Speaker 1: Do you want to be an American media?
Speaker 2: Here we go, come before the storm, so to speak,
Speaker 2: so to speak slowly on seven hundred WLW see winter
Speaker 2: weather starts to move in. Got till tonight, then all
Speaker 2: hall is going to break loose. So between now and then,
Speaker 2: it's me and you this morning. And one of the
Speaker 2: topics of interest today, at least that I found interesting,
Speaker 2: is the end of dual citizenship in America. I don't
Speaker 2: actually have the numbers in front of you. Probably if
Speaker 2: I were better at my job, i'd looked that up.
Speaker 2: But anyway, Bernie Moreno, our own Bernie Moreno, has proposed
Speaker 2: the Exclusive Citizenship Act of twenty twenty five, and it
Speaker 2: literally is ignited one of the most explosive civil liberities
Speaker 2: debates in a long time. So dual citizenship is fully
Speaker 2: legal right now, but the bill threatens to force millions
Speaker 2: of Americans into a one year ultimatum. So you'd have
Speaker 2: to make up your mind, and that is to abandon
Speaker 2: your US passport and lose your citizenship automatically. You've choose
Speaker 2: one team or the other. No more dual citizens in
Speaker 2: the United States. And we'll get how that works in
Speaker 2: just a second here. But first on the show is
Speaker 2: Augustina Virgara Seed. On the show, she writes with the
Speaker 2: Hill on RCPs, I'll say a young voice is senior
Speaker 2: contributor Augustina, good morning, how are you?
Speaker 1: Good morning, Scott, Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got you. So let's just jump in.
Speaker 2: Let me run down the list and kind of the
Speaker 2: people aren't following this. You may not be following this entirely.
Speaker 2: So here's what we had to do. Correct me if
Speaker 2: I'm wrong, if I miss anything here too, It'd be
Speaker 2: unlawful to hold US citizenship and any foreign citizenship at
Speaker 2: the same time, and it'd take one hundred and take
Speaker 2: effect one hundred eighty days after enactment. So for future citizens,
Speaker 2: basically what happened is anybody who voluntary acquires foreign citizenship
Speaker 2: after the effective date automatically loses their US citizenship, and
Speaker 2: you would obtain a new foreign passport would also lose
Speaker 2: your US citizenship if you're a current dual citizen. There's
Speaker 2: a one year deadline, So within one year of enactment,
Speaker 2: you have to choose a renounce your foreign citizens to
Speaker 2: the State Department or be renounce your US citizenship to
Speaker 2: Department of homeland security. And if you don't choose, then
Speaker 2: you by default will give up your US citizenship. So
Speaker 2: anyone who is born with a dual nationality, naturalized US citizens,
Speaker 2: who retained original citizenship, Americans abroad who required foreignationality through
Speaker 2: marriage or dissent or naturalization, that's what's in play here.
Speaker 2: Did I miss anything important? Those all the facets of this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's essentially what the bill is trying to do.
Speaker 3: Yes, could you tell us why?
Speaker 2: I mean, I get immigration, I understand that, I understand
Speaker 2: that there's a concerned about who's in our country.
Speaker 3: We need to know who that is.
Speaker 2: But and I suppose that there's concern that someone who
Speaker 2: holds citizenship from China or Russia could be working in
Speaker 2: sensitive US positions would be an example. I think that's
Speaker 2: a valid worry. But why aren't we addressing it in
Speaker 2: that fashion as opposed to just a blanket uster them philosophy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it's a good question why this is allegedly
Speaker 1: needed or and why? Now I read the bill, and
Speaker 1: the bill does not have any really substantial destination of
Speaker 1: why this is needed. So the build friends dual citizenship
Speaker 1: as a potential source of alleged conflicts of interest or
Speaker 1: divided loyalties, but the bill never defines what that means.
Speaker 1: Those are essentially just buzzwords that really, if without any
Speaker 1: sort of replanation, really don't mean much. So I think
Speaker 1: that really this is a solutional search for a problem.
