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

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

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.