Dual Citizenship....and dying for your country??
 

Big news in Australia that the first 'Australian' dies in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.

The gentleman concerned had returned to serve/fight for Israel finishing his return of service and as it turns out died for the country he chose to be 'loyal' to.

Now my first question is why? and all the following questions are why?

In the first press release it notes that he wanted to 'know what it would be like in the Army'.

Well son, why not have joined the RAR and have found out!!!???

:hmm:

He lived in Israel until 12 years old...and returned there knowing he would have to serve in the military and in all probability fight for his country.

Such a tragedy to lose such a fine young man in this way.

RIP

A sad loss.

SASless
 

From your post '...fight for his country..' now my concern, his country of 'citizenship' is now Australia if I am not mistaken. Why should he go back to do National Service in a now foreign land and ultimately die for it??

Would he have done the same for Australia????

These questions need to be asked if we are to fully understand immigration and multiculturalism in the modern Austalian Culture.

:suspect:

I guess it all depends on your point of view, snapshot.

After all, we were constantly told last week that there were up to 25 000 "Lebanese Australians" in Lebanon at the start of the crisis. A percentage were tourists, and some were visiting family, but there were plenty who had returned "home" to live permanently - although whilst retaining their Aussie citizenship and passport of course.

As soon as there was trouble, plenty of these people started screaming for the Australian Government to come and evacuate them, and complained loudly when it wasn't fast enough for their liking. Anyone who dared to question whether it should be the Australian taxpayer's responsibility to pony up for the evacuation of permanent residents of another country was branded with the usual "racist" and "anti-multicultural" tags.

For what it's worth, I find dual citizenship of any sort (except perhaps New Zealander / Australian) to be impossibly conflicted. In my opinion, once you take Australian citizenship, you should have to renounce the citizenship of any other country. I don't care where you or your parents were born, if you want to be Australian, that's where your allegiance must lie henceforth. I've got no truck with Australians who want to go overseas to fight for anyone else - whether we're talking about Serbian Australians going "home" to fight the Bosnians, Israeli Australians going off to fight the Arabs or anything else. And don't even start me on traitors like David Hicks who have no other citizenship (at least at that stage) but who head off and sign up for non-state terrorist groups like Lashkar e-Toiba and Al-Qaeda.

All of this is in no way to suggest that migrants have to forget where they came from. The multicultural element in this country (and that's truly what it is, not a plurality of monocultures like in many European countries) is what makes it such a fantastic place. Preservation of those cultures is hugely important - and I don't even really mind if those of Italian descent feel they have to support the Azzurri against the Socceroos.:rolleyes:

But once you take out the papers of citizenship, this country (and no other) has claim on your formal allegiance - and you have the right to expect that allegiance to be returned in the form of help when you need it. But that mutual obligation removes your right to go and fight for someone else. If you feel strongly enough, then go for it - but take out their citizenship instead of mine when you do it.

country of citizenship v country of service.
 

Some of you gentlemen would do well to read up on some of the history of your current/former service, the RAAF. Many Commonwealth servicemen, some of whom were pilots, and some of which were Australian, fought for a country other than their birth and citizenship. Many served in the RAF, were loyal warriors and later in the war transferred to the RAAF. In your little world, these fine aviators would have been prevented from serving in the defence of a country they were citizens of.
To suggest that a young Australian/Israeli lad who lost his life in defence of a country and culture he believed in, by the way he did not contravene any Australian laws, would not have helped out Australia and should be banned from returning to live by removing his citizenship, is very myopic. Do not forget that his mother (I assume you gentlemen don't deny having one of those) and sister are law abiding Australian citizens and have to deal with enough pain without your input.
By your definitions there are many 'Mercenaries' serving in the ADF. There are many that hold dual citizenship of many different countries and serve our country so well, you now question their loyalty by suggesting that they should turn in their citizenships of other countries they love, yet some of them have faced bigger risks in serving Australia and have bigger nads than you do. So what do we do?
Here is a suggestion. If you do not like the laws of this wonderful country Australia, leave!:ugh:

Maybe the RAR didn't accept him.

