entire effort was supported by the U.S. Government. While the sponsorship of Washington may be unique in this instance, the phenomenon of U.S. dual-nationals voting in foreign elections, is not. It has been the case with some European and Latin American countries and it is now spreading across the Middle East. For example, when Lebanese President Suleiman spoke to a large group of Lebanese Americans during his visit to the U.S. last December, he announced that they would be allowed to vote from the U.S in Lebanon's next parliamentary election. And soon, Israel's Knesset will decide on a proposal that would allow Israeli Americans the right to vote from the U.S. in the next Israeli contest.
My concerns are two-fold. First and foremost is the degree to which this dual national voting degrades the value of citizenship. For decades now, Arab Americans have had to struggle against the efforts of some who sought to exclude the community from full participation as an organized presence in American political life. Like other ethnic groups before us, we rejected the smears and suspicions. We mobilized and asserted our rights and won hard fought recognition. This is a matter of pride to many in the community.
And so it is troubling when we hear, as we did in 2005, an Iraqi American, who serves as an elected leader in his local Republican party, boasting that he had waited his "entire life for the chance to vote" - in an Iraqi election! Or a Lebanese American, who served as an official in the Bush Administration, announcing that he was "returning home" to run for parliament - in the 2008 Lebanese election!
And of course, I was as distressed to hear of plans being floated for the Afghan American, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, to run for high office in Afghanistan. Or to see a former American official in the Israel lobby turn up as the spokesperson at the Israel Embassy in Washington - as if his entire stint at the lobby was but a warm up for his "real job".
A second equally important concern is the degree to which this dual voting by American citizens also degrades citizen rights in the other country in question. In this context, it is appropriate to ask why one should have to right to decide the policies and fate of a country in which he/she does not reside? Or how can someone living in the safety and security of America make a fair assessment of the needs of citizens in war torn Iraq, or Lebanon, or an Israel that is denying full rights to its own Arab citizens and occupying Palestinian lands.
Is it right or just for dual nationals to be making decisions, the consequences of which will only tangentially be felt by them?
Of course it is appropriate to make exceptions for expatriate workers or, in special circumstances, for those forced to live in exile. For example, Americans living and working abroad proudly cast "absentee ballots" in U.S. elections. And I have seen foreign workers in Gulf countries lining up to vote in contests in the countries in which they are citizens. This, they have a right to do. They are working abroad, for a time, to support their families, but they identify their allegiance and their future with their home country. They cast their vote because they have cast their lot in their country of origin.
Much the same could be said for exiles who are living abroad, for a time, not by choice--Iraqis who were forced to flee during Saddam's brutal reign, or those who left Iraq or other countries during times of conflict, becoming unwilling refugees in order to save their lives and their families. They should have their say. But when exiles become citizens of another country, the situation takes a turn.
I am most certainly not unsympathetic to the plight of immigrants with torn loyalties. I understand the power of the tug and pull of developments in one's country of origins. And I can understand how one can be motivated to improve the lot of family and friends abroad. Much of my adult life has been dedicated to improving American understanding of the precarious situation in which many in Lebanon find themselves, the plight of the Palestinians and the need for a more balanced and thoughtful U.S. foreign policy toward the Arab World. I do this as an American, because it is the right thing to do to improve my country's policy.
But I draw the line at dual citizenship, voting and running for office in another country. If someone wants to do that, they can. But not from here. You make a choice and live with the consequences. To repeat: You cast your vote where you cast your lot. Anything else degrades the meaning of citizenship and rights of citizens here and there.
Loading comments…
Keep in mind that many dictators have achieved their status through fair elections. Iraq needs time to establish a respectable political tradition.
I don't believe in dual citizenships. Choose the country you wish to live in & be loyal to it above ALL else . Period. Choose one & commit .
