Should dual citizen of US/Israel be vice chair of our Federal Reserve Bank?

Israel/Palestine
on 133 Comments
Stanley Fischer

Stanley Fischer

Two weeks back, Forbes and CNBC reported that President Obama plans to nominate Stanley Fischer to be the next vice chairman of the Federal Reserve if the current vice chair, Janet Yellen, is confirmed by the Senate as Fed chairwoman in the new year.

This would be a giant sop for the Israel lobby: Fischer is the former head of the Bank of Israel.

Fischer, a dual-citizen of the U.S. and Israel, served as the head of Israel’s central bank for eight-years before stepping down on June 30 of this year.

Fischer is disliked on the left because of his ruthless neoliberalism, as shown in this documentary about the International Monetary Fund, where he was once an exec. But the dual nationality question is also in play. Matthew Yglesias deemed Fischer extraordinarily well-qualified, but did arch an eyebrow:

This is a bit of a surprising development if only because Fischer didn’t seem to be seriously considered as a contender for the top Fed job. I figured that was either because Fischer wasn’t interested in a government job or because the White House deemed him insufficiently American. If either of those were the case, it would seem to disqualify him for the vice chairmanship too.

Grant Smith pushes the issue, writing at antiwar.com that American and Israeli people have different interests:

Appointing an openly dual Israeli-American citizen into the most important central bank in the world could be a watershed moment.  While the doors of federal government have long swung open for Israel-lobby appointees focusing most—if not all—their energies on advancing the interests of a foreign state, any who were actually Israeli dual citizens have traditionally kept that a closely-guarded secret. Fischer’s long-term boosters, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), likely want to accustom Americans to openly dual citizens circulating between top roles in the U.S. and Israeli governments.  A closer examination of Fischer reveals that average Americans have good reason to oppose his appointment, because his lifelong achievements for Israel have imposed high costs and few benefits to the United States while making peace more difficult to achieve.

You’d never learn this in the New York Times; but in what may have been a preemptive strike, Smith says that after the appointment was rumored, Fischer made it clear that he can be critical of the Israelis. The event was a forum on Israel at NYU Law School where Leon Wieseltier and Fischer and friends talked about the “miracle” of Israeli democracy. From the Jewish Week:

The highly respected former governor of the Bank of Israel, Stanley Fischer, told a New York audience the Netanyahu government is not doing enough to make peace with the Palestinians.

Israel is not seeking peace “to the extent that it should” and that it is “divided between those who want to settle the West Bank and those who seek peace,” Fischer told the forum on “Israel: the View from the Inside Out,” at NYU Law School’s Center on Law and Security, Chemi Shalev reported in Haaretz .

Again, not in the American press, neoconservative Seth Lipsky quips in Haaretz that the Yellen/Fischer double-play combination would put two socialist Zionists (formerly  anyway) at the top of the Federal Reserve.  Yellen is Jewish. I don’t know about her Zionist bona fides, Lipsky fails to establish them.

Stanley Fischer, however, is the real thing. He joined Habonim as a youth in Zambia.

Antiwar.com headlined Smith’s piece, “AIPAC’s Fed Candidate Stanley Fischer on a Warpath Against Iran.” It highlighted Fischer’s role in pushing Iran sanctions at the behest of AIPAC:

As Bank of Israel governor, Stanley Fischer played a central role in coordinating the implementation of AIPAC-generated sanctions against Iran – ostensibly over its nuclear program. Stuart Levey, the head of the U.S. Treasury Department’s division for “Terrorism and Financial Intelligence,” an office created after heavy AIPAC lobbying, met often with Fischer in Israel alongside the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and chiefs of both the Mossad and Shin Bet to explore how to “supplement” UN sanctions and end-run Russian and Chinese opposition.4 The Levey-Fischer strategy was “to work outside the context of the Security Council to engage the private sector and let it know about the risks of doing business with Tehran” particularly against European banks that had only partially drawn back their business dealings with Iran. In 2010, Israel dispatched Fischer to meet with Chinese and Russian “counterparts” in order to financially isolate Iran

And Smith was pointed on the Israel lobby issue–

If Americans were ever polled on it—and they never are—the majority who now object to increasing aid to Israel would also likely object to quasi-governmental and governmental positions being staffed by people who—by citizenship or sheer strength of identity politics—are primarily occupied with advancing Israeli interests rather than those of the United States. It is obvious that the real reason AIPAC and its economic luminaries such as Fischer never substantiate any of the advertised benefits the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” delivers to America in return for all of the costs is simple—there simply aren’t any. As greater numbers of Americans become aware that the entire “special relationship” framework is sustained by nothing more than Israel lobby campaign-finance and propaganda networks, the harder the lobby will have to work… In the very short term, Americans can only fight such undue Israel lobby influence by again—like during the drive to attack Syria—staging a mass action to demand their senators reject Stanley Fischer’s nomination

As someone who believes that dual loyalty can be an issue in the era of the nation-state, I’m with Smith here. I don’t want a citizen of Israel (and a strong supporter of that militant country) in a U.S. policy-making position, and I think libs and lefts could get on board here. There’s been lots of liberal press saying Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth disqualifies him to be president. Why not some focus on the Fischer question?

133 Responses

  1. John Douglas
    December 31, 2013, 1:16 pm

    Citizenship implies loyalty. Dual citizenship therefore implies dual loyalty. Stanley Fischer has chosen to place his loyalty in both the U.S. and Israel. What will he do when their interests collide? At a time when U.S. senators are taking their talking points from Netanyahu against the policies of the leader of the U.S., where one leader seeks war and another peace, the issue of dual loyalty is crucial and needs to be aired.

    • pmb1414
      January 1, 2014, 8:18 am

      Mr. Douglas, your comments are right on the mark. You stated the obvious far better than I could.

      • Krauss
        January 1, 2014, 11:42 am

        Sorry guys but both of you are dead wrong.

        And Phil, sorry, but this post is slightly tinged with paranoia.
        What exactly is Fischer going to do for Israel by being Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Give them good credit swaps? The coordination of sanctions against Iran was a technocratic job. The decision was not made by him, but by Congress.

        There is a context here. Bank of England recently appointed its first non-English governor, Mark Carney. Quite competent, if you judge him by his pronouncements on monetary policy and the Canadian banks did well through the crisis(although to be fair, that is partly a result of the legislation passed after the early 1990s Canadian financial crisis).

        Fisher at least has an American citizenship.
        He is a highly effective economist on monetary policy, which is what this is about. I trust him less on fiscal policy.

        The BoE move to appoint Carney was a watershed move in the realm of central banking. It showed an openess to change and a willingness to recruit the best regardless of nationality. I don’t think it’s a surprise that Obama’s decision comes at the heels of this.

        Krugman, not exactly a raging right-winger, has very high words of praise for Fischer’s tenure at the Bank of Israel. Why shouldn’t Fischer be considered on the merits? There is no case against him there. Only a paranoid attack based on his nationality can suffice and this is what we see here.

        I often comment and lament the influence of the lobby in the political body and in the media. But in this case the opposition to Fischer seems to me to be puerile at best and with an undercurrent of hostility against him because of his Israeli citizenship, as if he was a mole based purely on his nationality. He will advice the US central bank on monetary policy, not advance the cause of Israel.

      • American
        January 1, 2014, 12:39 pm

        ‘Only a paranoid attack based on his nationality can suffice and this is what we see here”..Krauss

        We in the US have 65 years of minipulation and decit by zionist and Israel and solid evidence thereof to be rightly suspicous of Zionist in the US—and particulary in US entities.
        And dont even go to discriminaiton based his nationality or being a Jew–the objection is based on his being a zionist and on the activities he engaged in in the US “for Israel” before he ever went to Israel.
        We dont approve, better safe than sorry, enough said.
        We’d be happy to package them up and send their ‘expertise’ over to your country if you like….would you like that?

      • John Douglas
        January 1, 2014, 2:08 pm

        Krauss: I appreciate your comments, Krauss, but I think you’re wrong. The context you provide is misleading in its narrowness. You ask, why shouldn’t an Israeli citizen have a high policy-making position in the U.S. Federal Government if a Canadian can have such a position in the U.K. Let’s add a little more space to your context, widen it out a bit. Has Canada been pushing the U.K. to go to war in Canada’s interests? Have Canadian leaders sought to undermine the peace policies of the U.K.? Does the Canadian government already have a stranglehold on U.K. politicians? Was the Canadian, Mark Carney, a high official in a government that continues to implement a system of apartheid in many ways worse that the South African system. Has the status among nations of the U.K. suffered immensely for its support for that apartheid system? That’s the relevant context, somewhat broader than yours, Krauss. Finally, Stanley Fischer is not someone who just happens to hold Israeli citizenship, he is ardently pro-Israel. Putting him in this position inserts him into the social and political culture of Washington decision makers, where his influence will be far wider than his specific job’s areas of responsibility.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 5:53 pm

        Sorry guys but both of you are dead wrong.

        And Phil, sorry, but this post is slightly tinged with paranoia.
        What exactly is Fischer going to do for Israel by being Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Give them good credit swaps?

        I’m sorry, but that’s a question that sounds pretty naive after the first (ever) audit of the Fed in US history verified that over $16 trillion was allocated to private corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for “financial assistance” during and after the 2008 fiscal crisis. See The Fed’s $16 Trillion Bailouts Under-Reported link to forbes.com

        If the case of Argentina’s second pending default (which is headed to the US Supreme Court) is any example, those allocations may end up being treated as gifts by the recipients.

      • Denis
        January 2, 2014, 12:44 pm

        Sorry, Kraus, but your analogy is dead wrong.

        It completely breaks down because Carney as a citizen of Canada is also a citizen of the British Commonwealth. His allegiance is to the Queen, for the head of that British Commonwealth is the Queen whether you are a Canuk or a Limey.

        If you want to concoct a counter-argument based on a valid BoE analogy, you’ll have to wait until England appoints, say, a Russian, or a German, or a Frog to head the BoE. Or an Israeli.

        I think the point with the Fischer appointment is that this is what really explains the sudden triggering of the Senate “nuclear option.” It wasn’t Obama failing to get a gay appellate court judge appointed; it was this issue coming down the pike.

      • MRW
        January 2, 2014, 11:12 pm

        Krauss,

        Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Canada’s Head of State is the Queen of England.