Maybe he wanted to fight in real combat, as opposed to digging pits on the Outback during exercises.

Maybe he felt strongly about defending Israel.

I say good on him.

Reminds me of a Blackadder sketch but slightly modified.

Former Isreali Aussie that returns to fight for the Jexish cause.....brave, fine, upstanding, young man RIP!!!!

Muslim Aussie that goes to fight in Afganistan amongst people of the same religon.....dirty, underhand, scum, Rot in Hell!!!!

Don't get me wrong, it was only a tongue in cheek comment. I think they are both very stupid acts.

Perhaps people shouldn't be given alternative citizenship until after they have fullfilled their obligations to their native lands!

Then it may alleiviate some of the issues relating to foreigners dying whilst fighting in another countries conflicts,,,,oooops,, quite a broad statement given the current global activity of various countries militaries!!

Skunk...
 

A good analogy, pretty well sums it up really.

In some cases, dual-nationality does not remove the obligation for national service in one or other of the countries, particularly where the country of origin requires a mandatory period of national service. Presumably not both at the same time, though. I can think of Israel, Greece (Cypriot) and Germany for starters as examples of people I have known where this has happened. I suspect that legally only having asylum status would prevent this? I am thinking particularly of the Iraqis who fled the Ba'ath regime between GW1 and GW2.

One question though, if you were coming to the end of mandatory enagement and your unit was deploying, would you volunteer to return to fight alongside your mates or disappear back to a safer country? It's a thorny one. Moreover, I suspect the statement by Fox3 may have been a media oversimplification:
It may well be the case that the right to hold an Israeli passport (and of the Israelis I have known outside of that country, none were willing to give it up the entitlement) may well be dependent on certain criteria being fulfilled including National Service.

Dual citizenry is ok I suppose and you could argue that living in country (A) and fighting for country (I) erm, I mean (B) is ok, but what happens when countries (A) and (B) fight each other?

I remember seeing an interview on the TV during the Falklands with some English bloke wot had emigrated to Argentina.

These smileys might be appropriate:


:uhoh:

:confused:

:ugh:

:{

:=

:*

:(

:O

:rolleyes:

:mad:

:bored:

:eek:

:ouch:

:sad:

and who knows, maybe even this one: :suspect:

I'm sure that you wouldn't be trusted in such a position.

I think swingwing's point is valid. Dual nationality passport holders slagging off the Aus govt for not moving quick enough for their liking is stretching it a bit.

Why aren't they slagging off the Lebanese govt/army for not stopping Hezbollah launching rockets at Israel? That's what started the totally over the top Israeli reaction.

I like Swingwing's post. We are fortunate to always have a choice in what we do and where we do it, but in my mind if you adopt a country and it adopts you, then the least you can do is stand up and be counted in your new country by taking its citizenship. I believe there was a bit of a fuss in Australia a few years ago over the thousands of Brits who have lived in Australia for ten, twenty, thirty years or so, and still clung to their British Passports.Absolute cads!:=

Other side
 

When I was a USMC Sgt in charge of the FLIR/Laser intermediate level Avionics repair shop in MCAS El Toro, CA in 1985-1989, one of my best men was one of those despised "Mercenaries"!

CPL Bray (known as "Blackie", of course) was not a US citizen (although his older brother was). This was made clear in Dec. 1986, when he tried to go visit his parents for Christmas leave and his request was denied.

His statement to the CO of Headquarters & Maintenance Squadron 13 was:
"I don't care if Éire (Republic of Ireland) IS on the DOD's "Restricted Travel" List, if you won't let me go home to see my parents, then I'll have to have MY Ambassador talk to YOUR President on the subject! Now, can we solve this here, like fellow Marines should?"

