Much ado has been made lately on the right about an Iranian citizen who was arrested by the Muslim dictatorship there. The complication is that the Iranian citizen is also a citizen of the United States, and a naturalized citizen at that. http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmUyMjMyYzdhOGNkMDZhNjFjZGRjOGVjYWFmNDAzZWM=
Roxana Saberi immigrated to the U.S., but, in violation of her oath of citizenship which requires her to abjure her former loyalties, maintained her Iranian citizenship. I suspect she obtained citizenship by either claiming asylum from Iran or was one of the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who partake of chain migration.
If she claimed asylum, then why did she maintain an Iranian passport and why did she return to Iran. And, more importantly, where are her loyalties?
It is clear from her behavior however, that her loyalties remain with Iran, and her American passport is just for convenience and protection. She, like many other immigrants, use their American citizenship and passport as protection, while their true loyalties lie in their nation of origin and not with the U.S.
If Roxana Saberi were true to her oath of citizenship, she would not have even traveled back to Iran, much less been involved in political opposition to the current dictatorship. She should be more concerned about loving America. And she would not be in prison as well. Whether it be Hong Kong residents seeking the American passport as insurance against a crackdown, or the Mexican who wants protection against deporation, or Indian businessman who doesn't want the inconvinience of obtaining a visa for international travel, the reason for their naturalization is not love of America, but the protections an American passport offer. It is too bad for Saberi though, she is being held captive by radical Muslims, and Baraka Hussein Obama, like Jimmy Carter, has got nothing against Americans held hostage by the Ayatollahs. To bad, so sad, you just chose the wrong passport. If you were an Isreali, at least they would be trying to rescue you.
More evidence here, where a radical Islamist Member of Parliment in the UK has announced that fighting Al Queda is bad for Britian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/12/foreign-affairs-pakistan-drone-raids But what Sadiq Khan really means is that fighting Al Queda is bad for radical Islamists in Pakistan and that as a British citizen he is more concerned about what happens to his fellow Pakistanis, not what happens to Britons. Dual loyalty here, no, for him it is loyalty to an Islamic Pakistan. The only dual loyalty question is whether he is more loyal to Jihad or to Pakistan.