So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

[evanovitch]

So what if MPs have dual citizenship?



Jackass sey de worl' no level. Jackass sey im no know wha de almighty fuss bout people 'ave USA an' Jamaican citizenship is about.

So dual citizenship is the duelling ground, the basis on which the People's National Party (PNP) hopes to capitalise on rising food and gas prices (which no government can do anything about), rampant crime (which the government cannot do much about if people are really determined to kill each other and have the guns to do it) and a slim JLP majority in the first place.


Foreign power
Fine. Fair enough. That is what political parties do, try anything to get into power then do anything to hang on to it.

But Jackass cannot understand for the life of him how dual citizenship makes a difference. Yeah yeah, there are the rules and all, but Jackass is not talking theory here but how things really, really run.

If the point is that an MP (or, in the case of Danville Walker, director of elections) owe at least part of his or her allegiance to a foreign power then DUH!!!! When last has Jamaica gone against any significant policy stance by the USA in any really effective matter. Every blasted one of us in Jamaica, PNP, JLP, MP, RP (rich people), PP (poor people), YP (young people), OP (older people), NP (newborn people), UP (unborn people) (aright, that's enough 'P' for Pete's sake) owe the US, or its associates a significant amount of money.

Now that guarantees loyalty, because the hand that feeds is the hand that rules.

How ridiculous does it get? The head of state is the governor-general, who is the local representative of the English monarch. DUH!!!! (So what blasted difference does it make that MPs no longer swear allegiance to the English ruler?).


Worth saving
When Jackass went to traffic court a couple years ago, he was shocked when the policeman ordered all to rise and then said 'God save the Queen'. And, he was not talking about Dancehall Queen Carlene either. (Now that is a queen worth saving. Did you know that when Carlene is on a plane she does not need to look for her lifejacket when the stewardess is giving instructions? She's got a serious pair of floaters carrying around with her. Damn!!!).

The world is not level at all, because why should we demand that MPs give up a facility so many of us crave, just because they are MPs? Look at that city within a city that the US built as an embassy in Liguanea, at least in part out of visa application fees. Look how many people line up outside that Embassy in the hot sun day after day, many coming from the sun has dusted off its feet and got out of bed. They want to go to the US and, if many of them get there, they are not coming back.

So why should a person who is the representative of some people, a large number of whom want to get out of Jamaica and into the US faster than Carlos Hill went from Norbrook to handcuffs, give up the thing that so many citizens really aspire to, while the US is in control anyway.

Sheesh! Oonu love fool oonuself eh?

Jackass sey di worl' no level. Jackass sey who waan 'ave two passport gwaan 'ave it, cause MP business a-go done pon dem one day.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?


There is nothing wrong with Dual Citizens in Parliament, that was not the basis of the ruling.

Ms. Jackass has the right moniker. I have never read one thing that made sense from that direction.

Jamaica is part of a Commonwealth there is a reason why it is called a Commonwealth. If we don't want it to be so then let's get out of it.

[Blackstar*]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

That article is daft.

[SmoothOperator]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is nothing wrong with Dual Citizens in Parliament, that was not the basis of the ruling.

Ms. Jackass has the right moniker. I have never read one thing that made sense from that direction.

Jamaica is part of a Commonwealth there is a reason why it is called a Commonwealth. If we don't want it to be so then let's get out of it.
</div></div>

Not sure why you brought that up but if I read Paul Ashley correctly Commonwealth dual citizens are no different from the JA/US dual citizens. Those who hold British, Canadian or passports from any of the Caribbean islands in addition to their jamaican passport and sit in parliament are as much in violation as the dual US/JA citizens. It never came up in the McCalla ruling but I can hardly imagine that Britian or Canada would not be regarded as a foreign power under the constitution.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is nothing wrong with Dual Citizens in Parliament, that was not the basis of the ruling.

Ms. Jackass has the right moniker. I have never read one thing that made sense from that direction.