Speaker 1: I don't think that dual citizenship or multiple citizenship in
Speaker 1: America is a problem that needs Congress to step in
Speaker 1: and fix. Really, dual citizenship does not represent a threat
Speaker 1: of any kind, and people who hold dual citizenship, by
Speaker 1: myself am one such person. I do not have any
Speaker 1: sort of do not represent a thread or anything in America.
Speaker 1: But you just said that, Okay, maybe there might be
Speaker 1: you know, sensitive positions that require that someone be native born, like,
Speaker 1: for example, a constitution mandates that a person who is
Speaker 1: naturalized cannot become pressed in the United States, or you
Speaker 1: know that requires really you know, that that person has
Speaker 1: only one citizenship. Then okay, that's great, let's address those
Speaker 1: positions specifically. But there is really no reason to try
Speaker 1: to impose only one citizenship on the rest of Americans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and if you're worried about you know, spying, and
Speaker 2: that's what this is, maybe that would prevent that summer.
Speaker 2: I think you're still going to wind up getting you know,
Speaker 2: sources and the like. I mean, look at how many
Speaker 2: people have committed to reason who are naturally born US
Speaker 2: citizens don't hold those those and there are US citizens
Speaker 2: they are born here, their families here, who have committed
Speaker 2: these types of crimes in the past. So that doesn't
Speaker 2: seem to be good indicator if it's a national security issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, there's really no This is not a threat.
Speaker 1: And like when I judge the and laws, like, I
Speaker 1: think they should pass one big test, which is does
Speaker 1: this bill or these all do they protect the vision rights?
Speaker 1: Like is there a need to pass this bill in
Speaker 1: order to protect the visual rights as or constitution man made?
Speaker 1: If the answer is no, then we have a problem.
Speaker 1: And I really don't think that this bill is protecting
Speaker 1: anyone's in the visual rights because there's really no threat
Speaker 1: from holding multiple citizenships.
Speaker 2: Right, the fourteenth Amendment is pretty clear anyone born in
Speaker 2: the US as a citizen. We'd have to change if
Speaker 2: someone's born in America, say to I don't know, Canadian
Speaker 2: parents just Canada automatically confer citizenship at birth, And how
Speaker 2: can Congress force that person to choose without violating birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2: That's going to be a tricky one to navigate.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think the bill poses many challenges in implementation,
Speaker 1: and I do think that it's an constitutional because of
Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendment, because what it asks, like you mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: what it asked Americans to do is if they hold
Speaker 1: another citizenship and if they are native born and they
Speaker 1: have American citizenship, because of the fourteenth Amendment that you mentioned,
Speaker 1: it's forcing them to choose, and if they don't choose,
Speaker 1: then their America's citizenship is taken away, and that is
Speaker 1: not constitutional. You cannot take citizenship away from a native
Speaker 1: born American unless e commit triaism, which not choosing a
Speaker 1: citizenship is not an act of treason. I think, for instance,
Speaker 1: like you said, that people who have who are native
Speaker 1: born Americans and who have dual citizenship because of their
Speaker 1: parents who might be from another country. I always think
Speaker 1: of this example. There's a you know, m or rat
Speaker 1: and Brown, the wide receiver from the Detroit Lions. He
Speaker 1: has dual citizenship. He's American and he's German because his
Speaker 1: mother is German. So we are asking Amaranpian Brown and
Speaker 1: millions of other Americans who were native born to choose
Speaker 1: nationality for really no reason, because it does not pose
Speaker 1: any sort of stress. They do not post any sort
Speaker 1: of threat to America, and I'm not violating anyone's individual rights.