He got to go home, but had to "recieve" a "security briefing" from G-2 (Intelligence) first. The spook Major said "I learned more about the current situation in Ireland from that CPL than in my last official update"!

He served with honor, and went where he was sent, so we all had nothing but respect for him!

Monty and Samual...
 

Yep, with you all the way. The whole thing needs to be tidyied up and people have to decide where, how and who they want to swear their allegances too.

This pussyfooting around and trying to get the best of both worlds has to stop.

:suspect:

Permit citizenship of only one country. Should you wish to get into some one elses punch up then you are a mercenary, and nothing wrong with that. Just hope you pick the winning side. Seemed to work OK in Spain in the 30's and plenty of US boys went across the border into Canada and ended up in the RAF prior to the US getting into the war.

I find myself firmly on the side of those who are uneasy about dual citizenship, but I fear it is far too hot a potato for either of the main political parties to grasp - unless (very highly unlikely, verging on the impossible) it was done in a bi-partisan manner, with both parties supporting it.

*****

Doors open, your argument re Commonwealth servicemen serving in the RAF and other British services in WW2 might appear to be a valid one in the current debate to someone with no knowledge of history, but in fact it is spurious. Until 1949, anyone born in Australia was an "Australian citizen and British subject". Even if Australia was no longer officially a colony of "the Old Country" in the 1940's, the attitude of many if not most Australians (and New Zealanders, Rhodesians and the citizens of many other ex-colonies of Britain) was still firmly rooted in "the Old Country", (or "Home" as my Grandparents and all my Great Aunts and Uncles referred to a country they had never once visited)

I'm a french military pilot, holding a dual citizenship: I' also lebanese.
I choose to serve in France, wich is the country where I spent the biggest part of my life. France would need me right now, I'd be here.
But today, it's y other country that is under attack, members of my familly lost their houses, shops, and are forced to hide in the mountains. They never acted the wrong way, and my grannie is a saint to me.
Question: what should I feel regarding this, and where is my place ?
This country also need me, more than France by now. This is the kind of feeling that guy (wich was virtually my enemy) must have felt.
For swinging, keep in mind that Lebanese are not crying for a personal help from Australia. Some of them, married some australian girls, and had some australian kids. That's why, even if they returned to Lebanon, they are asking for help, to protect their wifes and kids... but maybe you can't get it.

SZT,

As a Lebanese in the French military....if you find yourself deployed in an International Force under the UN to Lebanon with the mission to protect the Israeli Border....where would your loyalty lie? To your family, to Lebanon, to France?

It is a most difficult position you would be in no doubt. Situations like your family are in must remind us of the true cost of war. I pray they remain safe from harm and a rapid resolution of the fighting can be achieved so they can live in peace again.

I don't know if it would be so difficult, as long as I agree with the french position. First of all, this force should be deployed after a cease fire, wich is my very first expectation for the time. Then, France is asking for the return of the prisoners (all of them, Israelis ans Lebanese), and the return of the stolen land. The next stage would be to replace the armed Hezbollah with a well trained Lebanese army. My mission shouldn't be to protect the Israeli border, as you can see, it's already well protected...

(my bolding).
Don't you see, Sztoggy? You've just made my point perfectly.
You have just made your support for the nation and air force you serve conditional on your agreement with their political position! As a military man you do not have that right or choice. You are obliged to carry out the orders you are given (excepting of course the case of unlawful orders to violate Geneva conventions etc). That is what being in the military is about. If you want to make the political decisions about the position France will adopt, run for office as a politician. Do not do it from the cockpit of a French aircraft.

I can understand why you might feel the way you do - you can't just put aside all feelings for the land of your birth or heritage, and to expect you to do so is simply unrealistic. But my exact point was that holding dual citizenship simply makes these kinds of dilemmas worse. What about if the French and Lebanese positions were to differ, or your French commanders gave you orders which you couldn't support from a Lebanese viewpoint? What would you do then?