Jamaica is part of a Commonwealth there is a reason why it is called a Commonwealth. If we don't want it to be so then let's get out of it.
</div></div>

Not sure why you brought that up but if I read Paul Ashley correctly Commonwealth dual citizens are no different from the JA/US dual citizens. Those who hold British, Canadian or passports from any of the Caribbean islands in addition to their jamaican passport and sit in parliament are as much in violation as the dual US/JA citizens. It never came up in the McCalla ruling but I can hardly imagine that Britian or Canada would not be regarded as a foreign power under the constitution. </div></div> You need to read up on Jamaican history.
Now that is one for th ebooks. Do youy know who the head of state of Jamaica is?
and what is the difference of the head of state of Canada, or British head of state?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not sure why you brought that up but....</div></div>

Because Jackass went on a tirade about the GG.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..if I read Paul Ashley correctly Commonwealth dual citizens are no different from the JA/US dual citizens. Those who hold British, Canadian or passports from any of the Caribbean islands in addition to their jamaican passport and sit in parliament are as much in violation as the dual US/JA citizens. It never came up in the McCalla ruling but I can hardly imagine that Britian or Canada would not be regarded as a foreign power under the constitution. </div></div>

Paul Ashley is on his own agenda. If you merely hold Dual Citizenship as the law stands now you have no problem. Where the law strikes you is at the point where you swear allegiance to a foreign power. Commonwealth Citizens were exempted for obvious reasons.

[SmoothOperator]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that is one for th ebooks. Do youy know who the head of state of Jamaica is?
and what is the difference of the head of state of Canada, or British head of state? </div></div>

You can read what Dr Paul Ashley has to say,quoted below. I happen to think he has a very, very valid point in regards to holders of dual Commonwealth citizenship. I understand that its about allegiance and not dual citizenship but Justice McCalla ruled that holding/travelling on a foreign passport is evidence of allegiance to a foreign power.

http://drpaulashley.blogspot.com/2008/04/beyond-mccalla-other-citizenships.html

In relation to those holding Canadian, British or even Barbadian citizenship in addition to their Jamaican citizenship, it is being argued that they have sworn allegiance to the same sovereign power – Her Majesty. Hence these Commonwealth countries with Her Majesty as Head of State cannot be classified as “foreign.”

The argument – although comforting to the holders of such citizenship – fails to surmount a basic constitutional reality. With regard to legislative and governmental matters, the Head of State of say Jamaica is the Queen of Jamaica; the Head of State of Australia is the Queen of Australia; the Head of State of Canada is the Queen of Canada. Her Majesty occupies a number of distinct legal personalities and each in its exercise of its sovereignty has no legal consequences for the other. For example, for Jamaica the United Kingdom would be classified as “a foreign power”, so too would Canada and Barbados. Furthermore each of these sovereign states has its own rules in respect of nationality and their citizens owe different allegiances.

Some attorneys-at-law currently sitting in our Parliament have vehemently opposed the interpretation and analysis advanced. It has become necessary to go into further detail about the constitutional position on the subject of “Commonwealth Citizen” as this is the base category (Section 39(a)) from which the composition of the Parliament is drawn....

It must be highlighted that the base category outlined in the qualifying section, Section 39(a) speaks to “Commonwealth citizen” and not Jamaican citizen. In that sense the Jamaican citizen is treated no different from that of other Commonwealth states. Here are some interesting examples:

* If an adult Jamaican by virtue of his own act acquires the citizenship of another Commonwealth state – he is disqualified.
* If an adult Commonwealth citizen (who is not Jamaican) by virtue of his own act acquires the citizenship of another Commonwealth State (other than Jamaica) – he is disqualified.
* If an adult Commonwealth citizen (who is not Jamaican) by virtue of his own act acquires Jamaican citizenship – he is not disqualified.
* If an adult Commonwealth citizen being a Member of either House does anything to dilute divert or divide his allegiance to the Jamaican state – his seat stands to be declared “vacant”

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that is one for th ebooks. Do youy know who the head of state of Jamaica is?
and what is the difference of the head of state of Canada, or British head of state? </div></div>

You can read what Dr Paul Ashley has to say,quoted below. I happen to think he has a very, very valid point in regards to holders of dual Commonwealth citizenship. I understand that its about allegiance and not dual citizenship but Justice McCalla ruled that holding/travelling on a foreign passport is evidence of allegiance to a foreign power.

http://drpaulashley.blogspot.com/2008/04/beyond-mccalla-other-citizenships.html

In relation to those holding Canadian, British or even Barbadian citizenship in addition to their Jamaican citizenship, it is being argued that they have sworn allegiance to the same sovereign power – Her Majesty. Hence these Commonwealth countries with Her Majesty as Head of State cannot be classified as “foreign.”

The argument – although comforting to the holders of such citizenship – fails to surmount a basic constitutional reality. With regard to legislative and governmental matters, the Head of State of say Jamaica is the Queen of Jamaica; the Head of State of Australia is the Queen of Australia; the Head of State of Canada is the Queen of Canada. Her Majesty occupies a number of distinct legal personalities and each in its exercise of its sovereignty has no legal consequences for the other. For example, for Jamaica the United Kingdom would be classified as “a foreign power”, so too would Canada and Barbados. Furthermore each of these sovereign states has its own rules in respect of nationality and their citizens owe different allegiances.

