Finland, Sweden + NATO

[Tamas]

I have a vested interest in both British and Hungarian societies. My personal loyalty lies with the British state and society - I have become a citizen by my own decision and by the decision of the British state, so besides the personal interest of living here, I feel a sense of loyalty and obligation.

With Hungary, I have a vested interest there because my family and a lot of my friends live there. It is not affecting my primary allegiance with Britain, but my allegiance to Britain does not (and I believe does not have to) eliminate my concern with and interest in Hungary.

But this does not excuse Turkish Erdogan-fans living abroad from criticism. What Erdogan stands for is so much against foundation-level concepts of EU countries that if they strongly approve Erdogan we are right to feel they should perhaps go and live under his rule. Doesn't mean we should force them to do so, though.

[grumbler]

I think dual citizenship is a pragmatic solution, but it IS fundamentally weird since you can't serve two masters.

Since you can't even pick your first citizenship, I'm not sure why it should be framed in terms of serving a master.

Many citizenships require you by law to do things. These things may be mutually exclusive.

The US citizenship oath starts with the phrase ""I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.."  That would seem to preclude dual citizenship, and yet US law does allow dual citizenship/nationality. 

I wonder if other countries have such elements in their naturalization oath and if any of them take it seriously.

[The Brain]

I think dual citizenship is a pragmatic solution, but it IS fundamentally weird since you can't serve two masters.

Since you can't even pick your first citizenship, I'm not sure why it should be framed in terms of serving a master.

Many citizenships require you by law to do things. These things may be mutually exclusive.

The US citizenship oath starts with the phrase ""I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.."  That would seem to preclude dual citizenship, and yet US law does allow dual citizenship/nationality. 

I wonder if other countries have such elements in their naturalization oath and if any of them take it seriously.

I was primarily thinking about requirements to fight in a war against the other country, or laws that require citizens to spy for their government if asked to and similar.

[Josquius]

I think dual citizenship is a pragmatic solution, but it IS fundamentally weird since you can't serve two masters.

Since you can't even pick your first citizenship, I'm not sure why it should be framed in terms of serving a master.

Many citizenships require you by law to do things. These things may be mutually exclusive.

The US citizenship oath starts with the phrase ""I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.."  That would seem to preclude dual citizenship, and yet US law does allow dual citizenship/nationality. 

I wonder if other countries have such elements in their naturalization oath and if any of them take it seriously.

I was primarily thinking about requirements to fight in a war against the other country, or laws that require citizens to spy for their government if asked to and similar.

Those laws are against human rights thus can be taken with a pinch of salt.

[The Brain]

I think dual citizenship is a pragmatic solution, but it IS fundamentally weird since you can't serve two masters.

Since you can't even pick your first citizenship, I'm not sure why it should be framed in terms of serving a master.

Many citizenships require you by law to do things. These things may be mutually exclusive.

The US citizenship oath starts with the phrase ""I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.."  That would seem to preclude dual citizenship, and yet US law does allow dual citizenship/nationality. 

I wonder if other countries have such elements in their naturalization oath and if any of them take it seriously.

I was primarily thinking about requirements to fight in a war against the other country, or laws that require citizens to spy for their government if asked to and similar.

Those laws are against human rights thus can be taken with a pinch of salt.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[grumbler]

I was primarily thinking about requirements to fight in a war against the other country, or laws that require citizens to spy for their government if asked to and similar.

Yes, those situations become even trickier given that, if you have citizenship in two countries that go to war with one another and both require you to fight, then you must commit treason against the one you don't fight for.  That's almost certainly true of spying, as well.

[OttoVonBismarck]

A person could easily be interested in both American and British society or American and Canadian.

I take a passing interest in British and Canadian politics. That is nowhere near the threshold to justify letting me vote in those countries. If I had been born in the UK and had moved to the USA at age 5, it would be absurd for me to still be voting in British elections, no matter how close I felt to my "home country" that I hadn't lived in for 50 years.

[viper37]

I think dual citizenship is a pragmatic solution, but it IS fundamentally weird since you can't serve two masters.

What if I consider myself master of my own domain?

Like a Sovereign Citizen?

[viper37]

A person could easily be interested in both American and British society or American and Canadian.

I take a passing interest in British and Canadian politics. That is nowhere near the threshold to justify letting me vote in those countries. If I had been born in the UK and had moved to the USA at age 5, it would be absurd for me to still be voting in British elections, no matter how close I felt to my "home country" that I hadn't lived in for 50 years.

Well, I suppose it would be different if you moved in your 20s or 30s.

[viper37]

I have a vested interest in both British and Hungarian societies. My personal loyalty lies with the British state and society - I have become a citizen by my own decision and by the decision of the British state, so besides the personal interest of living here, I feel a sense of loyalty and obligation.

With Hungary, I have a vested interest there because my family and a lot of my friends live there. It is not affecting my primary allegiance with Britain, but my allegiance to Britain does not (and I believe does not have to) eliminate my concern with and interest in Hungary.

It has to be tough, sometimes, seeing your country turn like this, knowing you can't do anything from outside, no one could anything from inside...

I have trouble accepting the way things are in my liberal democracy, I can't imagine if things took a turn for the worst, democratically speaking.

[Sheilbh]

On Turkish voters overseas, there is huge variance:


https://secim2023.hurriyet.com.tr/28-mayis-2023-secimleri/cumhurbaskanligi-yurtdisi-secim-sonuclari/
So among Turks in the UK, Canada and the US 4-1 against Erdogan (and even more in Ireland), but almost the reverse in the Low Countries (closer in France, Germany and Austria).

I'd love to know what the explanations/factors are. My assumption is it reflects the demographics of migrant communities in different countries - maybe more Kurds, plus urban/Mediterranean Turks v communities from heartland Anatolia. But I've no idea.

[Valmy]

All the Turks I know are exiled Gulenists so maybe they all came to the US. That might explain that a little bit.

[Admiral Yi]

I'd love to know what the explanations/factors are.

North America is more awesome with immigrants than Europe. 

[Valmy]

I was going to speculate that having to go farther from Turkey might mean only the middle class liberals are in North America but the Turks in Bulgaria and Greece also voted against Erdogan so who knows?

I don't know what is going on in the Netherlands to attract such horrible people.

[Duque de Bragança]

I was going to speculate that having to go farther from Turkey might mean only the middle class liberals are in North America but the Turks in Bulgaria and Greece also voted against Erdogan so who knows?

I don't know what is going on in the Netherlands to attract such horrible people.

Ethnic Turkish minorities plus Turkish refugees or exiles in Greece and Bulgaria not too happy with the Erdogan-aligned Turkish minority party stirring things up? Instead of the regular Turkish minority party which is trying to work within the system.