        Fischer is a neoclassical macroeconomist. His textbook is full of nonsense. There is no evidence of his monetary policy prowess; he got US dollars to play with in Israel and moved them among bank accounts. And fiscal policy is not the Fed’s business; that’s reserved for Congress by law.

    • Sibiriak
      January 2, 2014, 1:14 am

      John Douglas:

      Dual citizenship therefore implies dual loyalty.

      So does neoliberalism: loyalty to national capitalist elites and loyalty to the transnational capitalist system. I’m far more concerned about Fischer’s neoliberal loyalties than any loyalties to Israel.

  2. Little_Shih_Tzu
    December 31, 2013, 1:16 pm

    Absolutely not.

    However, making the case against him on the basis of his dual citizenship runs into the obvious Lobby problems.

    It’s probably better to just change US law so this country no longer recognizes second-citizenships for US citizens. Easier said than done, though.

    • Hostage
      December 31, 2013, 7:50 pm

      It’s probably better to just change US law so this country no longer recognizes second-citizenships for US citizens.

      That probably would require a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court has noted that the 14th amendment prohibits the States from depriving anyone of their US citizenship. At the same the Court has noted that the Constitution does not delegate that power to the Executive of Legislative branches of the federal government either. Afroyim v. Rusk (No. 456), 1967, was the landmark case involving a dual American-Israeli citizen. The Court held that Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. link to law.cornell.edu

      • Citizen
        January 1, 2014, 10:01 am

        @ Hostage
        Afroyim case reversed 200 years of US law on the subject, including reversal of the last prior SCOTUS directly on point 9 years prior. That case, of course, did not involve Israeli citizenship. The impact of Israel on the nature, the character of the US since JFK was killed and Johnson took over is just HUGE.

      • Denis
        January 2, 2014, 2:44 pm

        @Citizen: The impact of Israel on the nature, the character of the US since JFK was killed and Johnson took over is just HUGE.

        Isn’t that an interesting juxtaposition: JFK’s assassination and the sudden rise in the influence of GoI in US politics. GoI control of Johnson was demonstrably complete by the time of the Liberty, 1967.

        Is it fair to say Afroyim reversed 200 years of US jurisprudence on the issue? It was, essentially, a 14th Amend. case. It was also a 5-4 reversing a 5-4, which is not all that uncommon and hardly indicative of undue Israeli influence. And it was not a dual citizenship case per se. Afroyim got his passport pulled because he voted in an Israeli election.

        The idea that Congress can write laws to destroy individuals’ citizenship is pretty scary to this ex pat. I see Afroyim as correcting a gross error made by USSCt in Perez. And I hope some USSCt will eventually correct a bunch of gross 5-4 errors made since about 1990.

  3. William Burns
    December 31, 2013, 1:21 pm

    The liberal press has been talking about Cruz’s Canadian birth partly because they don’t like Cruz, and partly as a “gotcha” for conservatives claiming that Obama was born in Kenya. They don’t mean that Cruz’s Canadianness disqualifies him from consideration–at least, not seriously. Don’t put any weight on that.

    • American
      December 31, 2013, 3:19 pm

      No, Cruz’s citizenship has bigger problems”

      link to salon.com

      Believe it or not, it looks like Sen. Ted Cruz is still a Canadian citizen. Although it has now been over a month since he promised to renounce his Canadian citizenship – which he obtained by virtue of his birth in Calgary, Alberta – there has been no indication (whether press release, statement or otherwise) announcing that he has followed through on the commitment.

      Cruz’s website is silent on the subject, his official biography doesn’t even mention the word “Canada,” and I received no response to repeated email requests for additional information. My telephone inquiry to Cruz’s press office produced only an email that repeated his statement of future intention, as first issued on Aug. 19: “I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American citizen by birth and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American.”

      While Cruz’s sentiment was surely sincere at the time, it does appear that he is still holding on to both his Canadian citizenship and his Senate seat. So the question must be asked: What is keeping Ted Cruz from finally renouncing his Canadian citizenship?

      Perhaps Cruz simply hasn’t gotten around to it. In fairness, the Canadian government requires more than a simple shout-out before canceling somebody’s citizenship. The aspiring ex-Canadian has to pay a fee of $100 and submit an official “Application to Renounce Canadian Citizenship,” which could be a bother for someone with a busy schedule of Tea Party meetings and lectures for the Heritage Foundation. On the other hand, the renunciation form is pretty simple. There are only 12 questions on the application, and most of them request basic information such as name, address and date of birth, all of which could be handled by a staffer.

      …….

      Cruz reportedly has hired a lawyer to help him renounce his Canada citizenship.
      Why would he do that when all his mother has to do is attach a copy her own birth cert to show she was born in the US and and proof of where she lived in the United States for 10 years prior to his birth and the five of which had to be after she reached the age of 14 ? Even if she had lost her birth cert or cant remember where she or her family lived during the required years any investigator could put it together from public records of schools, employments, driver licenses, tax records, etc..
      You dont need a lawyer for that.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 1, 2014, 11:06 am

        Why would he do that when all his mother has to do is attach a copy her own birth cert to show she was born in the US and and proof of where she lived in the United States for 10 years prior to his birth and the five of which had to be after she reached the age of 14 ?

        your link is from sept. he’s since hired a lawyer to renounce his canadian citizenship. he doesn’t have to do it but he says “Serving as a U.S. senator, I think it’s appropriate that I be only an American,” he said. he’s already a US citizen.

        link to politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

      • American
        January 1, 2014, 12:10 pm

        The Cruz’s have told so many lies about themselves and their background that only they know the truth—but a enterprizing investigator could find out no doubt..

        Cruz’s father was exposed as having lied about his background in Cuba, he claimed to have been in the Cuban revolution fighting for Castro when he was 14…….but he wasnt even in Cuba during the revolution. He further claims he got to America by bribing Batista friend to give him a visa to attend college in the US.
        His story is he stayed here until his green card expired and then married his American citizen wife and they both went to Canada–where he became a Canadian citizen. He didnt apply for US citizenship untill 2005.

        link to cuba54blog.wordpress.com

        Immigrant con artist wanting to get in on the biggest circus on earth—US politics.

      • American
        January 1, 2014, 1:41 pm

        your link from sept..annie

        Cruz’s situtiation is still exactly the same as it was in Sept according to all news reports on this as of three days ago.
        It was announced in Sept that he hired lawyers.
        My point or question was ‘why’ does he need lawyers…..the Canadian form is simple and straightforward.
        Where he appears to be having a hang up and problem is with Section 5 of the form which requires he prove he is a US citizen or ‘entitled’ to be a US citizen so he wont be a ‘stateless’ person. Canada wont let people renounce their Canadian citizenship if it then makes them legally ‘stateless’.

        Here is what is required for him to prove he is indeed or entitled to be a US citizen and wont be a stateless person:

        Under the nationality law in effect in December 1970 (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, part of Title 8 of the U.S. Code), in order for Ted Cruz’s mother to automatically confer citizenship on him at birth, these requirements need to have been met:

        For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
        The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
        One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
        The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
        A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.”

        So all Cruz has to do to satisfy Section 5 of the Canadian form to renounce is attach his mothers birth certificate and proof of her residence in the US for the required time.

        So why hasnt he done that? –its very simple to attach a copy of his mothers birth cert and copies of school or college records to prove her residence for the required times. Its been 4 months since his hiring of lawyers to help him and they havent been able to fill out the form and send it to Canada?
        That tells me they ran into a problem somewhere with the legal requirements that would ‘entitle’ him to be a US citizen by virtue of his mother.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 5:33 am

        That tells me they ran into a problem somewhere with the legal requirements that would ‘entitle’ him to be a US citizen by virtue of his mother.

        Not necessarily. Eleanor Darragh, Ted Cruz’s mother, was born and raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so she more than likely meets the residency requirements.

        Cruz left Canada when he was 4. I don’t know of very many grown-up people who were born to servicemen and women overseas who give a great deal of thought to the fact or bother to pay income taxes to another country they haven’t seen since their preschool years, and have no on-going connection to. But I’ll bet if they were a Harvard law school graduate and filed to renounce their citizenship to run for President of the USA, the question just might come up;-)

        See 6 must-know tax facts for Canadians earning abroad “Residents of Canada have to pay tax on their worldwide income to Canada no matter where they earn it,” says Georgina Tollstam, an accountant and Partner with KPMG. link to cbc.ca

      • Denis
        January 2, 2014, 9:45 pm

        Hostage — not at all clear on where you are going on the tax angle. Are you saying Cruz has to pay Canadian tax??? I don’t think so.

        A kid leaving Canada at 4 and living in the US thereafter is not a resident of Canada; therefore, no Canadian tax is payable on income earned in the US.

        A citizen of Canada who is not a resident of Canada is treated no differently from other non-residents — that’s my understanding. If you’re not a resident of Canada, you don’t even file a return.

        The US forces non-resident US citizens to file a return and a Form 555 to disclose non-US income merely b/c they are US citizens. I don’t believe other countries do that. If you don’t live in Canada and don’t earn income there, you aren’t taxed by Canada, even if you are a Canadian citizen.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 11:09 pm

        Hostage — not at all clear on where you are going on the tax angle. Are you saying Cruz has to pay Canadian tax??? I don’t think so.

        You are undoubtedly correct.

      • Walid
        January 3, 2014, 12:12 am

        “If you don’t live in Canada and don’t earn income there, you aren’t taxed by Canada, even if you are a Canadian citizen.” (Denis)

        Hostage is right, Denis, worldwide income in excess of $69,500 is taxable in Canada. Same applies for Americans that are taxable on their worldwide income is in excess of $97,000. I believe that there are some exceptions in instances where Canada has reciprocal tax agreements and treaties with certain countries to avoid double taxation on individuals and there is surely one between the US and Canada..

    • Hostage
      December 31, 2013, 8:10 pm

      The US has hundreds of armed forces installations and State Department embassies overseas where the Congress has authorized the permanent assignment of civilian and military personnel to long term duties and authorizes them to be accompanied by their families. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who have had children that were born during those accompanied government tours overseas.

      There’s a snowball’s chance in hell that the Supreme Court will uphold an interpretation that says the government can order you to do something that renders your family members ineligible for public office. The fact is that these people are natural born citizens who do not get “naturalized” when their parents rotate back to assignments in the US.