Some attorneys-at-law currently sitting in our Parliament have vehemently opposed the interpretation and analysis advanced. It has become necessary to go into further detail about the constitutional position on the subject of “Commonwealth Citizen” as this is the base category (Section 39(a)) from which the composition of the Parliament is drawn....

It must be highlighted that the base category outlined in the qualifying section, Section 39(a) speaks to “Commonwealth citizen” and not Jamaican citizen. In that sense the Jamaican citizen is treated no different from that of other Commonwealth states. Here are some interesting examples:

* If an adult Jamaican by virtue of his own act acquires the citizenship of another Commonwealth state – he is disqualified.
* If an adult Commonwealth citizen (who is not Jamaican) by virtue of his own act acquires the citizenship of another Commonwealth State (other than Jamaica) – he is disqualified.
* If an adult Commonwealth citizen (who is not Jamaican) by virtue of his own act acquires Jamaican citizenship – he is not disqualified.
* If an adult Commonwealth citizen being a Member of either House does anything to dilute divert or divide his allegiance to the Jamaican state – his seat stands to be declared “vacant” </div></div> Can't you see the logic of this act? when the empire was being broken up a loy of th eformer british ciotyyozens chose citizenship of their choise. many of th eelite in Jamaica are Britosh citizens and cannot sit in parliament. That is because they chose British instead of Jamaican citizenship. since they wanted the right to migrate at wull to the UK.
Now they will have to rea[ply for Jamaican citizenship, since by applying f9or the British citizenship then that disqualified them from being Jamaican citizens.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can read what Dr Paul Ashley has to say,quoted below. I happen to think he has a very, very valid point in regards to holders of dual Commonwealth citizenship. I understand that its about allegiance and not dual citizenship but Justice McCalla ruled that holding/travelling on a foreign passport is evidence of allegiance to a foreign power. </div></div>

I read his Blogs I know what he writes but the facts are that Commonwealth Citizens are exempted. I think you would only run into a problem in the Commonwealth if the other Jurisdiction laws prohibited Dual Citizenship, therefore swearing allegiance would effectively put you out of the Commonwealth.
No I am not a lawyer and I have not seen the entire wording about this in the Constitution so I am open to correction.
I support the Constitution in this respect.

[SmoothOperator]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read his Blogs I know what he writes but the facts are that Commonwealth Citizens are exempted. I think you would only run into a problem in the Commonwealth if the other Jurisdiction laws prohibited Dual Citizenship, therefore swearing allegiance would effectively put you out of the Commonwealth.
No I am not a lawyer and I have not seen the entire wording about this in the Constitution so I am open to correction.
I support the Constitution in this respect.
</div></div>

Commonwealth citizens who are native born citizens of the commonwealth country are exempt, but not the naturalized ones, be they British or Canadian, thats the point he's making. The act of naturalizing in a foreign country violates section 40(2)which states that anyone who by &quot;virtue of his own act&quot; is under allegiance to a foreign power is disqualified.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SmoothOperator</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read his Blogs I know what he writes but the facts are that Commonwealth Citizens are exempted. I think you would only run into a problem in the Commonwealth if the other Jurisdiction laws prohibited Dual Citizenship, therefore swearing allegiance would effectively put you out of the Commonwealth.
No I am not a lawyer and I have not seen the entire wording about this in the Constitution so I am open to correction.
I support the Constitution in this respect.
</div></div>

Commonwealth citizens who are native born citizens of the commonwealth country are exempt, but not the naturalized ones, be they British or Canadian, thats the point he's making. The act of naturalizing in a foreign country violates section 40(2)which states that anyone who by &quot;virtue of his own act&quot; is under allegiance to a foreign power is disqualified. </div></div>

Accepted my problem with all this argument is, it is been taken way out of context and some see it as an attack on Jamaicans in Diaspora.
Just how many persons seeking Office would this affect?
The blame lie squarely on the Political Parties and Institutions such as the Electoral Commission. In my mind you can’t seek to make laws, change or uphold laws that you are not willing to take leave to understand.

I don't think we need to worry too much about this unless it is going to be an honest discussion about Constitutional and Legal Reform.

[neutral]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackStar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That article is daft. </div></div>

As daft as a brush,...but what do you expect from a jackass.

[evanovitch]

Re: So what if MPs have dual citizenship?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackStar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That article is daft. </div></div>

why daft BS? ...the writer points out the ironies of Ja's interaction with the USA...irony an satire permeate the writing an done very well indeed given the subject matter...