Citizenship by birth or acquired provides the right to vote, the right to a passport, the right to leave and return to the country, the right to own property, the right to hold any public office, the right to live in the country, and to work. Once one becomes a citizen, these rights are recognized by the country of citizenship. However, some people can hold dual citizenship, one by birth and the other by adoption, and are considered a dual citizen by some countries if the country has a legal treaty with the adopted country allowing a person to hold both citizenships. If countries have no legal treaty recognizing dual citizenship or their laws prohibit dual citizenship, the adoptee must renounce birth citizenship to be accepted as a citizen of the adopted country. Pakistan accepts dual citizenship with 19 other countries. The question is, do dual citizens have the same rights in both countries? The United States is one of the countries of which Pakistan recognizes citizenship.In the U.S., a naturalized citizen has all the rights except the right to run for president. In Pakistan, however, every dual citizen has all the rights except to hold a political office. Article 631-C of the Pakistan constitution states:”Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) if: c. he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign State; ” A word of caution: the constitution says “he,” which obviously means women are exempt from this clause. The constitution says, “ceases to be a citizen.” How does a person cease to be a citizen, if he is considered a dual citizen? Regardless of the Article, Pakistan still accepts citizenship of 19 countries with which Pakistan has a dual citizenship treaty. In addition, many ex-Pakistanis (those who are citizens of other countries with which Pakistan has no citizenship treaty) are still allowed all the rights as Pakistani citizens providing they can show a national I.D. card, which is very easy to get in Pakistan. The constitution says that a Pakistani ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan if he is at the same time a citizen or national of another country. However, dual citizenship can be accepted in both countries (Pakistan and the adopted country) if they have a legal treaty. A Pakistani with acceptable dual citizenship has all the rights of a Pakistani citizen except to run for or hold an elected office. The justification given for this exception is that a person with dual citizenship is likely to “hamper the performance of the public representative’s duties in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, solidarity, well-being, and prosperity of Pakistan.” Pakistanis suspect that since a person has taken an oath of allegiance to another country, then his loyalty to Pakistan is questionable.Whether it is true or false cannot be proven with any reliable data. Further, in parliament, a dual citizen is one member out of hundreds, which does not make it a majority to influence an outcome. Further, many Pakistanis holding senior positions or political offices can be easily recruited as spies by foreign countries as they are there for the long term instead of a dual citizen who is mostly holding a temporary position. Therefore, to assume that only dual citizens can be treasonous is a bit naive or stupid. Opponents of dual citizenship believe that a person obtaining dual citizenship does not give up anything to achieve it and,therefore,trivializes the importance of being a citizen in either country or both. They further suggest that most citizenships are obtained for economic gain and that the dual citizen can easily discard one’s citizenry when convenient. They fail to mention, however, the fact that there are many Pakistanis who live in Pakistan but have obtained European, Canadian, and U.S. citizenship because their relatives live in one of these countries. These Pakistanis do not live, have any job or property in these countries, but they become a citizen of these countries for the sole purpose of either getting their passport or other motives because they are embarrassed to carry Pakistani passport or want to be other than a Pakistani. If this is true, these Pakistanis have trivialized dual citizenship, and Pakistan should not recognize their Pakistani citizenship as they are ashamed to be Pakistanis. However, once a country accepts a real dual citizen, then a person is a citizen with all the privileges with no exception. There is no such thing as a partial citizen. Denying a citizen all the rights of a citizen without any proof of disloyalty is not a sufficient reason to take away one’s rights Further, some Pakistanis lie about their status of citizenship to run and hold a political office. I personally know of an MNA who was a U.S. citizen while a member of parliament until his rival in the next election exposed him. He was allowed to run because he gave up his U.S. citizenship, but he lost the election to the competitor anyway. Worst yet, he was not punished for violating the constitution and, strangely, was allowed to run for election after giving up his citizenship. It seems that the constitution is a joke that anyone can violate without any consequences. So why have a constitution that means nothing? I am sure there are many cases like this, where people lie to hold an office in violation of the constitution and face no punishment. Currently, PM Khan has been accused of hiring dual citizens in his cabinet even while he was accusing the previous governments of doing the same thing. In my earlier Op-Ed (July 25, 2020, Daily Times), I accused Khan of hypocrisy in doing the same while accusing others. Now, the question is, what does citizenship means? Should an adopted citizen of a country have the same rights as the citizens by birth? Of course, when a country accepts a person as a citizen, there should be no exceptions to the rights a person has. The exception specified in the constitution pertaining to running for and holding elected office is a violation of fundamental human rights, and someone should sue Pakistan for violating it. Pakistan either should not accept dual citizenship or treat each citizen equally without exception. Denying a citizen all the rights of a citizen without any proof of disloyalty is not a sufficient reason to take away one’s rights. As I had stated before, a native-born Pakistani (not a dual citizen) holding a senior bureaucratic position or a politician can be a traitor. No one is beyond reproach. I hope people may remember King Hussain of Jordan was accused of being on the payroll of the CIA. I am sure some senior Pakistani bureaucrats as well as politicians may be on the payroll of some foreign country.Because Pakistan is the most corrupt country, a Pakistani can be more easily recruited to be disloyal or to spy for a foreign country than a dual citizen who has lived and learned an ethical way of life outside of Pakistan. Should the rights of the disloyal Pakistani be taken away? I do not think anyone will. So why suspect a dual citizen to be susceptible of being a spy or disloyal without any proof? The assumption is wrong and untenable and should not be used to deprive anyone of their rights. Therefore, if dual citizens have all the rights of citizenship, except holding a public office, then why not give them that right as well? The writer is Ph.D. (USA), Professor Emeritus (USA)