      • Ellen
        January 1, 2014, 6:59 am

        McCain was born in Panama in such a facility. This did not render him ineligible to run for POTUS. Cruze’s family was not stationed in Canada and I believe his Mother is Canadian. He was born in Canada as a Canadian and was naturalized later.

        This is all a legal technically and perhaps an anachronism, but is still the law. Congress can change it if they want.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 9:42 am

        Cruze’s family was not stationed in Canada and I believe his Mother is Canadian. He was born in Canada as a Canadian and was naturalized later.

        I didn’t say his family was stationed in Canada, but the same law applies. His Canadian birth certificate shows his mother’s place of birth as Wilmington Delaware U.S.A and all the reports I’ve seen say “Born in Canada to an American mother, Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen.”

        “Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen, said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.

      • Citizen
        January 1, 2014, 10:04 am

        @ Hostage, I read something a few days ago, I don’t remember where, that Cruz has or is about to apply for US citizenship. Maybe that really meant he just needed to formalize his US citizenship for the record?

      • David Doppler
        January 1, 2014, 1:42 pm

        Hostage, the US Constitution is pretty clear on this particular set of rules:

        “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

        McCain got the GOP nomination, but no court ruled on his eligibility. If, as reported, Congress passed a law saying that children of US service-persons born over-seas during such service count as “natural born,” I think it highly likely the Supreme Court would agree, if someone in McCain’s situation made it through to inauguration, sworn in by the Chief Justice, and someone challenged it, or a law signed by him, in a case or controversy in the federal courts. But it would be a novel question. For Cruz, as a legal question, I don’t think he qualifies under either the constitution or the service-person-rule Congressional gloss. That would also be a novel question, and it would take an “activist” court to substitute its judgment, or the judgment of the voters, for the explicit words of the document they’ve taken an oath to uphold. Or perhaps the Chief Justice would take some sort of novel action before agreeing to swear him in.

        But the argument that he qualifies because his mother was a natural born American citizen doesn’t cut it.

        Thankfully, Ted Cruz will never win the popular election of President of the US. If he gets the nomination, it will be clear sailing for the Dem.

      • Ellen
        January 1, 2014, 2:37 pm

        Hostage, thanks for the clarification. We are getting into minutiae here, but if Cruze’s mother was a US citizen and carried a US passport and gave birth to children in Canada, that does not make her children automatic citizens but instead entitled to US citizenship.

        most importantly his birth would have needed to be reported to the Embassy, then they issue a birth certificate and report of an overseas birth. With that his mother ( or he later as an adult) could apply for a US passport. At least that is how it worked with my children. It was an administrative process of applying for citizenship and not automatic as they were born out of country and off US facilities.

        Did Cruze or his family ever do that?

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 4:26 pm

        Hostage, the US Constitution is pretty clear on this particular set of rules

        In fact, there was no definition at the time for the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause and it is still the subject of much debate. According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute: Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” One may also be a “natural born Citizen” if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents. link to law.cornell.edu

        In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves never had been citizens for the purposes of Article III of the Constitution, which governs the federal courts. People born on US soil didn’t automatically acquire US citizenship until after the 14th amendment was adopted.

        McCain got the GOP nomination, but no court ruled on his eligibility. But it would be a novel question.

        The courts didn’t have to rule on it. Both of his parents were US citizens and he was born on US soil in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. The Canal Zone had a US Governor and was included in the 1910, 1920, and 1930 U.S. federal censuses. It was subject to the jurisdiction of a US District Court for the District of the Canal Zone in accordance with a series of laws and executive orders adopted by the Congress and the President, e.g. See Executive Order 7676 – THE CANAL ZONE JUDICIARY which cites the Canal Zone Code, approved June 19, 1934 (48 Stat. 1122). That Statute and the Executive order were still in effect when McCain was born there. link to presidency.ucsb.edu

        For Cruz, as a legal question, I don’t think he qualifies under either the constitution or the service-person-rule Congressional gloss

        It isn’t a service-person gloss. It is black letter law that applies to anyone and is contained in 8 USC § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. link to law.cornell.edu

      • Ellen
        January 1, 2014, 6:11 pm

        Hostage, thanks for all the info on this. Your link to Cornell law explains,

        (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

        Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido was not a US citizen at the time of Ted’s birth. Unless Ted’s mother went through the hoops (as explained above) Ted was not automatically a US citizen, just as my children were not automatic US citizens.

        Now I wonder if Cruz is a U.S. citizen at all.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 6:17 pm

        We are getting into minutiae here, but if Cruze’s mother was a US citizen and carried a US passport and gave birth to children in Canada, that does not make her children automatic citizens but instead entitled to US citizenship.

        Correction: If one or more of his parents satisfy any of the requirements in 8 USC § 1401, then he is a “National and citizen of United States at birth” by operation of that law. link to law.cornell.edu

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 7:05 pm

        Hostage, thanks for all the info on this. Your link to Cornell law explains,

        (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions

        No that’s only one of the ways a person can qualify as a national and citizen of the United States at birth:
        (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

        (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: . . . & etc.

        The latter even includes time served in the US military or working for the US government anywhere in the world.

      • American
        January 2, 2014, 11:36 pm

        Hostage says:
        January 2, 2014 at 5:33 am
        That tells me they ran into a problem somewhere with the legal requirements that would ‘entitle’ him to be a US citizen by virtue of his mother.

        Not necessarily. Eleanor Darragh, Ted Cruz’s mother, was born and raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so she more than likely meets the residency requirements.”’

        So what is the hold up? This has been going for a year, he’s had lawyers on it for 4 or 5 months.
        If there is no problem or question then what is the problem….why the stall.

      • Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 10:25 am

        So what is the hold up? This has been going for a year, he’s had lawyers on it for 4 or 5 months. . . . If there is no problem or question then what is the problem….why the stall.

        First things first. He hasn’t even filed a FEC Form 2 “Statement of Candidacy” to register as a 2016 presidential candidate yet. link to fec.gov

        The Constitution’s silent about any urgent need for candidates to renounce their dual citizenship. Maybe his lawyers have advised him to leave well enough alone and get his feet wet if he ever actually decides to cross the Rubicon and run for President.

      • American
        January 3, 2014, 1:17 pm

        ”First things first. He hasn’t even filed a FEC Form 2 “Statement of Candidacy” to register as a 2016 presidential candidate yet.”…Hostage

        Since the question on his citizenship was raised filing a Statement of Candidacy for some future presidential run isnt really the question on why he hasnt done it yet—-at issue is he even legal as a US senator under dual citizenship. Further, it is most “logical” to go ahead and clear up his citizenship status ‘before’ he announces any candidacy.
        If he doesnt do this ‘in advance’ of any candidacy it will remain unresolved —-and unless he’s an idiot he knows this will be an issue and an attack point for any future opponents.
        So to me it still makes no sense that he hasnt attended to this and put it to rest…unless he has some problems with it.

      • Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 11:16 pm

        Since the question on his citizenship was raised filing a Statement of Candidacy for some future presidential run isnt really the question on why he hasnt done it yet—-at issue is he even legal as a US senator under dual citizenship.

        There’s no Constitutional prohibition against naturalized Senators or ones with dual citizenship. “As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.” link to senate.gov

      • eljay
        January 3, 2014, 10:17 am

        >> Denis: If you don’t live in Canada and don’t earn income there, you aren’t taxed by Canada, even if you are a Canadian citizen.
        >> Walid: Hostage is right, Denis, worldwide income in excess of $69,500 is taxable in Canada.

        According to the Canada Revenue Agency, if you are a Canadian non-resident for tax purposes, you only pay Canadian income tax on income you receive from sources in Canada. You are not taxed on sources of income earned elsewhere in the world.

  4. Woody Tanaka
    December 31, 2013, 1:59 pm

    This is merely a symptom. The problem is the notion of dual citizenship itself. I think that it should be abolished, and anyone should be stripped of their US citizenship the second they apply for foreign citizenship (regardless of whether they get it or not) and any alien who fails to divest themselves of the other state’s citizenship upon naturalization should not only be stripped of their US citizenship, but immediately deported and in all cases those people should be barred from entering the US ever. Until that time, anyone who is a dual citizen cannot be trusted at any level in the government.

    • Djinn
      December 31, 2013, 9:01 pm

      What the hell for? If someone really has “dual loyalty” then that isn’t going to go away just because you strip them of a piece of paper?

      What makes you think a citizen is necessarily loyal to the political system in a country they’re a citizen of?

      • Citizen
        January 1, 2014, 10:07 am

        @ Djinn
        Obviously, one’s official status as a citizen carries with it an array of rights and duties. One analogy is the government’s recognition of marriage status.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 1, 2014, 10:30 am

        I think that a state is a communal activity and that each member is entitled to know that the others have no current rights in any other states, that they are all in it together. Will it stop people from having dual loyalties? No. But it may prevent them from exercising dual loyalties. At the very least it would an important warning against such dual loyalties.

  5. American
    December 31, 2013, 2:07 pm

    ”Should dual citizen of US/Israel be vice chair of our Federal Reserve Bank?”

    No.
    A zionist, which is what Fisher has always been first and foremost, will always seek ways to help Israel — as was his stated reason for moving from the US to Israel to head their banking system—- thru whatever US position he occupies.
    Ask why he is now leaving Israel and wants to be a US Fed head.
    It wont be because he wants to help the US.

  6. Obsidian
    December 31, 2013, 2:13 pm

    Who cares whether a cat is black or red so long as it catches mice?

    Phil cares.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 31, 2013, 2:53 pm

      yeah, who cares. we should just all become dual citizens, heck why not. and why not just make israel the 51st state. we could set up some system whereby every israeli jew could have all the privileges of being US citizens but for US citizens our israeli citizenship would merely be symbolic, somewhat like that visa exchange aipac’s congress representatives were trying to push thru.

      and we could merge the flags too, well, just the american one. make it 1/2 star of david. or 3/4 with just a corner referencing our old flag, which is so passe anyway. and we could also make it so anyone who got a job with the feds was required to sign a zionist oath. actually that would solve the whole dual citizen thing. just limit it to those who wanted to work for the feds in any capacity. or executive/judicial or legislative branches.

      hmm, it may seem like a lot of consider, but we should make something formal if that’s how the system is going to work. clarity, why not.

