[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

28737: lyall (comment) the dual citizenship question (fwd)






jdlyall opines:

This dual citizenship thing is really something that needs to be changed, wi. I am unclear if the provision on renunciation (taking citizenship in another country) existed before the 1987 constitution.

I learned recently that France allows adoption of French citizenship quite easily for a spouse of a French citizen. They do not require that one renounce your original citizenship.

The USA was a unique nation in the world in 1780 and the idea that one had to renounce allegiance to foreign princes and potentates was part of the revolution in thinking. That is understandable.

In some unclear way dual citizenship is now allowed in the USA for a native born citizen.

Mexico had a proud defiant position on citizenship. They recently changed their constitution to allow dual citizenship. To allow emigrants to the USA to take northern citizenship while keeping Mexican citizenship.

Haiti has no reason to be more stuck-up than Mexico on this issue.

Mexico, by the way, is very strict on immigrants. Even naturalized Mexican citizens have limited political rights. They cannot take government jobs or run for office.

I've talked with one of the members of the Haitian 1987 constitutional convention. We lightly discussed this dual citizenship thing. Years ago, in the good days of Preval 1. He thought it should be changed, but why this was so important to the convention at the time is unclear.

Would todays Parliament be favorable to dual citizenship? The previous Parliament was terribly hypocritical on the issue with so many Canadian and US citizens holding office while doing nothing to change the law for ordinary people.

It looks like M Clerie is familiar with some of the internal workings of the current Parliament. Could he give a simple breakdown of the party representation there now? I would like to know, at least.