Yes, we are all humans. But we are as varied and non-monolithic as can be. Citizenship is not a product of competing nations, as you suggest. It is a collection of people who share civic duties, responsibilities and political structures according to their shared view of life. It is true there are often differences within this citizenship, but not enough to scrap the structure, as you suggest. I'll grant you that nations do compete, but this is not the creation of its citizens, rather it's a creation of each nations political organizations. There's nothing wrong with competition unless it involves needless conflict, which the world can do without.
But simply eliminating societies and citizenship wouldn't remove this problem. We'll never rid ourselves of our human nature.
even under the most ideal of readings, social contract theory holds that governments are created to protect the people. from whom? obviously themselves (hence the law) as well as outsiders (hence the military, and even the Swiss and Vatican have militaries). so long as multiple nations exist, there will by necessity be competition between those nations; the very act of creating multiple nations ensures it. that competition will be waged not by lawyers or diplomats but by soldiers.
and there is everything wrong with competition when it prevents cooperation, and nations in competition with each other are much much less likely to cooperate than otherwise.
also howard zinn rules and you pretty much don't
Country first not countries ! Choice - America or the country one chooses to leave.
The author speaks of DUAL citizens. There is a difference.
I appreciate your argument, but disagree.
1 - what is your definition of exile? What the US law says it is? Is US law always right? You think maybe some people left in circumstances that they consider exile but the law says no? We want the best law to be the best it can, but it usually isn't. Do we just accept whatever the law says and not consider the human being? What if someone just didn't want to live in an oppressive religious country and chose to leave. Does that permanently their rights to the country of their birth?
2 - Many people leave the country of their birth for various reasons, but maintain strong feelings for it. They would consider going back and working hard to help. Are they unpatriotic to their country of birth?
3 - People of European double citizenship vote in their home country all the time and it doesn't seem to bother anyone.
4 - Joe Liebarman and Rahm Emanuel have double citizenship. One is a Senator and the other works in the White House.
5 - We are just a generation or a couple of decades from the day that your "citizenship" or "national origin" will socially not matter so much. How many Americans do you know that are not of European descent? I know tons. The same mixing of races and cultures is everywhere in the whole world.
Lets not fight yesterday's battles.
Treaties have been signed with other nations that have this as a provision. Revoking that (or trying to) would be met with fierce opposition by many people all over the world including here in the USA.
Revoking dual citizenship would mean that we would have to fire some people in the White House, the US Senate, Congress, and many other places in our government. There are even people in our military with dual citizenship.
This is just silly ethnocentric patriot talk.
Dual citizenship is a complex issue and it is important to understand that there are not only benefits but also obligations that comes with being a dual citizen. Being a citizen of two countries means that you need to obey the laws of both countries, which may include paying taxes and serving in the military. The "United States Dual Citizenship Guide"explains these issues in detail."
I think individuals should have to choose WHAT country they are citizens of. So if you start out in Lebanon and immigrate, then become a US citizen, at the point of citizenship here you should have to renounce your citizenship there.
This should be true for all original - adopted country pairs. People should not be allowed to move to this country permanently, vote, and achieve all the benefits of native born Americans, PLUS keep all the benefits of the original country.
If Congress still represented us, this would be a logical way for them to improve our country. Why should we have people living here, voting here, and availing themselves of all the benefits of the USA, but still committed to the other country?
I think this dual citizenship thing is much more worrisome when they are at the highest levels of our government...!
As for Iraqi's here voting we are trying to get them to return home so seek their inclusion as many had to leave do to our invasion but also Saddam's murderous regime...
We are an egalitarian nation or were until recently...
People with one foot in two different countries face unique problems, they are involved in social and political and personal issues now spanning continents, and probably end up spending a lot of time in airplanes, or on the phone, or online, as a result. Are they global citizens, or are they split personalities of a sort, not really quite at home in either country, and probably in that position for business purposes more than anything? Having sort of lived some of the globetrotter life, I am perfectly happy to remain a citizen of one country and remain in it, but that's not everyone. Some people want to be high-flying 3G wireless global jet-setters. Good luck with that...