What's unfair isn't this practise per-say, but the fact that it's not equal.
I think keeping hold of foreign citizenship represents an unfair advantage to some degree, as a kind of "fallback" - e.g. if things go to shit you always have the option of returning home.
but other nationalities generally don't need to pay to remain citizens while they are abroad, so Americans are treated unusually.
>because natives with just one passport don't have that option.
If by natives, you mean Native Americans, they have their own sovereignties. Many have do have tribal passports in addition to US passports.
If by natives you mean, John Q Public, then that's just crab-bucket thinking. The majority of Americans have zero passports, leave alone one. By your standard, it should be wrong for people to have one at all since most Americans don't have the legal certification to travel beyond North America and seek asylum as a fall back should the US crap itself.
While not everyone has a similar option for a fallback, everyone has a choice. Nobody is prevented by the US government from attempting to a obtain a second passport. It's a matter of a person's choosing to meet the requirements to obtain one or not.
>California and Texas are in the same country.
Yes, however your argument was one escaping to another jurisdiction with the previous jurisdiction as a fallback. That isn't limited to hopping between states nor should it be. If a state or country can't compete in taxes, services, or culture, I have the right to vote with my feet and to obtain a new residence or nationality however I see fit. Mutatis mutantis, the same goes for everyone else.
I don't mean native Americans - I mean the residents of any country who also hold some other passport/citizenship.
> By your standard, it should be wrong for people to have one at all
By "having a passport" I mean eligibility for a passport aka citizenship, not literally whether you've applied for one. Equal opportunity should exist - whether it is taken advantage or not is another matter.
> It's a matter of a person's choosing to meet the requirements to obtain one or not
How does one choose hereditary requirements? Or capital requirements (aka golden pass)?
> your argument was one escaping to another jurisdiction
Maybe there are similar issues between state jurisdictions, but I talked specifically of national/country jurisdictions which aren't really similar; especially wrt tax.
In any case, I think the point is moot since all US citizens are (equally) fairly free to cross state lines. The point isn't that it's unfair to move to another jurisdiction with another as fall-back, but that not all are equally able to do this - which is true of states.
I think keeping hold of foreign citizenship represents an unfair advantage to some degree, as a kind of "fallback" - e.g. if things go to shit you always have the option of returning home.
but other nationalities generally don't need to pay to remain citizens while they are abroad, so Americans are treated unusually.