In my humble opinion, citizenship is about making a choice. Not just a choice as to where you live or which government pays your pension when you retire. It's a choice as to who you would support when your life and liberty are the issues at stake.

Perhaps my perspective is simplistic - my family's been in Australia since the beginning, so I've never had to make these sorts of choices. But I would really question how you could take the oath of citizenship to one country if you still felt that you had to divide your allegiance between that nation and another.

SW

The answer is simple. It's not that I bought a second citizenship. I'm really from both countrys in my flesh.
You said that as a military pilot I do not have the right to decide. My answer is that before being a soldier, I'm a man, and if I have a right to take, I'll take it. Sorry :}

Swing,

The "Robert E. Lee" concept in a way....did he owe his loyalty to the Union or to his home state of Virginia. He chose Virginia and led the Confederate forces against the Union Army.

Loyalty can be a difficult thing to understand.

He saw himself as an American and a Virginian.

which stolen land Sztoggy?

If you mean Shebaa Farms the UN doesn't reckon it's Lebanon's and therefore has certified Israel as compliant with UNSCR 1559 - so does every map they could find that wasn't forged. See Wikipedia on the subject.

Ah, yes, another fine example of the French military in action....
(I know, the above cheap shot belongs in JetBlast)

Sztoggy, I've been reading with some interest your posts in this thread and the "Soldiers kidnapped" thread. While I can sympathise with the turmoil you are facing with your family in the crossfire, and I am sorry that you are facing it, you are either a loyal member of the French armed services or you are not.

Your private views are one thing, but to intimate that you'd fight for another country while serving France is unprofessional. Whatever your circumstances that brought you to France and to decide to serve her, you made a grown up choice. Are you really stating that should France have a different policy than one you agree with, you'd switch sides?! Nice! :yuk:

Well, I'm a bad boy :\

Sorry guys, but first of all, I'm a man, with a familly, a past and some feelings. I'm not a brainless soldier ready to die in any circonstances.
I think I'm not stupid, and I've been raised the right manner. For these reasons, I'm confindent with my choices, and remember that in the past, some french soldiers also disobeid, for some good reasons. Don't talk to me like if I was a kind of spy or something. I'll never act against any of my countries, and that's why I'll never excecute anything disturbing to me regarding my dual citizenship. Don't forget that the army knew all my details when I was recruited. Sorry to be disturbing by my honnesty on this forum...

This is not a new phenomenon nor is it confined to the Middle East:

1.
Anyone fancy a guess as to what percentage of other ranks in the US armed forces either have dual citizenship or don´t have US citizenship at all...?

2.
Ireland left the Commonwealth and declared itself a Republic in 1948 yet HMG has continued to accept Rep. of Ire. citizens into the ranks.

3.
The Spanish armed forces have, in recent years, been making great efforts to recruit from Latin America. Citizenship is offered in due course but as far as I know, it´s not obligatory to take it.

I´m sure if I racked my brains a bit I could think of more examples... the fact is that having two passports doesn´t necessarily lead to confusion/divided loyalties and having just one doesn´t necessarily mean that you are bursting with love for and loyalty to that state.

US military citizenship policy
 

When I entered basic training in 1981, during our first week one of the things we were required to do (if US citizens) was formally and legally renounce any and all foreign citizenships we held! If someone refused to renounce, they were processed back out of the service as "unsuitable".

Those who held foreign citizenships, but not US (like CPL Bray, as I related in an earlier post), were required to sign papers agreeing to follow all lawful orders (subject to normal courtsmartial for disobedience), even if those orders were to take armed action against their nation of citizenship! If someone refused to sign, they were processed back out of the service as "unsuitable". There were many Phillipine citizens (mostly in the USN) who were serving in the US Armed Forces while I was... one of them worked in the same avionics shop as myself & CPL Bray: PO2 Policarpio.


I do not know if the "global communitarians" (as Bill Clinton described himself) in Congress have changed this... but that is how it was 25 years ago.

Swingwing.

