What do you make of the naturalization oath? Namely: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; ..." It doesn't have anything to do with which country you are from.
I think there is a certain amount of cross-talk here. I get what you are saying about the oath but it is administered by Federal court judges so it is apparently not in conflict with the Supreme Court ruling. Secondly it is not what the Supreme Court said that matters here. By asking the naturalized citizens to take the oath it is entirely reasonable that their native governments construe the action as renouncing their original citizenship. It is literally what the oath says. I get that with the Supreme Court ruling it is possible for American citizens to obtain another citizenship without losing their US citizenship. I think that is a good thing in this increasingly globalized world and hopefully one day national borders will mean a lot less as it is in Europe today. However we were discussing what you said: "So becoming a Chinese citizen means renouncing your US citizenship." Does China actually enforce it by demanding proof or also just make you take an oath? I understand there may be little data to tell at this point. And when I said that US does the same I meant that the US make you take the oath to renounce your native citizenship.
US is a country ruled strictly by law. Sign any contract, or take any oath, cannot discharge rights given to is by law. In the us, this means dual citizenship is accepted and even respected even if the politicians wished otherwise...they cannot deny constitutional rights without changing the constitution. Contrast this with China's "freedom of speech" that is enshrined in its constitution but not respected by the CCP, who don't need to grant those rights to the people since there is no check on their power in the Chinese system.
No one has naturalized into Chinese citizenship, but china has consistently refused to acknowledge dual citizenship for anyone younger than 18 or not born into it. It has nothing to do with oaths.
I was saying that US requires people who naturalize into US citizenship to take an oath to renounce their original citizenship. This is just a fact and the Supreme Court did not say this is unconstitutional.
Plenty of people have been naturalized into Chinese citizenship, at least in Hongkong. Here is the requirement http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/immigration/chinese/naturalis... and I do see that it requires abandonment of foreign citizenship although it does not say what level of documentation is needed, if any. If it were an oath then it would be symmetric with US. With China ruled by the CCP it is also understandable that the demand for naturalization may not be that high in the first place.
Also if you read the NPCSC's interpretation of the nationality law it would appear that the emphasis is very much on non-recognition of consular access rights. They allow Hongkong residents to hold British passports for overseas travels but do not recognize the passports or consular access rights when they are inside China (including Hongkong).