      • Little_Shih_Tzu
        December 31, 2013, 3:10 pm

        Actually, for someone with a little talent and a lot of imagination, here’s a Swift-like idea: American gentiles convert en masse to Judaism, petition to enter Israel under the Law of Return [assuming that the legitimacy of our conversions is NOT challenged by the Rabinical authorities od Israel – a really big IF] and overthrow via legal/legislative means all the discriminatory laws of Israel which injure the gentile population of the Jewish state. While we’re at it, we divenst Israel of the West Bank and the Golan, abolish the Mossad, open the IDF archives re the USS Liberty, sign the NPT and place Dimona under an int’l inspection regime… The list can go on and on, who here has the talent for this?

        Phil, here’s your next competative essay to throw open to the readership.

      • quercus
        January 1, 2014, 10:25 am

        @Little_Shih_Tzu. I think you have an excellent idea, there. In fact, I’ve always thought that is what the Palestinians should do — convert to Judaism en masse.

      • Citizen
        December 31, 2013, 6:41 pm

        @Annie Robbins

        Israel doesn’t want to be the 51st state, which only have 2 senators. As it is, Israel has 100 US Senators.

        Yellen will become the 5th consecutive Jewish Fed Chair over the past 43 years (discounting William Miller who only served 18 months before being suddenly replaced (1978-79). At 2% of the US population, what are the odds for that? More or less than the odds you will get hit by a lightening bolt?

        And now a dual citizen honcho Israeli banker, a fully credentialed Jewish Zionist war monger hot to cripple Iran by even more economic sanctions followed by war should be VP of the US Fed?

      • pmb1414
        January 1, 2014, 9:25 am

        OOPS! I started to wonder why the Fed Chairmanship is always Jewish. Banish the thought~ that would make me an anti-Semite!

      • Citizen
        January 1, 2014, 10:10 am

        @ pmb1414
        “Jewish geography” mapped out by a Gentile is treated by the PTB as anti-semitism unless it’s enlisted in praise of all Jewish people.

    • Citizen
      December 31, 2013, 7:20 pm

      @Obsidian
      I didn’t know Phil had a problem with mice. If not, why would he care about catching mice? Most people I know now and have known who have cats don’t view them as simply a tool to catch mice. Where do you live?

      • Obsidian
        December 31, 2013, 11:47 pm

        @Citizen

        link to thinkexist.com

        I live in a happier world than you.

      • Citizen
        January 1, 2014, 10:14 am

        @ Obsidian
        My world, unlike yours, is not invested with mice, so I don’t need a living tool to kill any of them. Or are you just saying you like to kill living creatures?

    • ritzl
      December 31, 2013, 7:27 pm

      That’s the point, Obsidian. Does he in fact “catch mice?”

      If you read the Smith article, Fisher has a long history of representing Israel’s financial and political interests, capped by his stint as Israel’s top banker for the past 8 years. Is that a good indicator of his willingness to represent what’s best for the US banking system, particularly as implemented for downstream US domestic users (i.e. the little people)? I think not.

      His history suggests that he will use the US banking system to benefit Israel, not exclusively, or even principally, the US.

      Then there’s the question of the failing status of Israel’s central bank (which was one explanation of why Summers declined the job). Is Fisher even competent?

      I hope somebody/anybody just asks those questions in his confirmation hearing. I think the answers at least need to be part of the record, if not discussed in depth.

      • Obsidian
        January 1, 2014, 6:30 am

        Israel’s central bank is failing? Says who?
        Sumner’s decline is connected to Israel’s failing central bank? Says who?

      • ritzl
        January 1, 2014, 8:10 am

        Sorry, not the central bank. The economy. But per Annie (Haaretz and Bloomberg) there are “issues” at the central bank which caused a series of candidates to decline the governor position. Something’s amiss there (Israel, the bank), but you’re right, not failing.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        The questions remain valid, imo. I’d sure like to know why Haaretz described the Israeli Finance Ministry as “facing collapse” and Fischer’s role in that assessment, before he gets confirmed here.

    • Hostage
      December 31, 2013, 11:48 pm

      Who cares whether a cat is black or red so long as it catches mice?

      IDF submarine fleet bans dual citizenship
      Candidates for prestigious unit now required to renounce foreign citizenship; officer: This is absurd
      link to ynetnews.com

      • Obsidian
        January 1, 2014, 5:39 am

        On it’s face, it’s absurd.

        Than again, I wouldn’t put being a bank chairman on par with being a crewman on a nuclear submarine.

      • Citizen
        January 1, 2014, 10:18 am

        @ Obsidian
        The point you miss is that Israel doesn’t allow dual citizens in key areas of governance, such as a VP of a key Israeli bank or a crewman on a German-made and Israeli nuclear armed Dolphin sub flying the Israeli flag.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 1, 2014, 10:45 am

        i think oren had to give up his US citizenship to become ambassador too.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 5:05 pm

        The point you miss is that Israel doesn’t allow dual citizens in key areas of governance, such as a VP of a key Israeli bank

        It’s worth pointing out Prime Minister Rabin, who had served as Israel’s Ambassador to the US, had to step down as Prime Minister because he and his wife had simply maintained some banking accounts in Washington D.C.

        The fact that his wife had a balance of $10,000 in a US bank was illegal and considered scandalous. See: Rabin Resigns Following Probe into Illegal Bank Accounts Held by Him and His Wife in Washington link to jta.org

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 4:45 pm

        i think oren had to give up his US citizenship to become ambassador too.

        I mentioned that and the old reports that Netanyahu also had to give-up his dual citizenship as a condition to holding elected office in Israel. link to mondoweiss.net

    • ziusudra
      January 1, 2014, 3:16 am

      Greetings Annie Robbins,
      Fischer…. made it clear, I ‘can’ be critical of the Israelis……
      The Romans based their grammar of Modal Verbs on ‘Moods’.
      Can, could, should, would, may, must etc decide what mood mr. Fischer will be in when criticism is called upon. Isn’t he dangerous for both parties?
      ziusudra
      PS What would Fischer do with full verbs like To Do & To Say?
      If to do were as easy as to say, poor houses would become princely mansions!

  7. Rusty Pipes
    December 31, 2013, 6:22 pm

    A higher-level government employee should not be a dual citizen of America and any other country — including Israel.

    • Citizen
      December 31, 2013, 7:03 pm

      In 1967, 200 years of US law and legislation governing dual citizenship went out the window when SCOTUS decided Afroyim v Rusk; the case involved US and Israeli citizenship, and it reversed a SCOTUS decision 9 years earlier; that case did not involve Israel citizenship. Do the math.

    • Keith
      January 1, 2014, 12:32 pm

      RUSTY PIPES- “A higher-level government employee should not be a dual citizen of America and any other country — including Israel.”

      Alas, the Federal Reserve is not part of the US government, even though the President appoints the chairman and the vice-chairman. In a monumental blunder, the congress delegated its money creation power to these private bankers. While a central bank is necessary, it should be located within the US Treasury, the whole banking system run as a public utility. Many, if not most, of our serious problems stem from our dysfunctional financial system which is based upon unpayable debt.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 6:09 pm

        Alas, the Federal Reserve is not part of the US government, even though the President appoints the chairman and the vice-chairman.

        But the Board of Governors are part of the US government. They are nominated by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, they are required to take an oath of office and can be impeached, their salary is set by the Congress, paid by direct assessments, and they are prohibited by law from holding any office, position, or employment in any member bank during their terms. 12 USC Chapter 3, Subchapter II – BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM link to law.cornell.edu

      • Keith
        January 1, 2014, 9:06 pm

        HOSTAGE- “But the Board of Governors are part of the US government.”

        Well yes and no. The Federal Reserve Banks are private banks, while the Board of Governors are an independent federal agency which has quasi-governmental authority while operating independently. They create money on their computer keyboards which they then loan to the US government by buying US Treasuries. They are the ones who determine monetary policy independent of Presidential or Congressional input. Arguably, Alan Greenspan helped elect Bill Clinton by raising interest rates and tanking the economy just prior to the election. But yes, if there was a rule or policy against a dual national on the Board of Governors, Fischer wouldn’t be eligible.

        “As an independent federal government agency,[5] the Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 8:58 am

        Well yes and no. The Federal Reserve Banks are private banks, while the Board of Governors are an independent federal agency which has quasi-governmental authority while operating independently. the Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and

        The Board of Governors is simply one of many examples of a fee-funded government program run by officials of our federal government. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directs the Board to collect assessment fees equal to the expenses it estimates are necessary or appropriate to supervise and regulate bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies. Any number of programs in the Treasury, Education, Interior, Health, Housing and Urban Development, and State Departments are funded in exactly the same way. link to federalreserve.gov

        The salaries of the Fed governors are set by the Congress. Those, and the costs for their staff, facilities, and supervision are paid for from direct “assessments” they levy on the banks through statutory rule making power conferred on them by the Congress.

        The Federal Reserve Board is a statutory federal agency. They cannot be employed by the member banks. They set US government monetary policy. They take an oath of office and are no more independent from the Congress than the Judiciary or Executive. On at least one occasion the House entertained impeachment resolutions for Fed Chairman Volker and the entire Board of Governors. H.R. Res. 101 and H.R. Res. 102 (1985).

        the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

        Judge’s are appointed for life and Senator’s terms span multiple Presidential terms too.

      • Keith
        January 2, 2014, 3:42 pm

        HOSTAGE- “The Board of Governors is simply one of many examples of a fee-funded government program run by officials of our federal government.”

        The Board of Governors are appointed from the private sector, usually having been deeply involved/enmeshed in the financial institutions, and establish monetary policy in technocratic isolation. I don’t consider them “officials of our federal government.” They are, in effect, representatives of the financial system to whom governmental authority has been delegated, just as money creation has been delegated to the private sector. That they cannot be concurrently employed by the member banks is a minor concession to propriety.

        Hostage says: “They take an oath of office and are no more independent from the Congress than the Judiciary or Executive.”

        The reality: “Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views.”
        link to federalreserve.gov

        As for their oath of office, I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on that. They are appointed from the private sector to set monetary policy and they do.

        Hostage says: “The salaries of the Fed governors are set by the Congress.”

        Yes, an absolutely minimum requirement to avoid overt thievery. However, a board member who serves Wall Street faithfully can probably count on some sort of deferred compensation. Alan Greenspan, who primarily served the interests of The Street, seems to be doing quite well in retirement.

