Tweet
One foot out and one foot in...
HEART TO HEARTBetty Ann Blaine
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Dear Reader,
".and the one that's in is on a banana skin", is a Jamaican saying that is perhaps a very apt description of the dual-citizenship dilemma. What is particularly interesting to me, however, is the irony in the fact that an issue that has the potential of plunging the country into chaos and instability with the calling of new elections, is one that has very little to do with the majority of the citizens of Jamaica.
The dual-citizenship matter is almost entirely about the Jamaican middle and upper classes, since the reality is that the majority of Jamaicans will probably never be granted any type of visa to travel to North America, let alone achieve citizenship. So, for all the furore surrounding the matter, I believe it is important for us to understand that the dual-citizenship problem is by no means an "everyday-person, bread and butter" issue, and that the debate is relevant only to a minority.
Within the narrow confines of the debate, it is clear to me that the dual-citizenship argument is much more than one about illegalities and constitutional imperatives. It speaks to a broader issue of patriotism, loyalties and allegiances, and throws the door open for a debate regarding the spirit, ethos, and standard of our "Jamaican-ness".
The dual-citizenship issue is no doubt bound up with the pattern and problem of migration, as well as the sheer desire of some of our citizens to have at least one foot firmly planted in what is considered to be the most prosperous and secure democracy in the world, namely, the United States, and the other foot tenuously placed in Jamaica. As I see it, there are typically two types of Jamaicans who hold dual citizenship.
Those from the working classes who gained US citizenship after spending countless years toiling at two or more jobs, and Jamaicans from the middle and upper classes whose dual citizenship is more of a convenience, and who want to make sure that at the slightest sign of social or political unrest, their seats on the first planes out are secure as well as their ID numbers at US Immigration, confirming their status as US citizens.
I suspect that the debate is about the latter group - those Jamericans who hold US citizenship, but who live in Jamaica, so long as the social and economic climate remains "conducive". Many, if not most of those who have toiled in the US doing back-breaking work to gain their citizenship, are pretty much settled permanently in that country, while undoubtedly maintaining their ties and loyalty to their motherland.
What is interesting is that it appears as if it is those who are "conveniently" holding US citizenship who are the ones calling for our constitution to be changed, and without admitting that by swearing allegiance to a foreign power, they "by their own action" voluntarily relinquished their Jamaican citizenship. The US Oath of Alliegance for naturalised citizens is crystal clear and is without any ambiguity whatsoever. It states:
"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; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Having sworn the oath to bear arms for the United States, what exactly would happen if a member of the Jamaican Parliament were to be drafted for war? Would we have to grant leave of absence from Parliament for the person to go and fight for the US and then return home? And God forbid, what if that MP dies in battle? And what if the country at war with the US happens to be our own? Where would the allegiance lie? What about our sovereign privilege of voting at the United Nations? How would those legislators holding US citizenship vote, when the issue involves the United States?
The reason that Jesus Christ thought it was important to make the case that "no servant can serve two masters", is because it is next to impossible to serve both at the same time, and to serve the two well. As Jesus himself said, "Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."
The argument being advanced by the privileged few who don't mind having their cake and eating it at the same time, is that a modern, "globalised" world dictates the need for dual citizenship. Quite frankly, it is the weakest argument of all. Precisely because we now live in a complex, "globalised" world, small nation states like ours must clearly know whose side we are on, and the degree of autonomy and independence necessary to navigate through turbulent and unequal waters.
While I understand the historical, as well as the economic and other imperatives that cause our people to migrate and seek other citizenships, I believe that those who serve us at the highest level must clearly know which country they are beholden to, and the plight and status of the majority of those whom they serve here at home.
With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com
HEART TO HEARTBetty Ann Blaine
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Dear Reader,
".and the one that's in is on a banana skin", is a Jamaican saying that is perhaps a very apt description of the dual-citizenship dilemma. What is particularly interesting to me, however, is the irony in the fact that an issue that has the potential of plunging the country into chaos and instability with the calling of new elections, is one that has very little to do with the majority of the citizens of Jamaica.
The dual-citizenship matter is almost entirely about the Jamaican middle and upper classes, since the reality is that the majority of Jamaicans will probably never be granted any type of visa to travel to North America, let alone achieve citizenship. So, for all the furore surrounding the matter, I believe it is important for us to understand that the dual-citizenship problem is by no means an "everyday-person, bread and butter" issue, and that the debate is relevant only to a minority.
Within the narrow confines of the debate, it is clear to me that the dual-citizenship argument is much more than one about illegalities and constitutional imperatives. It speaks to a broader issue of patriotism, loyalties and allegiances, and throws the door open for a debate regarding the spirit, ethos, and standard of our "Jamaican-ness".
The dual-citizenship issue is no doubt bound up with the pattern and problem of migration, as well as the sheer desire of some of our citizens to have at least one foot firmly planted in what is considered to be the most prosperous and secure democracy in the world, namely, the United States, and the other foot tenuously placed in Jamaica. As I see it, there are typically two types of Jamaicans who hold dual citizenship.
Those from the working classes who gained US citizenship after spending countless years toiling at two or more jobs, and Jamaicans from the middle and upper classes whose dual citizenship is more of a convenience, and who want to make sure that at the slightest sign of social or political unrest, their seats on the first planes out are secure as well as their ID numbers at US Immigration, confirming their status as US citizens.
I suspect that the debate is about the latter group - those Jamericans who hold US citizenship, but who live in Jamaica, so long as the social and economic climate remains "conducive". Many, if not most of those who have toiled in the US doing back-breaking work to gain their citizenship, are pretty much settled permanently in that country, while undoubtedly maintaining their ties and loyalty to their motherland.
What is interesting is that it appears as if it is those who are "conveniently" holding US citizenship who are the ones calling for our constitution to be changed, and without admitting that by swearing allegiance to a foreign power, they "by their own action" voluntarily relinquished their Jamaican citizenship. The US Oath of Alliegance for naturalised citizens is crystal clear and is without any ambiguity whatsoever. It states:
"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; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Having sworn the oath to bear arms for the United States, what exactly would happen if a member of the Jamaican Parliament were to be drafted for war? Would we have to grant leave of absence from Parliament for the person to go and fight for the US and then return home? And God forbid, what if that MP dies in battle? And what if the country at war with the US happens to be our own? Where would the allegiance lie? What about our sovereign privilege of voting at the United Nations? How would those legislators holding US citizenship vote, when the issue involves the United States?
The reason that Jesus Christ thought it was important to make the case that "no servant can serve two masters", is because it is next to impossible to serve both at the same time, and to serve the two well. As Jesus himself said, "Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."
The argument being advanced by the privileged few who don't mind having their cake and eating it at the same time, is that a modern, "globalised" world dictates the need for dual citizenship. Quite frankly, it is the weakest argument of all. Precisely because we now live in a complex, "globalised" world, small nation states like ours must clearly know whose side we are on, and the degree of autonomy and independence necessary to navigate through turbulent and unequal waters.
While I understand the historical, as well as the economic and other imperatives that cause our people to migrate and seek other citizenships, I believe that those who serve us at the highest level must clearly know which country they are beholden to, and the plight and status of the majority of those whom they serve here at home.
With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com
Comment