Speaker 2: I wonder how this is gonna work, Augustina with there's
Speaker 2: countries like for example, Ireland, Italy in Israel in particular,
Speaker 2: that actively encourage Americans to claim citizenship because of their
Speaker 2: ancestry because of a Jewish law. This would essentially then
Speaker 2: force those Americans to reject those ties. We know that
Speaker 2: the ties and the support that this administration gives Israel,
Speaker 2: that's not a good look. Or do they just say, well,
Speaker 2: unless you're from Israel, it's a different story, which make
Speaker 2: it very well and it just waters down the intent,
Speaker 2: whatever intent that is of this particular proposal.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's one of the many reasons why I think
Speaker 1: this is really not gonna work, including because look, for example,
Speaker 1: I become an American this year, in July of this year,
Speaker 1: and I could talk half an hour about what that
Speaker 1: means to me and why exclusively be of my life
Speaker 1: to be an American. But if I had to choose
Speaker 1: between my two nationalities, I can't because I am originally
Speaker 1: from Argentina, and Argentina does not renounce the citizenship because
Speaker 1: I was born there, So that would mean that if
Speaker 1: this bill were to pass, that would mean that I
Speaker 1: would have to give up being an American because my
Speaker 1: country of birth, which I didn't choose, does not allow
Speaker 1: me to renounce my citizenship. And how is that fair?
Speaker 1: Like I worked for decades to become an American, and
Speaker 1: I'm a proud American and I took a note of
Speaker 1: a llisions to this country. Why would someone want to
Speaker 1: take that away from me? And I have literally no choice.
Speaker 1: And there are other countries that also don't allow the
Speaker 1: renunciation of their of the citizenship. I think Costa Rica
Speaker 1: is one such country, and those people like me would
Speaker 1: have absolutely no option. And thress people who have ties
Speaker 1: to other countries Israel or whatever other country, and there
Speaker 1: is no reason to make them choose a few of
Speaker 1: reasons why people would hold multiple citizenships because they were
Speaker 1: born there, because of cosural ties, because of tax reasons,
Speaker 1: sometimes because they are American and their spouse and they
Speaker 1: live abroad with their spouse, and they for several reasons
Speaker 1: referred to have that citizenship as well. And there's really
Speaker 1: no reason to make them choose.
Speaker 2: Augustina Virgara Seed on the show She Rich of the
Speaker 2: Hill RCP, is a young voice and senior contributor and
Speaker 2: talking about Senator Bernie Moreno's exclusive citizenship app as Citizenship
Speaker 2: Act of twenty twenty five that essentially would divide Americans
Speaker 2: a sense that if you hold dual citizenship here, you'd
Speaker 2: have to renounce one of those, either with US or
Speaker 2: against US. I guess as the mindset here, but you're talking,
Speaker 2: I mean little millions of millions of people like yourself
Speaker 2: that hold dual citizenship, and it's probably difficult enough for you.
Speaker 2: But you recently became a citizen of the country.
Speaker 3: I've seen it. Why Why the hell would you want
Speaker 3: to come here?
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't I? So I could say so much about this,
Speaker 1: but essentially, I've been in love with America and America's
Speaker 1: promise and what American represents since I basically first became
Speaker 1: aware of the existence of America when I was a
Speaker 1: little kid, and growing up, I realized that America is special.
Speaker 1: America is different from any other countries. America is different
Speaker 1: from the country where I was born and the values.
Speaker 1: Growing up, I started studying American history and American political philosophy,
Speaker 1: and I realized what an incredible achievement the American Founding
Speaker 1: was historically philosophically, it truly is unique in human history.
Speaker 1: And that is not just an abstract idea. That is
Speaker 1: something that we see reflecting the freedoms that we enjoy
Speaker 1: every day. America is literally, and I don't want and
Speaker 1: I say this knowing the full meaning of it. America
Speaker 1: is literally the best most moral country in the world
Speaker 1: in it Founding principles, and I wanted to be part
Speaker 1: of that. I wanted to live here and enjoy the
Speaker 1: freedoms that our amazing Founding values allows us to have.
Speaker 1: And truly, I am so so proud of in America.
Speaker 1: And it's honedly an honor.
