Supporting a country in cricket and supporting a country in a war are two very different things. To be very clear, we weren&#x27;t talking about cricket, soccer, or the Olympics; so bringing it up is useless.<p>That&#x27;s the thing about dual citizenship. It&#x27;s not irrational to support your country of origin, unless you&#x27;re part of a class of persecuted people. That is the place where you were born and raised, and where you derive your (initial) cultural values which you may or may not keep.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;editorials&#x2F;la-ed-dual-citizenship-20141228-story.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;editorials&#x2F;la-ed-dual-citizen...</a><p>&quot;But the concept of dual citizenship is problematic both symbolically and practically, and could become divisive if more immigrants decide to avail themselves of the privileges of U.S. citizens — as we believe they ought to do. U.S citizens with strong ties to their ancestral countries have been accused of divided loyalties in the past even when they didn&#x27;t possess citizenship in those countries — witness the internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War II. But when a U.S. citizen is also a citizen of another country, the accusation is even easier to make.&quot;<p>Ending dual citizenship would help prevent a future version of Japanese internment in the US.