Critique of Andrew Bolt's Article Concerning Dual Identities in Australia

After reading Andrew Bolt's article, I think his position concerning dual identities is clear. The author provides many arguments and examples against having a dual nationality, and he infers that the latter is a looming threat against Australia.

Bolt is not a fan of dual nationalities. He believes that having two passports weakens one's commitment to the countries they represent. The author even states that one's loyalty becomes "hyphenated". Bolt gives the example of Lebanese clinging to the Australian citizenship, hoping it would rid them of performing their military service duties. This pushes Bolt to ponder on their ability to equally dodge their Australian civic duties, now on the premises of them considering themselves solely Lebanese residents holding the Australian passport. Therefore, the author is insinuating in this case that people are merely using Australia for their own personal interest. The author even reproaches his own experience of being a dual citizen (Dutch and Australian), where he even finds himself having "split loyalties" which he has to eventually confront.

Perhaps Bolt's most explicit thoughts about the matter at hand arise when he states that the time has come for every Australian with a dual nationality to chose only one loyalty. He justifies the latter by stating that Australia needs more citizens to truly commit to it. Furthermore, the author argues that being an Australian is an "exclusive deal" and the passport comes with responsibilities. Bolt finds that the feeling of safety depends on the loyalty of his fellow citizens to one and only one country (Australia). The author also believes that having a dual nationality encourages an " All take and no give" philosophy.

Bolt states that many Lebanese residents with Australian passports seek help from the Aussie government, which is not allowed to ask them for anything in return. The author backs up the latter argument by describing what happened in the 2006 Lebanese-Israeli war. Lebanese Australians criticized the Australian government's efforts to help them escape from Lebanon. Bolt believes that since these individuals are also Lebanese, shouldn't the Lebanese government help them? In addition, the author questions their newly found loyalty to Australia that surfaces as soon as the war broke out.

Bolt finds that one of the facets of dual identities is the threat it poses to Australia. He claims that the latter phenomenon pushes immigrants to treat Australia as a camping ground rather than a home. Furthermore, the author believes that this leads to an Australia where Islamic extremists are jailed on terrorism charges, and the formation of Lebanese ethnic gangs each proclaiming its own turf rights. The author seems to be implying that only trouble and violence are the product of having dual identities, thereby endangering Australians. In addition, Bolt states that the Australian government even pays the different ethnic groups money as an incentive to avoid confrontation.

Dual identities are also responsible for the deterioration of the community in the author's eyes; caused by many factors such as to cheap travel and mass immigration. Hence, all the arguments given by Bolt imply that having "hyphenated citizens" is a lose lose situation to both the Aussies and Australia.

Basically, the last sentence "we're too good for only half your loyalty and love" sums up the author's overall opinion about dual nationalities. Bolt believes that having two identities leads to a hyphenated citizen with split loyalties, threatening both Australia's community, identity and security. Therefore, it is clear that the author does not support dual identities.