Speaker 2: And I would think that that sediment you just so
Speaker 2: articularly describe describes a lot of people who hold dual citizenships.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure someone's listening right now. And the case
Speaker 2: you just made for becoming in America, which is a
Speaker 2: difficult thing. It takes a tremendous amount of effort. We're
Speaker 2: just born to do it. You had to work to
Speaker 2: get here. I don't know how we could tell someone
Speaker 2: like you.
Speaker 1: No, yeah, I know that. You know, maybe not everybody
Speaker 1: has studied in detail the political philosophy the United States,
Speaker 1: but you know, in an implicit manner, they do. I
Speaker 1: know so many people who are either immigrants to America
Speaker 1: or that are naturalized citizens, and they do love this
Speaker 1: country so much, and they do value the freedoms that
Speaker 1: we have, and this is their country that they actually
Speaker 1: chose me into America as I'm sure that many people
Speaker 1: at this point. No, it's not easy to do. It's
Speaker 1: really really hard to do it. It's really hard to
Speaker 1: do it legally, which you know is the only path
Speaker 1: to becoming a citizen, and we go through all that
Speaker 1: trouble because we really really value this country. This country
Speaker 1: is worth it. So yeah, it's really unfair, I think,
Speaker 1: to you know, to impose this very onerous requirement of
Speaker 1: people like me who truly love this country.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And the other thing, too is the practical implementation. I mean, okay,
Speaker 2: it gives you, if this is enacted in past, it
Speaker 2: gives people like yourself to those citizens one year to
Speaker 2: pick the United States or the country you also hold
Speaker 2: citizenship in. But I mean, how do you even do
Speaker 2: this administratively? It's not like we have a comprehensive database
Speaker 2: of people who hold foreign citizenship and the light we
Speaker 2: know you have a you know, your old status here.
Speaker 2: But I mean, how would you even go through the
Speaker 2: notification produce It seems impossible.
Speaker 1: Yes, including because there is no registry of who polls
Speaker 1: the world citizenship for multiple citizenship in America, So how
Speaker 1: are we going to know? And yeah, it would be
Speaker 1: a bureaucratic nightmare to do that, and it would be
Speaker 1: so expensive, it will require so many resources, such payer money,
Speaker 1: in order to just exclude people who for whatever reason
Speaker 1: can't make a choice like myself, or just for whatever
Speaker 1: reason do not want to make a choice. But they
Speaker 1: are just as American as anybody else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you're talking about a sizeable amount of the
Speaker 2: other element here too, is that Okay, let's say maybe
Speaker 2: you want to again. You go, okay, I'll be in America.
Speaker 2: I'm going to renounce my Argentinian citizenship. You renounce that.
Speaker 2: But what if the foreign country simply refused the process
Speaker 2: that or just it's like okay, well fine, you want
Speaker 2: to announce. It's going to cost you, I don't know,
Speaker 2: two hundred thousand dollars to do that. Or it just
Speaker 2: takes a lot longer than a year for them to
Speaker 2: process all that stuff with this, so you can lose
Speaker 2: your US citizenship. There's no fault her on. I mean, sure,
Speaker 2: that's a pretty big do process violation, I would think,
Speaker 2: would you agree.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely, I agree with that because the status of
Speaker 1: the other citizenship has nothing to do with whatever the
Speaker 1: US government decides decides to do. And like in the
Speaker 1: case of like, like I said, like myself, I literally
Speaker 1: cannot legally renounce my citizenship because Argentina does not allow it.
Speaker 1: I will never stop being in Argentinian even if I try,
Speaker 1: because it is illegal. Like, I literally cannot legally renowned citizenship.
Speaker 1: So what do we do there? Should I these strips
Speaker 1: with my citizenship because of you know, the Argentina a lot,
Speaker 1: and I'd never chose to be born there. That's that's
Speaker 1: not right. And yeah, like you said, it can take
Speaker 1: a long time to you know, renounce some some other
Speaker 1: country citizenship, and it might be really expensive and there
Speaker 1: might be you know, it might require years older, Like
Speaker 1: there's so many things that can happen that you know,
Speaker 1: it's not a straightforward process, and that one year deadline,
Speaker 1: it's really just not going to work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I went down.