        “People With Money reports on Wednesday (January 1) that Greenspan is the highest-paid economist in the world, pulling in an astonishing $58 million between December 2012 and December 2013, a nearly $30 million lead over his closest competition….
        The American economist has an estimated net worth of $185 million.”
        link to en.mediamass.net

        Hostage says: “On at least one occasion the House entertained impeachment resolutions for Fed Chairman Volker and the entire Board of Governors. H.R. Res. 101 and H.R. Res. 102 (1985).”

        Why did they do that? What came of it? Did it have anything to do with the consequences of the “Volker shock?” Basically, Fed Chairman Volker restricted the money supply allowing the Federal base rate to rise from an average of 8% in 1978 to over 19% at the beginning of 1981, not consistently returning to single digits until after 1984. (p81, “American Empire and the Political Economy of Global Finance,” Leo Panich and Martijn Konings, ed). The net effect of this was to both cause a recession (goodbye Carter) and to establish American financial hegemony. “Here the reports indicate that the Fed’s centrality and power were becoming increasingly clear, that the Volker shock had in fact worked to the advantage of the American empire.” (p82, Panich and Konings)

        Does this sound like the work of some mere governmental regulatory agency? Volker acted independently to cause a restructuring of the entire global financial system. If that isn’t power, then the word has no meaning. Was he impeached? You tell me. Did Wall Street and the empire approve? I would imagine so.

        What I have been trying to do in my short comments on the financial system is to call attention to the fact that our financial system is a private, debt based system. Congress has delegated money creation to the private banks and system governance to private sector appointees who demonstrably favor the financial institutions over the real economy and the public welfare. The financial system is an absolute mess where financialization has replaced real economic activity as the primary source of profit seeking, and neo-liberalism is ultimately leading to massive debt servitude and a form of neo-feudalism. Yet, you seem determined to downplay all of this, to act as if the Congress and/or the Executive have things under control. I wonder why?

      • Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 11:10 am

        The Board of Governors are appointed from the private sector, usually having been deeply involved/enmeshed in the financial institutions, and establish monetary policy in technocratic isolation.

        Many political appointees do come from the private sector and are involved in the industries or areas they end up governing or doing oversight on.

        I don’t consider them “officials of our federal government.”

        They are required to take an oath of office to serve in a federal statutory agency and they can be impeached like any other officials of our federal government. You’ve just bought-in to the propaganda.

  8. Keith
    December 31, 2013, 6:22 pm

    The fact that Obama is even considering nominating this militant Israeli Zionist anti-Iranian neoliberal to be vice chairman of the Federal Reserve says volumes about Obama. We don’t already have too many staunch pro-Israel Zionists in the US and global power structure? Neoliberalism hasn’t caused enough economic damage? Zionist banksters running the global financial system? A further indication that dark times lie ahead.

  9. biorabbi
    December 31, 2013, 6:55 pm

    Who knew all of the progressives at Mondoweiss were really secret Lindberg’ American firsters. Will Phil join the Bund next?

    • Citizen
      December 31, 2013, 7:29 pm

      @ biorabbi
      No, we Americans here at Mondoweiss are not Israel firsters. Are Israelis American Firsters?

      Also, no, because I think the Jewish Bund is extinct. Unless you mean this:
      “There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America.” Chaim Weizmann, Zionist Leader, on August 29, 1897, at the First Zionist Congress at Basle, Switzerland.

      If so, answer again is No.

      • puppies
        December 31, 2013, 9:02 pm

        The guy is ignorant to the point of not knowing about the Bund that was fighting the Nazis instead of collaborating and fleeing like the Zionist cowards.
        And such an ignoramus is a “rabbi”? Yeah, sure.

      • jon s
        January 2, 2014, 11:11 am

        Citizen, could you provide a reference for that quote from Weizmann? Especially because he didn’t attend the First Zionist Congress.

      • talknic
        January 2, 2014, 12:07 pm

        @jon s “Citizen, could you provide a reference for that quote from Weizmann?”

        link to books.google.com.au

        “Especially because he didn’t attend the First Zionist Congress”

        Quite, never the less link to google.com.au

      • jon s
        January 2, 2014, 12:29 pm

        Great, talknic, the book is from a neo-Nazi publisher.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 7:57 pm

        Great, talknic, the book is from a neo-Nazi publisher.

        I’ve pointed out in the past that the Zionists Organization had a formal business partnership with the real Nazis of the Third Reich and that Pinsker, Herzl, Ruppin, and Jabotinsky wrote racist tracts and pamphlets. They held the same bigoted views regarding the immiscibility of the races, the mystical connection between blood and soil, and the need of racially inferior Diaspora Jews for genetic improvement through Eugenics programs they intended to carry-out in Palestine.

        The quote in question has also appeared on the http://www.nizkor.org Weizmann discussion page, ever since 1997. It was treated as authentic and defended by a group who obviously aren’t neo-Nazis and are familiar with Zionist doctrines.

        The problem is that Zionists were criticized by the Jewish community and others, from the very outset of the movement over the issues of dual loyalty and racism. They have never adequately addressed why its wrong for neo-Nazis to hold these views, but okay for their own leadership to espouse and continue to preach them?

        Jonathan D. Sarna noted:

        Before Brandeis, Zionism had faced substantial opposition from those who claimed that it was unAmerican. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, for example, had declared in 1898 that “We are unalterably opposed to political Zionism … America is our Zion … The mission of Israel is spiritual, not political.”

        See the Brandies Review 11.3, winter 1992 link to brandeis.edu

        The Reform Movement’s Pittsburgh Platform (November 1885) declared:

        “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community.”

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      • talknic
        January 4, 2014, 4:51 am

        @ jon s” the book is from a neo-Nazi publisher”

        Wal-Mart published the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion too. It doesn’t make them or Liberty Bell Publications neo-Nazi publishers

        @ jon s“So it looks like the quote is a fabrication”

        Your appetite for denial is boundless. I did give a secondary link to copious sources

        “Incidentally, it wouldn’t have been a huge surprise if Weizmann had said some such thing. The sentiment is consistent with original Zionist thought”

        Uh huh.

      • Shmuel
        January 4, 2014, 5:04 am

        Wal-Mart published the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion too. It doesn’t make them or Liberty Bell Publications neo-Nazi publishers

        Liberty Bell Publications is not Wal-Mart: link to bookdunia.com

      • talknic
        January 4, 2014, 6:50 am

        Shmuel “Liberty Bell Publications is not Wal-Mart..”

        Gracias …. I learn something very day

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 2:16 pm

        could you provide a reference for that quote from Weizmann? Especially because he didn’t attend the First Zionist Congress.

        It appears all over the Internet, without any attribution beyond “the First Zionist Congress” or with none at all, and is almost non-existent in Zionist sources. There is a discussion thread from the 1997 Shofar FTP Archive that treats it as genuine @ link to nizkor.org

        But it appears to have originated with the author, William Gayley Simpson. He appears to have been a first rate scholar, but a racist. He attended Union Theological Seminary and graduated magna cum laude in 1915. He served as an associate director of the forerunner of the ACLU, and became an ardent disciple of Eugenics, Friedrich Nietzsche, and an opponent of Judaism, “The Jewish Heresy”(Christianity), Jews, and Negroes, as such:

        And then, on August 29, 1897, at the First Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland, Chaim Weizmann, later to become the first President of Israel, declared:“There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America.”136

        *136 Gothic Ripples, No. 95, Dec. 12, 1952, p. 2.

        — cite by William Gayley Simpson,”Which Way Western Man?”
        * link to amazon.com
        * link to wwwm.biz.tc

        The quote also appears in Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who, which may help explain why it has become popular and spread far and wide to so many innocuous sites on the web.

      • jon s
        January 2, 2014, 2:56 pm

        So it looks like the quote is a fabrication.
        Incidentally, it wouldn’t have been a huge surprise if Weizmann had said some such thing. The sentiment is consistent with original Zionist thought.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 8:15 pm

        So it looks like the quote is a fabrication.
        Incidentally, it wouldn’t have been a huge surprise if Weizmann had said some such thing. The sentiment is consistent with original Zionist thought.

        I don’t think it would have gone unnoticed, what with the philosophical differences between Brandies and Weizmann over the desirability of societal assimilation in the USA and dual loyalty.

      • LeaNder
        January 4, 2014, 11:37 am

        Thanks interesting links, Hostage. Simpson’s sources: My security software reported something with the link.

        136. Gothic Ripples, No. 95, Dec. 12, 1952, p. 2. For a Manifesto to the same effect issued by the World Jewish Fellowship in 1935, see A.N. Field—All These Things, Omni, 1963, p. 217. A few weeks later, in its issue for March 8, 1935, the same journal urged “amendment of the British libel laws to make expression of anti-Semite opinion a criminal offense.” That is, they aimed to make it a penal offense to expose Jewish disloyalty even if it amounted to treason!

        Gothic Ripples is apparently a British post war neo-fascist publication, and A. N. Field even made in into Wikipedia:

        While working as a journalist and serving in the navy, Field became involved in right wing politics. In 1909 he published The Citizen, an early far right publication which upheld motherhood, eugenics and monetary reform, and opposed “Maori Obstructionism” for seven years, 1912-1919. After that period, he also became involved with “The Britons”, a group that specialised in publishing New Zealand editions of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, (of questionable authorship, but of contextual significance) and himself published a New Zealand edition.

        It may be interesting to look into the specific introductions of the Protocols in Britain and the New Zealand version. Maybe that is the ultimate source.

    • Citizen
      January 1, 2014, 10:23 am

      @ biorabbi
      If you mean the German-American Bund, as soon as the US went to war with Germany, nearly all of them immediately enlisted in the US armed forces. If the US went to war with Israel, how many AIPAC types would enlist to fight Zionist Israel?

    • quercus
      January 1, 2014, 10:36 am

      @biorabbi. I will say, unequivocally and unapologetically that I do indeed believe the interests of the American citizenry and their nation should be considered first and foremost and not those of a sovereign nation (or is Israel a sovereign nation?) — nothing secret about that. And I am not in the least concerned about your reference to Lindberg, which is a not so cleverly disguised accusation of being anti-Jewish.

