The Glade 4.0

I think you should do it. You're harming no one, and it sounds like the risk is minimal.

...

Really? He's harming no one? Does personal integrity mean that little anymore?

This thread disgusts me. Whether or not one agrees with immigration laws or regulations is immaterial: Xeq is considering an action with the sole purpose of defrauding the second party. No one should be encouraging him.

_________________

I kind of have to agree with Khross here the more I think about it. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Who's he harming by having no personal integrity?

I don't see this as an ethical dillemma. He's entitled to any "citizenship" he wants. He's not committing fraud, Germany is right. Any attempt to make such citizenship contingent upon renouncing another citizenship is duress. The only moral failure here is on the part of the US government.

I like that Germany recognizes this, and provides a way to notify them when such a renunciation of citizenship was not your intent.

I much prefer how Ireland handles it though - you cannot ever renounce your citizenship. Any such renunciation is considered invalid -- your citizenship is still recognized.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Whether or not it's fraud or lacking personal integrity is entirely dependent on whether or not you agree with Germany's position that discrimination against non-citizens here constitutes duress.

Consider if Xeq's post said: "Hi everyone, I'm currently being tortured by the CIA and they're threatening to kill me if I don't renounce my German citizenship. I know that if I do renounce it, Germany will recognize this as invalid as it was made under duress, and I can therefore get it back. Should I renounce my citizenship even though I don't believe it so that I can avoid being killed?"

I would think it silly to respond, "OMG that's fraud!" or "Don't you have any personal integrity?"

Now if you don't agree with Germany's position that it's duress, that's fine. But it's still a decent argument, and valid enough that another first-world country agrees with it. So if Xeq agrees with it too, I'm not going to fault his character for it. At the very least I think you should be blaming Germany for this, not Xeq.

Apparently so.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

It's not duress when one chooses an action aware of the consequences and requirements of that action. As I said, it matters very little whether one agrees with the U.S. government position on the situation or not: the requirements and consequences are known beforehand. Xequecal is perfectly capable of not choosing to be a U.S. citizen.

_________________

He's not intent on it and he never even stated he would do it. He just outlined scenarios in which he might want to.

Don't listen to Khross.

Edit - should've quoted him

But he doesn't have to do so. There is no reason why he shouldn't have both citizenships. And in fact, Germany has ensured he can. This is a good thing.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So if he was being physically tortured, but was aware of "the consequences and requirements" of renouncing his German citizenship, that would not be duress? Sounds ridiculous to me.

How many of you have had to sign non-compete agreements for employments? How many of you have had to resign a position to take a new job? The situation Xequecal describes is no different morally or structurally. You're letting his loaded language confuse the situation with some weird rights construct that doesn't exist, even in the most libertarian sense.

_________________

It's not **** duress, and he's not entitled to any citizenship he wants. He's entitled to the one he was born with. If he wants another one, regardless of which, he has to meet the requirements for it.

Nobody's forcing Xeq to become a citizen of the U.S. He can go look for a job in the EU if he's having so much trouble here. I don't by that poor foreign national crap for a second. Cry me a **** river, I don't have a decent job either. If he applies for citizenship, it's because he wants it. He was told beforehand that he'd have to renounce previously held citizenships. There's no surprises here. Nobody's forcing him to do anything. He can go on being a German/EU citizen, just like every other German/EU citizen that doesn't want U.S. citizenship. If he wants U.S. citizenship, then he can renounce other national ties. If he doesn't want to, then **** him, and **** his request for citizenship.

This particular citizenship requirement dates back to the time when in order to become a citizen of the United States you first had to become a traitor to the Crown of England. Frankly, I have more admiration, respect, and sympathy for the much-maligned illegal immigrant from Mexico leeching welfare than I do for any citizen of a first-world country who wants the benefit of U.S. citizenship whilst keeping the entitlements of their country of origin. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - that doesn't exactly describe the European national who wants to maintain social entitlements from back home. So **** them, they don't get citizenship. If they want it, they can bail on their home countries just like the Bosnian refugees I went to school with twenty years ago, and the way my great-X-grandparents did in the 1700s and 1800s. That's what unites us, as a country. That's what we all have in common. Somewhere in all of our family trees, we have ancestors that bounced from the land of their birth.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

There is a reason. The US law states you can not hold dual citizenship. What out Germany gives someone is besides the point. He would be entering into the agreement with the intent of defrauding the US. At the very least it would be a theft of services.

Citizenship in a country is not a right. It is based upon a set of conditions.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

No, that's not how it works. For one thing, it's perfectly legal to hold dual citizenships if you get them via birth. (Supreme Court, Perkins v. Elg) German citizenship is by blood, US citizenship is based on where you were born. So if I had been born in the US I'd have dual citizenship no problem.

