[UPDATE: USCitizenAbroad also asks you what "citizenship" means. Some of the comments below suggest that its only value is as an insurance policy in case something goes wrong. USCA reasonably asks you to describe "specific obligations and entitlements" related to citizenship. If you accept citizenship (with consent), your position is that you should have no obligations whatsoever to your country? None?]
Continuing the discussions on citizenship:
In this morning’s (July 20, 2017) Canadian National Post newspaper, a “Letter to the Editor” in the print version argues that Canada/the world would be better off if there were no dual citizenship. [I will provide a link when it becomes available]
Is the writer justified?
He says in part:
“Bona fide citizenship implies an obligation by government to treat all citizens equally before the law and to deal with all matters of misbehaviour internally without sending those problems abroad to be dealt with by foreign governments, which would be a demonstration that a government is not sovereign.
In return, true citizenship imposes an obligation of unreserved loyalty by each citizen to the country of which he is a citizen…”
[He then provides an example scenario of Mr. Tom Mulcair, Leader of one of Canada's political parties, who is a citizen of both Canada and France. Should he become PM, "...Where would his loyalties lie?"]
The writer’s simple solution for Canada (and by extension, the world):
‘…eliminate dual citizenship by requiring anyone holding dual citizenship to renounce one or the other and by stripping Canadian citizenship from those who fail to do this…”
Do you agree with the writer that the world would be a better place if dual citizenship would be banned, worldwide?