Your point of view, and SASless touched on this, means that every Free French Airman who fought for the Allied cause during WW2 was a Traitor; as were those from Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, Poland, Luxembourg, Latvia , Lithuania, Estonia, Luxembourg et al.

During a visit to Estonia with SACEUR in 1993 our "minder" informed us that he had been conscripted into the Luftwaffe in 1942 and had spent several years in a POW Camp after the war was over. His brother, 2 yrs younger, had been conscripted into the Soviet Air force after Estonia had been "recaptured" and returned home several years before he did.

I would suggest that you have a rather "idealistic" viewpoint which bears little resemblence to the reality that faces those who are caught up in such situations.

GK121,

Still the same basic rules; you enlist/are commissioned, take an oath to serve and defend the {US} Constitution. If you can't/won't, out you go.

I am certainly not an expert, however, I feel fairly confident to say that I would think that most other nations operate in a somewhat similiar fashion. One takes an OATH to serve THAT nation. That's why I find Sztoggy's intimation that he'd switch sides if it weren't convenient so odious.


(High horse mounted.....CHARGE!!!:E )

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. For the sake of brevity, I'll use the Free French in your example. If a guy volunteered to serve the Vichy following the German invasion, then I'd say yes, he was a traitor to his oath if he left and flew for the RAF. If he didn't take an oath to Vichy France, then no worries. Subsequently, once Adolf and Co. occupied the whole of France, then that oath was invalidated.
The other occupied countries in your example would be the same. If the country one had taken an oath to defend no longer exists or is occupied to the degree in WWII, then one would be released from said oath.

Sorry about your 'minder' and his brother, rotten luck, but not germaine to the point at hand. Sztoggy apparently is a voluntarily serving member of the French military. Until yet another country plays through France, he should be bound by his VOLUNTARY oath to serve even if he doesn't agree with the French government's policy, should it come to that.

brickhistory

See post above yours.

It depends on how the oath is extracted. If it is freely given then fine. But if it is extracted on pain of death, or of injury to ones Family, then is that a binding contract?

cazatou,

Absolutely not.

I'm on my tall pony over a voluntary oath.

brickhistory,

Sorry we crossed.

You miss the point. Ther "Vichy Government" that negotiated the surrender WAS the "legitimate" Government of France recognised by the German Government ; but one that had renaged on its obligations to its Allies.

General De Gaulle had proclaimed a "Government in Exile" which was recognised by all the Allied Combatant Nations - including the USA and USSR when then became embroiled.

Free French forces fought valiantly for the Allied cause in North Africa, Europe and the Far East.

By your reckoning they were all "Traitors"

caz,

We are writing past each other; the Vichy government was not the same one that made the Allied arrangements pre-1940. Most of the Free French that came to Britain and served so well did not take an oath to Vichy as far as I am aware, so therefore they weren't traitors. Once all of France was occupied, then even those bound to Vichy were released from their obligations in my mind. Comes back to your "serving at the point of a gun or under threat of torture" scenario.

I in no way disparage those that fought against the Nazis. My issue on this thread was the 'picking and choosing' of which policy a serving member of France's military appears to espouse.

quite so, but at least to enlist, I am not sure about to be commissioned, one is not required to to hold a US passport...

Jorge,

To be commissioned in the US Armed Forces, one must be a legal US citizen. To enlist, one does not. But one DOES sign a binding contract. See GK121's post above.

Bindingly and legally enforceably renouncing one's citizenship to the receiving country is all well and good. The fly in the ointment here is that the UK does not recognise such renunciation. Other countries, such as Germany, do.

It's a very vexed situation. I find my ideals more rooted in the US than the UK. So I'm happy here. I did serve in the UK military for most of my adult life, and I would have fought and died for the Queen. The concept of dual citizenship suits me, but if it ever came to a third "war of independence", I would obviously have to take sides, and which side that would be would be decided by where my feet were at the time, as I would have clearly voted with them.