Simply not true. There is plenty of rhetoric about immigrants (even 2nd gen+) in Western countries being accused of being disloyal to their Western citizenship in favor of their ethnic origin countries. Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans etc are all accused of this; see the recent riots in LA for a very recent example. Yet this insinuation is made illegal only with respect to one country only for whatever reason.
Certainly is news to japanese americans ( literally put in concentration camps ), chinese americans, german americans, mexican americans, arab americans, italian americans, catholics in general, indian americans, russian americans, etc.
> so of course they are more aligned with their country than ours, even if they have no direct ties to it whatsoever.
But there are plenty of jewish americans who are pro-israel. Such as jewish americans who joined the israeli military rather than american military.
It doesn't help that jewish americans were the main proponent to allowing dual citizenship in the US.
This is untrue. It's untrue to such an extraordinary degree that it's hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.
Accusing people of being loyal to some other nation or cause is levied regularly against almost all peoples to some degree or other, particularly if the person holds any ancestral pride or accoutrements. Even just refusing to adapt to food customs is enough to arouse suspicions.
Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags. Various members of Trump's administration declared this a demonstration of "occupied" territories.
If you're Chinese in America you must never, ever, show an iota of association with your homeland -- or even just your grandparents home if you're 3rd generation -- or you will be ostracized and considered a deep agent. An Indian that has an Indian flag in their bio or the like is going to be frequently asked why they don't move back if they "love it so much".
Similarly, a frequent criticism of some Muslims is din wa dawla, which is a belief that religion and politics/the state are one. Indeed, if someone has religious beliefs that can go in conflict with the needs/goals of the state, there is a discord there that needs to be considered.
There are Americans who are more loyal to Israel than the US. Like, they will literally tell you this without an ounce of compunction or question (which is utterly verboten among virtually any other group. Similarly a US congressman wore his IDF uniform into congress, which is simply insane). On the flip side, there are many Jewish Americans who are deeply critical of Israel. Like does anyone think Bernie is a deep agent of Israel? Bernie, like much of Jewish America, is deeply critical of Israel.
> Look at the outrage about the "invasion" because some protestors hoisted Mexican flags
Because LA Chicanos did not realize how inflammatory using the Mexican flag is in anti-government protests outside the California.
In CA, it's well understood it's used as an identity marker (though still exclusionary, as a growing portion of the Hispanic community in CA isn't Mexican anymore), but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US absolutely is viewed as a severe faux pas.
To be completely clear, what you are saying is that a US citizen -- I have no idea what the relevance of foreign citizenship means, unless you're saying that everyone with a foreign citizenship is suspect -- of Indian or Chinese origin cannot have an opinion on anything. On foreign wars. On immigration levels or sources of intake. On government structure or laws or budgetary spending. Because literally anything can be cast by some hate monger as being at the "expense of the US's strategic goals".
Let's just be completely clear about your position here.
>but outside CA using another country's flag at the expense of the US
What does "at the expense" mean? People are protesting masked groups of thugs kidnapping people and renditioning them (illegally) to foreign gulags, and that is absolutely in the service of the US.
Though there have been a number of pro-Israel protests that are nothing but a sea of Israeli flags. Jim Jordan hilariously said "We fly the American flag in America", while he has a giant Israeli flag festooned outside his office. There is zero consistency about this "who gets to be proud of their heritage / fly a foreign flag" position beyond "who should be cowed and shut their dirty migrant faces".
True! But kids under 18 aren't voters not supposed to be a part of the political process, so any opinions they may have is moot.
> Also, attractive female snow boarders are also allowed dual citizenship but those are exceptions.
Yep! Plenty of exceptions all around if you are important enough or related to someone important enough.
You can have dual citizenship if your Chinese citizenship is of the Hong Kong/Macao flavor
As such, it is an edge case or rounding error - especially in the Chinese American community. With the amount of effort it takes to get HK citizenship, you may as well take Canadian or American citizenship and try to break Chinese nationality law by lying about not having American citizenship (but they are cracking down on this)
"Nobody accuses AOC of secretly working for Mexican government"
It would be an incredibly weird accusation given that her ancestry is Puerto Rican.
And FWIW, there is a credible observation that the US evangelical "death cult" right has a bizarre, self-sabotaging loyalty to Israel. This group is not remotely Jewish, but they -- again not Jews -- are the reason the US government is subservient and in the service of Israel. All because their mythology holds Israel as some end times revelations battleground or some other bizarrely ignorant, archaic belief.
The invasion angle is simply entering a country without permission. Protesting against the laws of the country while holding the foreign flag adds to the poor optics but the root of the invading accusation is the people actually invading.
But are somehow—without any apparent reason, given that nothing binds them to the country—in favor of Israel being allowed to continue their war of agression against pretty much everyone around.
Plenty of dual citizens that are not Israeli citizens and would admit the same thing, but we don't go around throwing such accusations at them.
> this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Does it? It would be accusing the individual just because they are part of a certain group.