      While I shouldn’t have to explain this, I will given an acknowledgement of the possibility that you are far too obtuse to understand — wanting our representatives in government to consider what is best for this country and citizens, does in no way imply the acceptance of aggression by this nation to secure its interests at the expense of another country. It is asking that when our interests and those of another nation conflict, then the interests of this nation should be considered first. This is why the Zionists have always wanted to convince us that our interests and theirs are the same. They are not.

  10. Hostage
    December 31, 2013, 7:37 pm

    It’s a bit surprising to hear that anyone who accepted an appointment from a foreign head of state and whose salary was set by the Knesset still has dual citizenship in the first place. After all, we’ve been advised that Netanyahu and Oren had to renounce their US citizenship to take their jobs.

    There’s no question that both countries have policies in place that require people with divided loyalties to be excluded from sensitive positions. Israel has banned members with dual citizenship from its submarine fleet and the US frequently withholds security clearances from dual citizens who demonstrate divided loyalties.
    * IDF submarine fleet bans dual citizenship
    link to ynetnews.com
    * Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 03-10979
    link to dod.mil

    • Citizen
      January 1, 2014, 10:45 am

      @ Hostage
      The Israeli lesson is that where dual US-Israeli citizenship is problematic in key sensitive Israeli slots, get rid of it to get rid of all the power that comes with having American citizenship. But where holding such dual citizenship may well benefit Israel in sensitive areas, keep Israeli citizenship to retain all the power that comes with having Israeli citizenship.

      The US policy lesson, if such a dual citizenship becomes VP of the Fed, is thus in accord with Israeli policy. To my knowledge, a dual US-Israeli citizen can be a crew member on a US nuclear submarine. Am I wrong?

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 5:36 pm

        To my knowledge, a dual US-Israeli citizen can be a crew member on a US nuclear submarine. Am I wrong?

        Yes they can. The DoD criteria requires that the case of any person claiming dual citizenship has to be individually adjudicated. The DoD Personal Reliability Program Security Standards require the application of common sense to eliminate anyone: Performing or attempting to perform duties, while accepting or actively maintaining dual citizenship, or other acts conducted in a manner which serves or which could be expected to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States, i.e.:

        b. Disqualifying factors (behavior falls within one or more of the
        following categories):
        (1) The active maintenance of dual citizenship, by one or more of
        the following:
        (a) Possession of a passport issued by a foreign nation and use of
        this passport to obtain legal entry into any sovereign state in preference to use of a U.S. passport.
        (b) Military service in the armed forces of a foreign nation or the willingness to comply with an obligation to so serve, or the willingness to bear arms at any time in the future on behalf of the foreign state.
        (c) Exercise or acceptance of rights, privileges, or benefits offered by the foreign state to its citizens (e.g., voting in a foreign election; receipt of honors or titles; financial compensation due to employment/retirement, educational or medical or other social welfare benefits) in preference to those of the United States.
        (d) Travel to or residence in the foreign state for the purpose of
        fulfilling citizenship requirements or obligations.
        (e) Maintenance of dual citizenship to protect financial interests, to include property ownership or employment or inheritance rights in the foreign state.
        (f) Registration for military service or registration with a foreign office, embassy, or consulate to obtain benefits.
        (2) Employment as an agent or other official representative of a
        foreign government, or seeking or holding political office in a foreign
        state.
        (3) Use of a U.S. Government position of trust or responsibility
        to influence decisions in order to serve the interests of another government in preference to those of the United States.
        c . Mitigating factors ( circumstances which may mitigate disqualifying information):
        (1) Claim of dual citizenship is with a foreign country whose interests are not inimical to those of the United States and is based solely on applicant’s or applicant’s parent(s)’ birth, the applicant has not actively maintained citizenship in the last 10 years and indicates he or she will not in the future act so as to pursue this claim.
        (2) Military service while a U.S. citizen was in the armed forces of a state whose interests are not inimical to those of the United States and such service was officially sanctioned by U.S. authorities.
        (3) Employment is as a consultant only and service provided is of the type sanctioned by the U.S. Government.

    • jon s
      January 2, 2014, 11:19 am

      I personally hold dual citizenship. I’m fine as long as Israel and the US don’t go to war with each other.

  11. Djinn
    December 31, 2013, 8:54 pm

    I never understand the dual citizen freak out. Plenty of hardcore Zionists and Iran haters in US govt positions have never had Israeli citizenship.

    I have triple citizenship, not giving up any of them and it has jack to do with loyalty. It’s about ease of travel when I need to see my loved ones. If I did give up the 2 in which I generally don’t live then that wouldn’t necessarily make me any more loyal. I am not and never will be unconditionally loyal to a nation just because I’m a citizen.

    If this guy had the exact same views but only held US citizenship would he be a better choice?

    I really don’t understand the problem with dual citizenship in and of itself.

    • American
      December 31, 2013, 10:13 pm

      ”I really don’t understand the problem with dual citizenship in and of itself”

      There can be numerous legal and tax problems with it….depending on how the countries you hold citizenship in treat those issues and how much of the year you spend in those other countries or other country.

      • Djinn
        January 1, 2014, 12:40 am

        When I live here and work here I pay tax. I don’t live or work in the other 2 so I don’t pay tax there (and I have no investments or other forms of income deriving from them). When I’m there I pay sales tax like any other non resident. I’ve been at least a dual citizen, along with my entire family, since I was 5. Never once has it caused any problems.

        My Dad receives a tiny pension from the NHS based on what he paid in while living and working there, on which he pays a tax to the UK government despite not receiving any UK services for over 30 years.

        I know many people who’ve lived here in Oz for decades and they have no intention of ever living permanently in their country of birth, they are permanent residents but not citizens. Regardless of that they pay the exact same rate of tax on their income as I do as a citizen. Sorry still not seeing the problem and none of the countries are in any greater or lesser danger from me based on those bits of paper that make it easy for me to see elderly relativs without getting a visa first.

      • ziusudra
        January 1, 2014, 3:33 am

        Greetings Djinn,
        …. dual citizenship…..
        I side with both the thesis & antithesis.
        Being an american living in Germany, as a male the citzenship of me daughters was given to me. In 73, Germany passed a bill securing German Mothers of being able to battle in int’l court to protect their interest & allowed dual citizenship in case of divorce. A damn good move.
        Mr Fischer, on the Hand, will be in a diff. position of power to help or corrupt one or both parties.
        ziusudra
        PS Me Grandchildren are only Italian or American & daughters who live now in Italy & the US ne’er use their German passports or benefits.

      • Ellen
        January 1, 2014, 6:46 am

        Djinn, it can get quite complicated for those holding US citizenship who do not have a life in the US.

        US law requires tax reporting ( and payment depending in income level, tax treaties, etc) on world wide income, regardless of where the income was earned. This is unique to the US.

        And, for example, if someone is a US citizen by accident of birth, when he or she dies their children — who may have never set foot into the US — are liable for US inheritance taxes.

        I won’t even go into the recent burdens and potential liabilities imposed on foreign banks who have any type of accounts for US citizens. There are an estimated 4 million Americans living abroad. A teacher or technician working in Switzerland now finds themselves in the position where they cannot open a simple checking account to pay utilities. A customer with a US passport is now kryptonite .

        (The real tax cheats have long ago found other methods to hide their stash.)

        Israel has many duel US citizens. Israeli banking is not known for transparency (what banks are?) and has been a financial refuge for dual US/Israeli citizens. Will the Fed and DOJ be as rigorous enforcing their own laws in Israel as they are with, say, Switzerland?

        The Fed and DOJ do work together on information sharing and enforcement issues. Fischer may be an impressive economist, but there are obvious conflicts of interest that come with his Israeli citizenship.

      • MRW
        January 2, 2014, 8:43 pm

        Ellen, you just hit on the reason why Fischer should not be a vice-chair; albeit inadvertently on your part.

        Israel has many duel US citizens. Israeli banking is not known for transparency (what banks are?) and has been a financial refuge for dual US/Israeli citizens. Will the Fed and DOJ be as rigorous enforcing their own laws in Israel as they are with, say, Switzerland?

        Fischer could quietly get the laws changed, or get a special case for Israel.

        Here is what most don’t know. All banks–and I mean all banks globally–that have US dollar accounts bank at the Fed. It is against the law for a foreign bank to have a US dollar account outside of the US banking system, and it’s frankly impossible. All foreign banks that operate in US dollars have checking and savings account at the NY Fed. Those checking and savings accounts have fancier names, but the principle is the same.

        Except for physical dollar notes (up to $10Gs), no dollars ever leave the US banking system. (Physical dollar bills are only 11% of the money supply. The foreign sector is 3% of the money supply, I think, but don’t hold me to that. the majority of physical US dollars–$100 bills–outside of the country are in Russia, then Argentina, and next Korea.)

        If someone buys property or diamonds or any asset overseas, the buyer essentially has the money debited* from his US bank’s checking account at the Fed, and credited* to the seller’s bank’s checking account at the Fed. If the buyer is named John and the seller is named Pierre, it’s a keystroke transaction between John and Pierre’s banks at the NY Fed (which handles the foreign banks).

        Why do you think they can sanction Iran by freezing its bank accounts? They do it in downtown Manhattan with keystrokes. On a spreadsheet.

        Fischer could possibly get that US law changed, allowing Israel to have physical US dollar accounts inside Israel, where the accounts would not be regulated or subject to US jurisdiction as they have been since we went off the gold standard domestically in 1934. That is the danger of his dual-citizenship. And I don’t think I should have to trust him on that.

        Why does he want the job? Why are they pushing to get him in there?

        Do you realize the scope of what would happen if Israel got that perk? The biggest money-laundering heist in history. Billions of so-called donations going to Israel as US dollars–physically going–and thereafter never to be seen or calculated.

        Most Americans aren’t sharp enough or educated enough about the federal financial system to even understand this; all they do is bitch and moan about the Fed as a this or a that fiat operation, which is true, without understanding why we want a central bank and fiat money, or claim hooked-nosed Jews are running the Fed from the basement of the City of London, which is foolishness.

        All of you should be calling the White house at 202-456-1111 and complaining about a possible Fischer appointment. Right now.

        And while you’re at it, call your congressman while he’s still home, and call your senator.
        ____________________
        * via keystrokes.

      • bilal a
        January 1, 2014, 12:01 pm

        Still, unless you are an Israeli potential citizen, you would not normally be allotted a Top secret security clearance, necessary for high level Pentagon and Treasury jobs. Otherwise there is no problem since there is no conflict or potential for espionage.