Speaker 2: I think because you're talking about millions of people here too,
Speaker 2: and trying to have them process that would be extremely difficult.
Speaker 3: I think in a lot of these cases.
Speaker 2: So how much is this then, Augustine, do you think
Speaker 2: this is actually is this just political posturing?
Speaker 3: Is this his bluster?
Speaker 2: And I mean Bernie Marina proposes this, but does he
Speaker 2: actually think it as a chance of passing or just
Speaker 2: does it to offer I guess the core a gesture
Speaker 2: saying hey, I'm getting tough on immigrants here in the
Speaker 2: United States. It doesn't seem like, you know, there's a
Speaker 2: big movement to get this passed, but along all the
Speaker 2: details we just laid out and probably countless more make
Speaker 2: it feel like it's an impossibility.
Speaker 3: Is this just posturing?
Speaker 1: I think there's there has to be some of that, because,
Speaker 1: like I said, I read the bill. There's really four
Speaker 1: pages and that's not a lot. And I don't think honestly,
Speaker 1: when I read the bill, I was expecting to find,
Speaker 1: you know, a long explanation why we need this. I
Speaker 1: was expecting to find a longer explanation of how this
Speaker 1: is actually going to work. The build laxing details, and
Speaker 1: that makes me think that there is not a lot
Speaker 1: of effort put into actually trying to make this to
Speaker 1: persuade uh, you know, the Congress to pass this bill.
Speaker 1: So and I know there's obviously there's gonna be if
Speaker 1: this build is debated, there's going to be like a
Speaker 1: whole debate and they're going to explain what it's about.
Speaker 1: But like, I don't see it as a genuine effort
Speaker 1: to solve a problem because there is no such problem.
Speaker 1: Like I said, I think this also comes at a
Speaker 1: time where immigration is a it's a hot topic. Obviously
Speaker 1: there is you know a lot of nationalism and rejection
Speaker 1: of anything foreign, including people. And it comes also at
Speaker 1: a time where Alcolo administration has been also weaponizing not
Speaker 1: a citizenship as well. You know, they have threatened some people,
Speaker 1: including ether Mask himself from you know, you know away
Speaker 1: there's citizenship. So it's I think a way of playing
Speaker 1: into this nationalism that is an e vogue in unfortunate
Speaker 1: in America right now. And I really, I really think
Speaker 1: I think this is really awful because even if it
Speaker 1: doesn't pass, which it will not pass, I can guarantee
Speaker 1: you that this is scaring a lot of people. I
Speaker 1: have gotten so many messages from people saying, hey, am
Speaker 1: I going to have to renounce my US city? Like
Speaker 1: what's going what's going on? I don't know what to do.
Speaker 1: It's really scaring people. And some of the media also,
Speaker 1: you know, does not do not help because they frame
Speaker 1: it in a way as if sties were a fact.
Speaker 1: But this is just a bill. But yeah, it's scaring
Speaker 1: a lot of people. And I don't I think it's
Speaker 1: actually introducing this debate right now. It's actually a disservice.
Speaker 2: Agree, I agree with. I guess it's it's politics is
Speaker 2: worse in my opinion. It's just more posturing with no
Speaker 2: intent of actually anything passed. But it's a gesture to
Speaker 2: whom I don't know. But I think the country is
Speaker 2: better people like yourself, you know, provided your you're paying taxes,
Speaker 2: you're working, you're educated, you're contributing.
Speaker 3: That's what we need. I gotta go. I appreciate the time.
Speaker 2: Augustina Gergara Seed from the Hill and RCP and Young Voices,
Speaker 2: thanks again, thank you so much, appreciate it. Let me
Speaker 2: get a news update and of course we get the weather.
Speaker 2: We'll get the latest timelines out for you. Here, just
Speaker 2: seconds away, slowly seven hundred ww