Recently, in Pakistan, a dual citizenship concern or issue has become a hot-button topic of conversations or discussions in the electronic/TV or print news media and been covered in op-ed write-ups. There are those who defend dual citizenship as a personal preference for traveling more easily and hassle-free to a native country and/or as a needed means for taking an advantage of a political appointment opportunity in the native country’s government. But there are others who are ardently opposed to dual citizenship on moral, ethical, or legal grounds while pointing to an oath of allegiance taken by an immigrant to become a naturalized citizen of an adopted country. To become a naturalized citizen of America, an immigrant takes an oath of allegiance in a citizenship-oath ceremony by raising the right hand and is sworn in to renounce any allegiance to a foreign country (i.e. the country of origin) and to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies (the text of the U.S. citizenship oath is available online). Those who defend the dual citizenship may give examples of certain Western officeholders who were or are dual citizens. But this does not mean that what these officeholders have done is ethically or legally right. It is because when they took an allegiance oath, these officeholders violated their previous oath of allegiance to their former country while not renouncing simultaneously or priorly their original or former citizenship. Also, when they pledged another allegiance to the constitution and laws of a second country, the first country of their citizenship should have taken a notice of their oath violation, not the second country. As an example, it has been reported that the former governor of California (U.S.A), Arnold Schwarzenegger, retained his dual citizenship of Austria and America while serving in office. Well, possibly, this matter of oath violation was (or is) between him and Austria, not between him and the U.S.A, though he might be perceived to be disloyal by ethical or law-abiding people who know the contents of the U.S. citizenship oath. Hence, it is advisable to follow principles, not people as examples who are often found to be wrong or misguided. In an op-ed that I read, a defender of dual citizenship has asserted that people who staunchly support single citizenship only are zealots or patriots who seem to ask for a test or show of loyalty. But these days in this modernity, there is practically no such thing as a loyalty test, nor is it necessary to exhibit loyalty by wearing a nationality on forehead or carrying a flag or reciting an anthem. (These three seemingly sarcastic phrases were essentially said by the op-ed writer in a response to my comments on the op-ed). With regards to a country, loyalty which is an inner matter that has to do with sincerity (and fairness) is required solely for honoring the oath of citizenship so the country that relies on its citizens can be defended or supported in the time of a conflict or crisis. Also, labeling law-abiding or ethical people as single-citizenship zealots is uncalled for and unfair, frankly speaking. These people, as I mentioned above, seem to point out a violation of an allegiance oath on moral, ethical and/or legal grounds. This defender of dual citizenship has alluded in the op-ed that a second citizenship is like a first citizenship and hence should not require any oath of allegiance or swearing-in. But a second citizenship is not like a first citizenship. With regards to America, a first citizenship is associated with a natural citizen who was naturally born in America and who does not seem to have been required to take an oath to be a U.S. citizen, while a second citizenship is related to a naturalized citizen who is an immigrant (and who took an oath to become a U.S. citizen). Also, a naturalized citizen can be de-naturalized and possibly deported if a fraud had been committed and was later uncovered in the immigration visa application. Moreover, a U.S. immigrant who committed a felonious crime would be permanently barred from obtaining a U.S. citizenship—a second citizenship. This immigrant, in this case, would remain forever as an alien U.S. resident holding a Green Card (alien resident card) or Permanent Resident Card only. For a first citizenship, an oath of loyalty to a country is not necessary for a person who was naturally born on the land of the country of the citizenship (on the native land that figuratively gave birth to the person), just like it is not necessary for a person to take an oath of loyalty to the person’s natural mother or father. In both cases, the person is naturally expected to be loyal or obedient. On the contrary, in either case, a person would be a rebel to the mother or father if the person demonstrated disobedience, or a traitor to the country if the person demonstrated disloyalty. A person with a dual nationality who has a U.S. passport and who later officially decides to be loyal, in every aspect, to the native country or to the country of origin must renounce the U.S. nationality and surrender the U.S. passport. Otherwise, this person would be in violation of the U.S. citizenship oath if the U.S. passport is still used for traveling to the United States or to other visa-free countries allowed by holding the U.S. passport. In certain cases in Pakistan, when they were sworn in or they pledged an allegiance to the Pakistan Constitution and laws, the Pakistani officials with a dual nationality broke the other country’s oath of allegiance that they had taken previously, or these officials were being evasive in Pakistan. In other words, their swearing-in or pledge invalidated their prior allegiance to the constitution or laws of the other (adopted) country. So, these officials who still carry and use the passport of the adopted country are either disloyal to the adopted country or insincere to Pakistan; and as such, obviously, these officials are potentially traitors. Therefore, it is incorrect to say, “Dual nationals are not traitors.” Another issue with certain naturalized citizens—with a dual nationality or even a single nationality—is their relentless refusal to integrate into the Mainstream society of their adopted country, culturally or socially. A large majority (70% to 90%) of naturalized citizens originally from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Arab and Islamic countries seems to be culturally, mentally, and/or emotionally attached to their country of origin. They often socialize only with those people who are from their own country of origin while they misconstrue and denigrate the culture or society of the adopted country in a hostile manner, especially if the adopted country is a Western country (just like, they often used to say anti-West things in their country of origin). They usually watch TV programs of their own country of origin; and they get any news about the adopted country from the electronic/TV news media based in their own country of origin. They keep to themselves and they often do not know, nor do they interact with, their next-door neighbor who is Western. Simply speaking, they work in the adopted country, but they mentally live in their own country of origin. In other words, they have diligently sought and gotten the citizenship papers and insensitively taken the benefits of and/or availed themselves of the opportunities in the adopted country, but they have rejected the adopted country’s Mainstream society, which is not fair to the adopted country that has provided them with all the economic, academic, professional and/or business opportunities, and financial and other benefits and a better quality of life with advanced facilities. Additionally, certain naturalized citizens still literally associate themselves with their country of origin. For an example, Over 90% of naturalized American citizens originally from Pakistan still call themselves Pakistanis or “Overseas Pakistanis”, not Americans (but occasionally, they call themselves Pakistani-Americans for a personal or political expediency); and they consider themselves as pure Pakistani nationals with a desire or demand to participate in voting during elections in Pakistan; and surprisingly, the “Overseas Pakistanis” were (and are) allowed (to break their oath of allegiance to their adopted countries) by the Election Commission of Pakistan to cast their votes online, just like the Pakistani nationals in Pakistan. This, I am sorry to say, seems so strange (and unsettling), from my American perspective. In America, except for the indigenous Indians (who are correctly called Native Americans), all the other peoples are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from countries all over the world. Just like Pakistani-Americans, there are generationally British-Americans, Scottish-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, French-Americans, Polish-Americans, Norwegian-Americans, Swedish-Americans, Danish-Americans, Dutch-Americans, Swiss-Americans, and etc. But all of them gave up the hyphenation and integrated—culturally and socially melted together—to form a different culture (an American culture) and a diverse society (a Mainstream American society) with an American English containing American slangs, idioms, vernaculars and accents, and model civic values that are a beacon of individual liberty, freedom, and democracy for other countries to potentially or possibly follow the civic values. And they call themselves Americans. So, like the other naturalized American citizens originally from UK and Europe, the Pakistani-Americans who call themselves Pakistanis or “Overseas Pakistanis” must learn from their fellow Americans and integrate culturally and socially into the Mainstream American society and also give up the hyphenation and call themselves just Americans. In addition, they must be sincere and fair to America; and most importantly, they must honor the oath of the U.S, citizenship by being loyal to America and by having only one passport—the U.S. passport. No dual citizenship so as to stay true to the oath of allegiance.