      • Ellen
        January 4, 2014, 6:37 am

        @MRW, you make some excellent observations in this thread.

        Instead of working to get laws changed or new ones on the books, the danger is a conflicted official would do what the rest of our legislators do: twist and ignore existing laws. News laws take too much time and effort.

        Perhaps a leap of thought, but Eurodollars (US dollars in circulation outside the US banking system and free of US regulation) link to investinganswers.com could also be greatly expanded to include Israel along with London and the Netherland Antilles as a Eurodollar center. The Eurodollar (not to be confused with Euros) has been in existence and growing since the 1950’s.

        Why not? It could be great for the Israeli banking system and slowly suck more dollars away from the US economy and regulation. This could be enabled without any change in laws, and just by greasing the system by Senior Federal Reserve officials who are clearly conflicted.

        It would be an outrage to have any Senior Fed official who is not only a citizen of a foreign country, but also was the senior banker of the said foreign country (and in this case a country which is the largest recipient of US tax monies) be placed in a top position at the Fed.

    • Hostage
      December 31, 2013, 11:58 pm

      I never understand the dual citizen freak out. Plenty of hardcore Zionists and Iran haters in US govt positions have never had Israeli citizenship.

      So, the US State Department already has people who act like they are subject to the Israeli laws that designate various Arab countries as enemy states. That doesn’t mean we have to make it official.

      • Djinn
        January 1, 2014, 12:12 am

        What difference does their citizenship male? Being an Australian citizen doesn’t mean I instantly follow the views of the Australian government and not being an Israeli citizen hasn’t stopped plenty of high ranking US politicians & bureaucrats acting in Israel’s interests.

        In which interests people act is important, their citizenship does not determine that. The idea that I carry out my work in Oz in the interests of the UK or US government is so laughable to me.

        If this guy has openly stated in the past that he’s aiming to put Israeli interests above US ones (like 99% of the US congress & every president in my lifetime) then focus on THAT. Seems damning enough to not require losing the support of a host of dual citizens by smearing them all as traitors.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 4:37 pm

        What difference does their citizenship make?

        I just cited a situation where the performance of a person’s routine duty to the United States might require them to render aid and comfort to countries that Israel has declared enemy states. I’m not trying to smear someone as a traitor, I’m saying that there would be situations where our government might require a person to become one.

      • Djinn
        January 2, 2014, 1:58 am

        Just because someone is a citizen of a country A and B does not mean they would have an issue carrying out duties that one of those countries does not like.

        If the UK were to declare the Philipines an enemy state that would not instantly mean I would have to give up an Australian job that would require rendering aid and comfort to the Philipines. Being a citizen of the UK doesn’t mean I have to agree with their laws OR uphold them whilst I live in Australia.

        Being a hardcore Zionist who has apparently openly stated he would Israel first is the issue here, not citizenship. JUST being an Israeli citizen in and of itself does not demonstrate a problem. Why not focus on the reasons he’s actually demonstrated are a problem?

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 10:24 am

        Just because someone is a citizen of a country A and B does not mean they would have an issue carrying out duties that one of those countries does not like.

        I was talking about our government requiring an employee to render aid and comfort to a country that Israel considers an enemy state. That’s not dislike, that’s treason. Both countries have laws against it that carry severe penalties. Conducting sensitive foreign relations with Arab states is a good reason NOT to select someone with dual US-Israeli citizenship for a sensitive position. There are always suitably qualified candidates available.

  12. Qualtrough
    December 31, 2013, 11:57 pm

    I don’t have a problem with dual citizen for ordinary citizens who by accident of birth hold two citizenships. However, those in senior government positions who will be making important decisions affecting the well-being of the USA, oh yeah, you bet I have a big problem with dual citizens of ANY country occupying those positions. At that level you should only have one loyalty, and that is to the constitution of the government and people you are serving. Seems like a no-brainer, but I imagine the cries of anti-semitism are already being shouted in this case.

  13. Walid
    January 1, 2014, 12:55 am

    How much more trouble could Fischer make for the US than the current stable of congresspeople that are putting the interests of Israel ahead of those of the US? Either get rid of all of them somehow or let Fischer get the job if he’s qualified, and he seems to be very qualified to be even considered for the job. Would someone please explain how in his proposed post he could get the US to start a war on Iran or do something at the bank that could hurt it without showing his favouritism to Israel.

    • Citizen
      January 1, 2014, 10:57 am

      @ Walid
      Fischer has been supplementing the array of US economic sanctions on Iran by using his influence to indirectly push EU to not try to circumvent current sanctions against Iran, and he has also worked behind the scenes to get China and India to honor more said sanctions. The notion is if Iran can just be squeezed enough, it will implode or lash out, at which point arises clear pretext to bomb Iran. As VP of the Fed, he could work more directly for this end objective (war on Iran) using all the power of the Fed.

      • Walid
        January 1, 2014, 12:07 pm

        Thanks, Citizen.

      • MRW
        January 2, 2014, 9:01 pm

        It’s worse than that, Citizen. See my comment about it above. The Fed cannot act without Congress’ consent on sanctions. Not possible. And one more voice at the Fed calling for them is neither here nor there. That is just personal politics. Fischer could be going for the big fish.

  14. piotr
    January 1, 2014, 1:04 am

    Do we want a top banking regulator saying “I wake up every morning and think about how I can help Israel”? The experience shows that such obsessive thoughts in the morning may lead to rash behavior, like succumbing to female wiles of a voluptuous hotel maid (or worse, if you believe her version).

    • Giles
      January 1, 2014, 8:00 am

      Believe her version? WE were never even given another version. That’s the arrogance of power.

      • piotr
        January 1, 2014, 4:22 pm

        I just want to say that Dominique Strauss-Kahn did not focus on IMF business as much as he should given those distracting thoughts every morning. So he tried to clear his mind with some quick sex. I understand that there is some discrepancy if it was voluntary or not, but nobody suggested that the maid used her superior physical strength to take sexual advantage ofve DSK.

        Any type of obsessive behavior is dangerous. Take sanctions on Iran. There is a ton of issues that may be discussed with India, China, etc. but if there is one issue our negotiators are obsessed with, then the other will get advantage of it.

      • Bumblebye
        January 1, 2014, 7:06 pm

        Does anyone else remember Stanley Fischer’s name being touted in the press as DSK’s replacement at the IMF? Somebody(s) somewhere want him in a ‘big’ slot.

  15. amigo
    January 1, 2014, 10:34 am

    Can,t Uncle Sam find full blown loyal Americans for these highly powerful positions instead of Israel firsters.

    Enough interference from the rogue nation in US affairs.

  16. bilal a
    January 1, 2014, 11:53 am

    Why not some focus on the Fischer question [of dual citizenship]?

    Because Israeli dual citizenship is different than others.

    Every world citizen who can prove Jewish ethnicity, and is not a Christian or Muslim (Buddhists, Atheists, Hindus permitted) has the lifelong right to automatic Israeli citizenship under the right of return. Even if such a potential citizen renounced that right, he can always assert it later.

    So it does not matter if a Jewish American holds an Israeli passport, he or she can get it at any time., often even if the potential citizen is fleeing a non Israeli justice system, say for espionage, as in the case of the American Pollard.

    Thus Disqualifying Israeli citizens, or potential Israeli citizens, then disqualifies an entire ethnicity, from any sensitive government post, in the USA, or elsewhere.

    This is why its different.

    • Ellen
      January 1, 2014, 2:54 pm

      first, Jews are not an ethnic group, but a religious one. Second, Jews of the world have no control over citizenship laws made by Israel. Those laws can change, and are not taken into consideration for anything outside of Israel.

      Your logic is like saying in Country X, women have few civil rights, so citizen of country X may mistreat his wife and daughters in the US or elsewhere because he is an automatic citizen of country X.

      It is no different.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 6:50 pm

        first, Jews are not an ethnic group, but a religious one.

        That is a common misconception. In the Shaare Tefila Congregation v Cobb case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Jews can state a claim of racial discrimination since they were among the peoples considered to be distinct races and hence within the protection of U.S. Code Section 1982 when it was adopted by the Congress.

        The Court noted that it was the intent of Congress to protect Jews from discrimination on the basis of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics. It cited the racial categories contained in the 9th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and references in the verbatim records of the Congressional debate on the statute itself to members of the “Jewish” and “Arab” races. link to oyez.org

        The US government also ratified a number of treaties, like the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1919, that obliged it to safeguard the existing rights of Jews, as members of national ethnic minority groups. For example, Czechoslovak Jews could claim to be Jewish by nationality even if they lacked knowledge of a Jewish language or membership in the Jewish religious community. This status was guaranteed by the official interpretation of Article 128 of the Czechoslovak constitution of 1920 that implemented the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

        The US also reaffirmed the civil and political status under those treaties when it concluded the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention, 44 Stat.2184; Treaty Series 728 that preserved the existing rights of Jews in other countries (including U.S. Code Section 1982), and dealt with the Jews as a national, rather than religious group in Palestine.

        P.S. None of that means that the Jews are members of a single nation. On the contrary, the treaties say that the Jews of Poland were Polish nationals, the Jews of Palestine were Palestinian nationals, & etc. But they are considered to be members of distinct ethnic subgroups and cultures.

      • Ellen
        January 1, 2014, 8:05 pm

        Well, with all respect, just because courts declared something at one period of time, does not make it so. Judicial rulings are not always truths, and often not morally sound. They often reflect the social thinking of the times, right or wrong.

        Ethnicity is not race. A Pole, who is Jewish is not of the same ethnic background as the Ethiopian Jew. Two separate ethnic groups sharing a similar religious background and faith.

        And the ideas of race is in flux. In fact, the more we understand the human genome, the more ideas of race fall away.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2014, 11:57 pm

        Well, with all respect, just because courts declared something at one period of time, does not make it so.

        It does when the Courts, the Congress, and Executive branch adopt statutes and treaties, which make it part of the “Supreme Law of the Land”, and decide to enforce it. The St Francis and Shaare Tefila Congregation cases simply allow Arabs and Jews to file suits against people who discriminate against Semites on the grounds of a belief that they are not “white or of “Caucasian” descent. It would be absurd in the Post 9/11 era to claim that discrimination on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, or ancestry against Arab-Americans doesn’t exist because they are “white persons”. The same principle applies to Jews and the folks over at Stormfront.

