Dual Loyalty - Inherently Controversial

Inherently Controversial

While nearly all examples of alleged "dual loyalty" are considered highly controversial, these examples point to the inherent difficulty in distinguishing between what constitutes a "danger" of dual loyalty – i.e., that there exists a pair of misaligned interests – versus what might be more simply a pair of partially aligned or even, according to the party being accused, a pair of fully aligned interests. For example, immigrants who still have feelings of loyalty to their country of origin will often insist that their two (or more) loyalties do not conflict. As Stanley A. Renshon at The Center for Immigration Studies notes,

Lan Samantha Chang (1999), a novelist writing in response to the Wen Ho Lee case, could say in a New York Times op-ed piece entitled Debunking the Dual Loyalty Myth, "True, many immigrants have strong ties to their countries of birth...But cultural or familial loyalties are on a different level from political allegiances...I love China, but I am a citizen of the United States." Ms. Chang appears to want to distinguish a love for one's "home" country from being willing to commit treason against one's adopted one. This is obviously a fair, reasonable, and appropriate distinction. Yet, in the process of making such a distinction, she acknowledges the duality of her feelings. The issue is not between love of one's country of origin and treason, but rather the multiple loyalties that appear to be part of many immigrants' psychology.