Why in God's earth should our president have to deny what's best for
the safety of OUR country, because there are undeclaired foreign
ajents in congress & in the land, just itching to over-rule and or
vote him out of office.

One foreign leader was so confident of his strangle-hold on us, that
he remarked that he would consider any of said dual citizens, traitors
if they agreed with one of our past presidents.

Who is 'Our President'??

Don't forget, you're talking to a world-wide audience, and your
president is certainly not my president.

I make the assumption that you are from the USA - would I be correct
here?

As for the answer to you question - would somebody born and mostly
raised in the USA but has dual citizenship for the UK, for example, be
denied this right? What would they have done wrong to be denied one of
their basic democratic rights?

I think that you're asking an unanswerable question, and all that can
be given in reply is opinion.

Mward is correct I think. There are several ways to become a duel
citizen. A few of these people are trouble makers, but our country is
worth saving only if we prove, before we punish.  This is a costly
process which should not be started unless there is probale cause.
Even if there are a million such people, and we did stop them from
voting, the outcome of elections would rarely be different.
Personally, I think that the number of traitors in high places is
about as high among Democrats as amoung Republicans. Which do you
think is the evil party? I support Libertarians = liberty = lots less
government.   Neil

Ok Dr. Ward thank you for your response, and I note that you have a
dihard fan in Neal, he always agree with you.

May I chide you for failing to observe that the president could be
generic in that this rule would be useful for any country. Infact, let
me hasten to include priministers or any head of state etc. etc.

Point number 2. the rule would be generic with regards to parties
also.

Dr., Dr., are you telling me that are incapable of handling a delimma
like a thue Solomon?  The very nature of a delemma denies us an ideal
outcome.  But a true Solomon, are you ready for this? painfully,
tearfully, regretfully, choose the lesser of two evils.  I know that
you know this concept, but most americans and maybe even most humans,
tend to forget, and end up doing nothing, when they encounter two
evils to choose from.

There is a man upstairs who gives us the example of how the deal with
your concern.  He says the good sometimes suffers for the bat, or with
the bad.

You do understand that the constitution has had tho be suspended for
the greater good from time to time, as in "no fire in a crowed...",
well I would dispise anyone who refuse to sacrifice his vote for the
greater good of his country.

You know the saying he who wants it all, looses it all. Absolutists
who insist on liberty or death, usually end up with both.  If
everybody died who whoud be left to admire your dignified departure?

My dear Mr. Zero,
Please repeat after me: GENERIC, GENERIC, GENERIC,
I did not mention any party, and you misunderstood who is labeling
whom, trators.  I aluded to a certain foreign leader who remarked that
his people who reside in the United States would be trators if they
sided with our president.  Just try to follow it. The folk who are
here enjoying the dual citizenship were forbidden from siding with
their own president here against the leader of their second
"homeland". Got it?

Your question was phrased in a very personal voice, referring to "our
president", "strangle-hold on us", etc.  This does not lead to one
reading it as a generic policy question, but rather a question set in
the context of where you live.

Ok Josh, I confess, that I was thinking of our situation here in the
US, but that's no reason not to see that "our president" could include
future presidents also?  And what would prevent you from realizing the
universial applicability of the convention.  If "I did not know you
better" I might conclude that you were encouraging me to join you in
splitting hairs.

As my friend Barry Farber likes to say, "lets not allow manner to
spoil meaning"

If we exert all our energy on form, then the substance often suffers. 
Did you not notice that I sometimes add & or drop characters from some
of my words? Couldn't we dwell on those defects (manner) too?

How about your take on the meaning of the question itself?

There are, in my experience, two reasons for asking a question.
The first is to obtain information of which one was unaware.

The second is to express protest and resentment about the way
things are, being priorly convinced of one's own point-of-view,
and eager to promote the merits of said point-of-view to those
who might attempt a thoughtful response.

Which format defines this query?

Well! Mr.N0.1 Sublime, 
 
As my friend POTUS Lincoln once said: I will cling to my views only so
long as they appair to be true views.  And I am ready willing and able
to replace my views with your views, as soon as they shall appair to
be truer views.  Ind I will consider myself a winner of your views
rather than a looser of my views.  I believe it's a craven fool who is
afraid of being called a "Flip-Flopper.:)

So you see El Sublime, my elaberation of my questions only show where
I am leaning, but nnot necessarily where I will fall.

So, now that you have qualified me, what's your take on the question?

"The folk who are here enjoying the dual citizenship
 were forbidden from siding with their own president
 here against the leader of their second 'homeland'".

So we should forbid them to vote, placing us on a par
with the one forbidding siding with the president?

Ok, El Sublime, 

You are right, we should employ every strategy to preserve the safety
and prosperity of "We The People". Bad grammar, but I like the ring.

In a "utopian world", we could all play sunday school and render unto
every man his inalienable right to the persuite of hapiness including
the right to jubilantly shout fire in the theater.  It is a confounded
fool who would prefer to be killed and buried with an unviolated
constitution and unstrained benevolence, than to modulate to match the
times and circumstances.

I myself would much rather survive with the most calculated
curtailment of our Constitution, than OBL's version of the Koran.