Well what’s the difference for you between a foreigner and a non-foreigner in this situation?

I presume the difference is that the foreigner has different incentives than the non-foreigner. Let me know if you had something else in mind.

For the foreigner, it may be acceptable to harm the interests of the non-foreigners if it helps the interests of the foreigner, because the interests of the foreigner are not tied to the interests of the non-foreigner. The foreigner lives somewhere else, and so if the conditions in the non-foreigner’s territory worsen, the foreigner is not necessarily harmed by the worsened conditions like the non-foreigner is. And, the foreigner may even be helped by the harm to the non-foreigner, i.e. they may not just be indifferent to harm, they may actually benefit from it (if for example the non-foreigner’s country is a competitive threat to the foreigner’s country).

In the case of dual citizens, they may be harmed like the non-foreigner, but unlike the non-foreigner non-dual citizen, the dual citizens can much more easily leave if the conditions worsen sufficiently. So the incentive structure for dual citizen vs non-dual citizens is of a lower intensity but a similar quality to the incentive structure for foreigner vs non-foreigner, I think. What do you think?

There simply aren't enough dual-citizens to make this matter in reality. And dual citizens are still US citizens, which is much better than complete non-citzens owning shares in media companies.