Unfortunately, this New York Times opinion section piece seems to miss the point. Or possibly it was just aiming for a very different point than one that is representative of my life as an ex-pat. The piece by José Itzigsohn addressed the fact that migration is not an immediate process, whereas the majority of the other pieces seemed to employ a combination of quotes from the oath of citizenship and the turn of the century to present a very "us against them" viewpoint. The points made in the comments were much more diverse, submitted by people who do or do not have dual citizenship for a wide variety of reasons; Those who are "American&" and those who are "&American". I'd be interested to see the numbers, is any particular situation "normal"?
For me, the questions of acquiring Brazilian citizenship and denouncing American citizenship are not one and the same. Nor does it seem that for most people they address these two disparate ideas together, except when forced. Very little of the reasoning is ideological, and an unfortunately large amount of it is financial and legal. Despite being a fairly conscientious citizen and resident, I am no expert in international tax law or international treaties in general. One of my goals for this year: find an expert.
No comments:
Post a Comment