        It wasn’t just the Supreme Court either. It was the Congress that said Jews and Arabs were examples of other races when it adopted the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866.

        That law was enforceable in the federal and state courts, which frequently denied dark-skinned Jews and Arabs from Bilad al Sham (Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine a.k.a “Syrians”) citizenship on the grounds that they were not “free white persons within the meaning of the Naturalization Act of 1790″. President Woodrow Wilson had argued that Syrians were descended from the Chinese. In re Balsara 171 F. 294 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1909) held that Asian Caucasians were not free white persons. Ex parte Shahid 205 F. 812 (E.D.S.C. 1913) held that Syrians were not white and that neither Faras Shahid, a native of Syria and a Christian, nor Jesus Christ himself could be considered free white persons eligible to immigrate to the Eastern Federal District of South Carolina, unless they could establish their European heritage. link to press.umich.edu

        It took three trials to overcome those same government objections in Ex Parte Dow (1914), In re Dow (1914), and Dow v. United States, Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (1915).

        Ethnicity is not race. A Pole, who is Jewish is not of the same ethnic background as the Ethiopian Jew.
        They are still considered legally protected minorities on the basis of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in many countries, e.g. UK Race Relations Act.

        Ethnicity is just a term derived from the Greek word for nations. So it’s not a strictly religious or scientific category either. The fact that Jews don’t constitute a single nation under international law, does not mean that there aren’t various legally recognized Jewish national minority groups, Jewish cultures, or that they are not all members of a “federally protected class” under US civil rights law.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 12:12 am

        And the ideas of race is in flux. In fact, the more we understand the human genome, the more ideas of race fall away.

        I understand that, but science has been the source of most of the silly laws and precedents we have on the books today concerning race.

        Ironically enough, many of the studies on the human genome came about as a result of interest in the idea that there is a biological basis for Jewishness and Mendelian inheritance of certain diseases. Despite the efforts of a few researchers to use DNA to bolster the Jewish origin myths, I’ve never seen evidence for anything beyond self-selection, in-breeding, and attempts to self-fulfill doubtful prophecies.

      • eljay
        January 1, 2014, 7:01 pm

        >> first, Jews are not an ethnic group, but a religious one.

        It’s been stated – on this very site – that Jews are a tribe, an ethnicity, a religion, a people, a culture, a nation and/or a civilization.

        Which one – or which combination – of those “identities” any particular Jew or group of Jews is at any given time seems to be variable.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2014, 9:58 am

        It’s been stated – on this very site – that Jews are: . . . Which one – or which combination – of those “identities” any particular Jew or group of Jews is at any given time seems to be variable.

        I’m not describing my personal opinions. I’m describing the operation of the civil rights laws in the USA and many other countries. What “seems” variable can actually be invariable in this particular area. National origin, ethnicity, skin color, ancestry, and religion can all be federally protected classes or characteristics under the right circumstances. See 18 U.S. Code § 245 – Federally protected activities. link to law.cornell.edu

        That means the government has provided individuals with a right of private action and they can file lawsuits if they believe they have been discriminated against on one or more of those bases, while engaging in a protected activity.

        It might be legal to discriminate against an Israeli citizen with dual nationality if you are selecting someone for a sensitive government position. But it does not logically follow that you could tell that same person they aren’t suitable for employment in a non-sensitive or non-government position because, for example, you happen to be participating in a cultural boycott against Israel and don’t believe the Jews are a nation. It really is illegal to discriminate against persons on the basis of their national origin. Israeli happens to be one of those, whether you happen to believe other Jews are a nation, or not. Some sources say there may be as many as a million Israeli ex-pats living in the USA. There are always plenty of other Jews who are willing to engage in lawfare on behalf of Israel in any event. They can use race, color, ethnicity, ancestry, citizenship status, or religion as a basis, since those are protected characteristics under federal law.

      • bilal a
        January 2, 2014, 7:13 am

        In a culture that prides itself on hook ups in toilet stalls, (see MW article), its hard to argue for a religious Jewish self conception in Israel, especially since most, if not all, Prime Ministers, including Netanyahu, are/were proud Atheists, scornful of the rich ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ religious traditions of the pre-Zionist Jews in Europe and elsewhere.
        Then, Zionism is a Left wing nationalist secular movement in origins and practice, unless you consider the adherents of Christian Zionism.

        Religious Judaism has no contradiction with nation state citizenship, only a secular religion of ethno centrism tied to a foreign state is such a threat, and it is unique in recent history.

        This is why we cannot consider dual nationality of Zionist Jews, because regardless of passport, their deeply held beliefs and self conception, according to many, is of loyalty to one central ethnic identity tied to another state, a state that puts the children of ‘the Other’ in outdoor cages during snow storms, and gives refuge to co-ethnic mafia murderers s and treasonous spies.

        children in outdoor cages
        link to jpost.com

        mafia murderer extradiction refused from Israel
        link to news.kievukraine.info

  17. justicewillprevail
    January 1, 2014, 3:45 pm

    For a comprehensive takedown of Fischer and his involvement in anti-American activities see here:

    link to original.antiwar.com

    Lots of reasons to question his appointment, not least the direction it indicates that AIPAC is travelling – bypassing its paid-for senators and going straight into government posts where they can pull the strings. It is subversion. The aims and interests of Israel are completely antithetical to the US, these people should not be allowed anywhere near government posts. There is no dual loyalty – just single loyalty, to one foreign state with very little in common with the US.

  18. es1982
    January 1, 2014, 4:41 pm

    This isn’t the first time the question of Stanley Fischer’s dual citizenship has come up. When he was appointed governor of the Bank of Israel, he became an Israeli citizen and there was a lot of debate about whether or not he should be forced to renounce his American citizenship. After all, other high ranking officials in the Israeli government are required to renounce any additional nationalities.

    I think it’s reasonable to demand that the deputy chairman of the Fed only hold US citizenship, and it doesn’t matter whether the other citizenship is Israeli, British, Australian or whatever. If he renounces his Israeli citizenship (which he has had for much shorter a time than his American citizenship), the dual-citizenship matter can be settled and his appointment can be debated based on his qualifications and policy.

  19. irmep
    January 2, 2014, 8:29 am

    If he does renounce Israeli citizenship, it will look as though he thinks it is some sort of “flag of convenience” like in the cargo shipping industry. US citizenship is not a flag of convenience.

    Also, the Fed actually wants its bank examiners to be U.S. citizens, for sound reasons. See the Antiwar piece for their wording. How is it the same does not apply to the top positions?

    Unmentioned by the article is the Foreign Agents Registration Act angle. Fischer worked with U.S. officials on behalf of a foreign government, in a foreign central bank, but in a non-diplomatic capacity.

    Why didn’t he file FARA declarations?

    • Hostage
      January 2, 2014, 12:40 pm

      Fischer worked with U.S. officials on behalf of a foreign government, in a foreign central bank, but in a non-diplomatic capacity.

      Why didn’t he file FARA declarations?

      The Courts usually adopt a presumption against any extraterritorial reach. So work done in Israel wouldn’t apply. According to paragraph c. of 22 USC § 611 – Definitions an agent is someone who acts “within the United States”.

      Paragraph m. stipulates that

      The term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Territories, the Canal Zone, the insular possessions, and all other places now or hereafter subject to the civil or military jurisdiction of the United States;”

      link to law.cornell.edu

    • MRW
      January 2, 2014, 9:07 pm

      This is the reason callers to the White House to complain (202-456-1111) should cite:

      Also, the Fed actually wants its bank examiners to be U.S. citizens, for sound reasons.

  20. piotr
    January 2, 2014, 8:40 am

    There is some mixing of issues here. A citizenship of another country accepted by choice to be a member of government there is not the same as a citizenship that one is eligible for by due to vagaries of fate.

    The second issue is that it is kind of prudent to select people empowered to make secret decisions in the interest of United States in such a way that we have some modest reasons to expect that they would consider only those interests. We cannot plumbs bottoms of people hearts and perhaps we should not even try, but an acceptance of citizenship of another country is an open declaration to the contrary.

    Recently Federal Reserve behaves like another branch of Armed Forces, and one of the paramount issues of state interests is who chooses conflicts and picks fights. This is not a contrived or conjectural conflict of interest.

    • Hostage
      January 2, 2014, 1:02 pm

      A citizenship of another country accepted by choice to be a member of government there is not the same as a citizenship that one is eligible for by due to vagaries of fate.

      The second issue is that it is kind of prudent to select people empowered to make secret decisions in the interest of United States in such a way that we have some modest reasons to expect that they would consider only those interests.

      I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but when Fischer resigned, the Businessweek, Financial Times, the Times of Israel, and Israel National News all reported that he was taking an early retirement. So there could an issue regarding the Emoluments or Ineligibility clause (a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office) if Fischer is drawing an Israeli pension:

      No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

      — US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

      • MRW
        January 2, 2014, 9:09 pm

        Another point to bring up when you call the White house to complain (202-456-1111). See my long post above (assuming it gets by moderation).

        if Fischer is drawing an Israeli pension:
        Violation of US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

  21. tombishop
    January 2, 2014, 4:49 pm

    It is not just his association with the Bank of Israel that should be a cause for concern, but Stanley Fischer’s whole history link to en.wikipedia.org.

    If you look at his career, you can see that in his association with the University of Chicago in the early ’70’s, he became very much a part of the Milton Friedman school of economics in each of his assignments, including positions with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This school of economics has been devastating the world economy with a shock therapy, free market, shrink government ideology since the coup in Chile in 1973.

    In her 2007 book “The Shock Doctrine”, Naomi Klein cites Stanley Fischer several times. After the fall of the Soviet Union, he and Larry Summers oversaw the rapid privatization of industry in the former Soviet Union. He advocated “moving as fast as possible on all fronts.” The result was rapid expansion of wealth for a tiny group of oligarchs and devastation for the rest of Russian society. He oversaw the same shock therapy tactics in reorganizing economies in Asia in the late ’90’s. In Israel in the early 2000’s, he was involved, along with then Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in expanding Israel’s growing tech industry to branch out and to develop security and surveillance technologies.

    So it is not only to advance a Zionist agenda that Stanley Fischer in the Federal Reserve is a cause for concern, but his belief in the Milton Friedman philosophy of shock therapy through the privatization of all the things people depend on their government to do for the common good, and not just for profit.

Leave a Reply