They'll know where the call originated from if they'd have to pay a fine for the privilege of "not knowing".
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with screwing your security staff to save a dollar.
Personally, I don't see that any of these things as compelling practical advantages, given that the kids already have dual Swedish and Belgian (and therefore EU) citizenship. If they were Moldovan and South Sudanese, that'd be a different story. Or if they were citizens of a country from which getting a visa to enter the US might be difficult in the future.
But most importantly I think this is one of those decisions that you just don't make primarily on a cost-benefit basis. It's not like deciding to join Costco or subscribe to Hulu. Citizenship entails responsibilities. If you want your kids to shoulder those responsibilities and feel allegiance to the US then it makes sense to get them that citizenship come hell or high water. But given that they already have two perfectly good citizenships from two advanced western democracies with generally positive international relations worldwide, I don't see much practical advantage in adding a third.
Still, I wouldn't presume to give advice, other than this. The poster needs to examine, very carefully, that feeling he has that maybe his kids should be Americans. The way he expresses it, "sentimental reasons", makes those feelings seem pretty trivial, in which case it hardly matters if they don't become Americans. After all, most other Belgians seem to get along perfectly well without being Americans too. But if this is at all something he suspects he might seriously regret not doing, or if it nags him in ways he can't quite put his finger on, he needs to get to the bottom of that in a way random people on the Internet can't help him with.
Exactly. My being sanctimonious would make you hypocritically self-righteous.
If you have until they're 18, wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves, and to make their plans. Then you can find out which pros and cons apply to them (eg working/studying in the US vs just paying taxes).
... with some food for thought.
The ending '-eous' or '-ious' is added to a noun to produce an adjective that means producing whatever that noun is. Something that is 'advantageous' produces advantage for example. Something which is ignominious produce ignominy (shame, embarrassment). Something that is piteous arouses pity in the onlooker.
I think you see where I'm going with this. The word the headline writer should have used is 'nauseated', although making users nauseous in the pedantic sense would certainly be a concern for the developers of any product.
Cheaper to heavily subsidize nuclear, than face the massive cleanup costs when nothing goes wrong at a coal power plant. Do you know a safe way to deal with the massive amounts of radioactive waste that come from those coal plants? How about cleaning up the mercury, the particulates, the CO2? In coal power, the gains have always been privatized while the costs and risks socialized.
To clarify, by "insane environmentalists" I mean people who's actions result in a higher proportion of our electricity coming from coal power plants, which in their standard operation kill fish, birds, emit radiation, cause cancer, have a global environmental impact -- and all this on a scale that dwarfs other alternatives. While the insane environmentalists don't think they support coal, what they do is oppose other power generation systems because they're not perfect leaving current coal plants as a necessity to produce the power they opposed alternatives to. Similarly, some insane environmentalists support cost-prohibitive sources of energy and leach funding from other alternatives, which would have reduced our reliance on coal and oil much more effectively.
And i will say it again : nuclear power is prohibitively expensive.
Insane environmentalists are prohibitively expensive. (No insult intended to environmentalists who have done their research before supporting/opposing something.)