Next, if your old country does not recognize your citizenship renunciation, there's nothing you can do about that. Do you think people from Israel or Ireland should be forever barred from becoming US citizens simply because their countries refuse to recognize even formal renunciations? Maybe we should get started on deporting every Jewish person out of the US. (they get Israeli citizenship by default and cannot renounce it)

The whole thing comes down to whether or not you "really mean it" when you give the naturalization oath. Of course the State Department doesn't care, how can they possibly prove that you didn't? You know you have to swear you'll be willing to kill for the US when you naturalize too, I wonder how many people really mean that part.

Only you weren't, so this isn't relevant. The naturalization process does require you to renounce any other citizenship. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it didn't.


None of that matters. The requirement is that you renounce your foreign citizenship, not that the country who granted the citizenship renounces it. Germany can think whatever it likes about your citizenship there.


Yes, that is what it comes down. Since you intend to continue collecting the benefits of your German citizenship after naturalization, that would put you in the "didn't mean it" category. The State Department may or may not care (or be able to prove anything). However, do realize that you're essentially arguing "it's not unethical if I don't get caught".

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I should point out that U.S. citizenship can be based on either blood or where you were location: Jus Soli, law of place, grants citizenship to all those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (which is almost anyone; most people not subject to its jurisdiction would be ambassadors and foriegn heads of state or other diplomats). Jus Sanguinis (my apologies if I jacked up the spelling grants U.S. citizenship based on their parentage; having 2 USC parents almost always guarantees US citizenship at birth, having one parent may or may not depending on a number of factors.

This is part of the reason for the controversy over Obama, and there is a common misconception: The Constitution does not restrict the Presidency to those born in the U.S., but to those born citizens; i.e. if you were born abroad, but still born a citizen because of your parentage, you could still run for President.

In any case, after hearing what Khross has to say, I'm more inclined to agree with him. Pick one or the other. Unwillingness to choose a nation is simply self-centeredness. Nation-states are an essential part of human social structure, as different cultures and different geographic regions need to have a way to protect their interests against those that have competing interests. "Lines on a map" separating nations are no less valid than those separating your yard from your neighbor's.

The U.S. government is guilty of no moral failing here. Germany isn't either, but Germany is guilty of it's typical self-righteousness. Duress, indeed.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I put forth a contrary view:

You owe no country anything.

Unwillingness to choose a nation is simply self-centeredness? Maybe. Ethics and morality are entirely personal anyway. Right or wrong, ethical or unethical, those are what you think they are. If you decide that self-centeredness is a virtue, not a flaw, then that is what it is. (See Objectivism.) Get everything you can for you and your own. Who cares what anybody else thinks is right or wrong as long as it works out for you? Take advantage of every loophole, every flaw in the system, and do it for your benefit. Frankly, **** the system anyway. It doesn't give a **** about you, why should you care about it? Use it and throw it away, whatever works best.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

If everyone thought that way, we'd have died out or, at best, be unable to do much better than live in caves. Your view doesn't even have the advantage of enlightened self-interest.

You certainly do owe whatever country you choose something. Want another one? Go choose another one, but whichever one you choose, you owe it simply for not being any of the others.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'd agree, right up to the point where you swear you do. At that point it's a question of whether your word is your bond or just hot air.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

My oath is worth as much as my opinion of the person to whom I give it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Patriotism is for chumps?

It doesn't matter what country one chooses. There is no such thing as legitimate authority, no such thing as a person or thing worthy of demanding your allegiance. Authority is only as valid as the effectiveness of the stick that it weilds. If you can flout that authority and not become a target of its stick, all the more power to you.

I obey law to the extent that (a) I personally agree with it, or (b) the risk outweighs the reward of breaking it. (A) is the more common reason than (B). My own ethics are all that matters, no authority anywhere has the ability to set them for me.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't think my opinion of others is license to abandon my opinion of myself. My word being my bond is something I do for me, not for thee.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This is all just a child's "you can't tell me what to do!" dressed up in fancy words. Authority is granted legitimacy by the people. If the rest of society says authority is legitimate, then it is. Whether it's "worthy of your allegience" is beside the point; that's an individual choice. Go somewhere else if you like another one better, but don't kid yourself - you're not being enlightened, or outsmarting the system or anything else by just flouting authority because you don't like it. You have to pick one, and if you don't sooner or later you're going to get whacked by the stick, especially if you're so arrogant you think you're too smart to get caught.

You can ***** that this is "might makes right", but if there's no morality, then guess what? That's not a problem anymore, except in the view of the one getting whacked and since that person already decided they don't give a **** about the rest of society, why should society give a **** about what you think?

You're far better off to pick the society you like best and give it loyalty - then you're more likely to get a voice in making it stay the way you like and get more that way. Trying to reject all societies and nations while stamping your feet and yelling "None of them can tell me what to do! They can't have my allegience! I'm smarter than everyone else, and I'm above their silly map lines!" is just petulance.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Much of this is arguing things I already agreed with in my last post, so I'm not sure of its relevance.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █