Dana's citizenship

Andrew49

Oafley Jones

charlemont wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/better-to-have-links-to-us-than-to-europe-claims-dana-170021.html

She wont be getting a preference vote from me now, She seems to have a serious attitude towards Europe.

Dana isn't campaigning for the Presidency. She's trying to carve out support amongst Euro sceptics for future elections. I'd be surprised if she doesn't tie up with Declan Ganley at some stage. Personally, I think the woman is a distraction and best ignored.

Bullseye1

She is a CIA sleeper agent. Wow.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, but you are yielding to the US govt's notion that your US citizenship has primacy over any other citizenship you might hold. And you must do this, or you will not be allowed to enter the US.

If you hold US citizenship, however you obtain it, the US views you as a US citizen first and foremost and you are required to acknowledge that by presenting your US passport when entering and leaving the country, by filing a US tax return every year on income you earn anywhere in the world, etc.

If you become a US citizen through naturalization, then you explicitly
agree by sworn oath that your US citizenship is not just your primary citizenship -- it is your only citizenship.

If you don't take sworn oaths seriously then you're grand, just jump through the US hoops when you have to and say privately, yeah, but I didn't mean it. Don't think Dana will get away with that though.

I assume she has US fans too, probably pretty conservative types, and I would bet they would be deeply offended to know that she didn't take her naturalization oath to heart.

hotmail.com

She lied about it, that's the point. She's a liar. She also only talked about family values the other day on Newstalk, saying that broken families lead to a broken society. It turns out her own family weren't talking to each other. She also showed herself to be greedy by going to court over the loyalties of religious records.

This is not what you expect from a good Catholic girl.

carveone

stoneill wrote: »

I am amazed at the posts stating they don't see a problem with dual citizenship.
Dana is running for president - She took an oath and swore allegiance to the US and renounced allegiance to Ireland.

And the second she did that, she could not ever again reclaim Irish citizenship, even under the 1956 Citizenship act (a big hack to allow this US-Irish thing to go on). That act only allows people born in Ireland to reclaim citizenship - Dana was born in London. Game over.

(Sorry if everyone knows that already and I'm going over it again)

CelticRambler

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes it does - you are not entitled to help from the Irish embassy when on US soil as a US citizen regardless of what other nationality you might hold. You cannot use the fact of your Irish citizenship to avoid any obligation imposed on US citizens present in the US. The same applies to having any other joint nationality.

Were Dana to visit the US as head of state with no other allegiances, she would be protected from US law by diplomatic immunity. Being a US citizen, unelected to public office in the US, she would not have the same protection.

When in any country other than Ireland or the US, she could call on the protection of either country, and it is that point which could (potentially) create a conflict of interest.

carveone

Inspired by Dana's own xenophobic stance, I'd like to enquire whether she has legal holding of any EU citizenship? And if not then why is she allowed to be in this country at all? Ever seen what the US do if you misrepresent yourself on a passport... it ain't a laugh riot I'll tell you that.

Having said that, I suppose I'll have to fair and reasonable about this. It does look like she would hold British citizenship having been born there. Wikipedia says that "Renunciations made to other authorities are invalid". Damn. Would have been kinda fun otherwise

It's not that I really care given her 5% representation in the last poll. The only thing I'd worry about is that being allowed illegally run for President casts a shadow over the whole election. I'm frankly stunned she hasn't withdrawn yet.

Edit:
Looks like I'm wrong: Wikipedia says that:

renouncing Irish citizenship is done by lodging a declaration with the Minister for Justice... Irish citizenship cannot be lost by the operation of the law of another country.

which means that her US oath essentially doesn't really count. Which seems somewhat at odds with her conservative religious stance. LostInKildare said earlier:

I assume she has US fans too, probably pretty conservative types, and I would bet they would be deeply offended to know that she didn't take her naturalization oath to heart.

Add that to the really bad quote from her sister which heaps more insult on Irish Americans:
"...it wouldn't look very good if the people of Ireland knew she was an American citizen"

Cosmasos

Yankee Doodle Dana? For the lyrics of "All Things American Remind Me of You", see http://tinyurl.com/6l68ep7

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Coriolanus

No conflict of interest, only from the perspective of the Irish law. From the perspective of the Eu and US, maybe. From a moral/etjical perspective, definitely.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I do the same. You misunderstand my point.

I have made no comment about whether Dana's/your naturalization in the US has any effect on her/your Irish citizenship. I don't believe that it does.

To the Irish govt, you are still an Irish citizen regardless of your sworn public renunication of allegiance to Ireland. But to the US govt you are a US citizen and a US citizen only -- and you swore that that is so.

AFAIK, there is no problem legally -- not in Ireland anyway. An ethical problem, yes I think so.

Our man in Havana

To the Irish govt, you are still an Irish citizen regardless of your sworn public renunication of allegiance to Ireland.

You can send a written declaration to the Irish government telling them where to stick their passport. That ends any obligations towards Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinKildare

Our man in Havana wrote: »

You can send a written declaration to the Irish government telling them where to stick their passport. That ends any obligations towards Ireland.

If you wanted to. I don't think that's the case here.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hm. Well, I'd like to think that most people do mean and do intend to keep their marriage vows when they utter them. Sometimes things change and they decide they cannot keep those vows, and for some people, having to break that vow is absolutely wrenching.

Quite different to falsely swear an oath that you don't intend to honor even as the words fall from your lips.

That falsely sworn oath in which she renounced citizenship of her homeland -- but didn't mean it! -- may not be "actionable" -- i.e., it may not have legal standing in her homeland -- but it is a black mark on her integrity.

Just my opinion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Cmon Permabear, do you not think it's grossly inappropriate that a candidate for President of Ireland -- a ceremonial position that is supposed to embody what is good about the nation -- has publicly renounced her allegiance to her homeland? Do you not think that's a wee bit, oh, I don't know, unpatriotic? Do you not see the bad, bad symbolism?

Perhaps my Americanness is showing here, but I find it unbelievable that she remains in the race, and that there are people who still would vote for her. National pride must be at an all-time low. Ireland deserves so much better.

MadsL

Hmmm. "The Million Punt Drop" feat. Dana

Renounce the Eagle or the Harp, where is her money going to go....


I'd pay to watch THAT show...

ResearchWill

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And many people Dana included believe very strongly that once you make that oath in marriage you are stuck till death do you part.

The issue is that a person who claims to have a strong religious belief, then takes an oath with no intention of keeping it. I personally know people entitled to US Citizenship, who have not taken it due to the oath.

I also have a family member who refused to take Australian citizenship till the oath was changed to remove the reference to the Queen of England, as she knew she could not take that oath and mean it.

For a person seeking the office of firist citizen, to either renounce in an oath her allegiance to Ireland, or if she did not then she lied under oath, either is not good enough.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me if they have opted to take an oath of allegiance to another country then IMO they give up the right to hold public office here especially the post of President

Liam Byrne

pubview wrote: »

Is it something in the Derry air that affects people's memories ?

Naw - they know and remember the truth.....

....they just talk through their Derry air

carveone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a sodding good question Permabear - that really sums up the whole thread doesn't it!

Given the severe reservations other have had about taking the Canadian or Australian oaths, both to which pledge allegience to the the Queen, I would be inclined to follow with those reservations and say yes.

(To keep with the kicking Dana theme, I suppose she would use the Doctrine of mental reservation)

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, I'm not proposing that a person who's renounced their allegiance to Ireland should be barred from holding office in Ireland. Legally barred? Where did I suggest that? My fellow citizens can decide for themselves that candidate's worthiness.

And no, it does not logically follow that I should feel the same way about a TD candidate. The presidency is a uniquely symbolic role -- almost a role model for the nation. IMO it should be held by a person of integrity and unstinting, constant loyalty to Ireland, rather than a person who has abandoned their allegiance to the nation. How can you honorably stand before the electorate claiming to love your country if you thought nothing of renouncing it for personal gain?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This isn’t about “conflicts of interest” that might affect the legislative or executive governance of Ireland. You have argued throughout this thread that the US oath of naturalization has no legal standing in Ireland, and I agreed with you, remember?

Of course I do not get the opportunity to vote for a candidate for the office of Taoiseach or Minister for Defence or Justice – that’s out of my hands. So what we are talking about is my criteria for choosing a TD. That would be the candidate whose politics are the most closely aligned to mine, or the person who I believe would most successfully champion the policies I’d like to see enacted. Yes, if he had previously renounced his allegiance to Ireland, that would stand against him in my estimation, but it wouldn’t necessarily rule him out. Because it’s not his role to be the Paragon of Ireland, it’s the president’s.

Sponge Bob

This gets messier. Dana claims she swore allegiance to the US in October 1999 AFTER she was elected to the EU Parliament.

I refer to Procedure Rules 2 and 3 of the European Parliament below.

Having taken an OATH or at least given an UNDERTAKING .... as I understand it.... when she joined the EU Parliament in June 1999 she took an incompatible oath in late 1999.

Ms Scallon showed presenter Pat Kenny a document showing that she did not become an American citizen until October 1999 She said she would be prepared to give up her US citizenship if she became president but added that she “didn’t see it as a disadvantage".

EU Parliament Rules of Procedure are HERE

Rule 2 : The independent mandate

Members of the European Parliament shall exercise their mandate independently. They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate.

especially from the US of A

and then there is rule 3. Did Dana notify OUR Government who should have duly notified the EU Parliament of the highlighted bits under rule 3.

Rule 3 : Verification of credentials

1. Following elections to the European Parliament, the President shall invite the competent authorities of the Member States to notify Parliament without delay of the names of the elected Members so that all Members may take their seats in Parliament with effect from the opening of the first sitting following the elections.

At the same time, the President shall draw the attention of those authorities to the relevant provisions of the Act of 20 September 1976 and invite them to take the necessary measures to avoid any incompatibility with the office of Member of the European Parliament.

2. Members whose election has been notified to Parliament shall declare in writing, before taking their seat in Parliament, that they do not hold any office incompatible with that of Member of the European Parliament within the meaning of Article 7(1) or (2) of the Act of 20 September 1976. Following general elections, the declaration shall be made, where possible, no later than six days prior to Parliament's constitutive sitting. Until such time as Members' credentials have been verified or a ruling has been given on any dispute, and provided that they have previously signed the above-mentioned written declaration, they shall take their seat in Parliament and on its bodies and shall enjoy all the rights attaching thereto.

Where it is established from facts verifiable from sources available to the public that a Member holds an office incompatible with that of Member of the European Parliament, within the meaning of Article 7(1) and (2) of the Act of 20 September 1976, Parliament, on the basis of the information provided by its President, shall establish that there is a vacancy.

3. On the basis of a report by the committee responsible for the verification of credentials, Parliament shall verify credentials without delay and rule on the validity of the mandate of each of its newly elected Members and also on any dispute referred to it pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 20 September 1976, except those based on national electoral laws.

4. The committee's report shall be based on the official notification by each Member State of the full results of the election specifying the names of the candidates elected and those of any substitutes together with their ranking in accordance with the results of the vote.

The validity of the mandate of a Member may not be confirmed unless the written declarations required under this Rule and Annex I to these Rules have been made.

On the basis of a report by the committee, Parliament may at any time rule on any dispute as to the validity of the mandate of any of its Members.

5. Where the appointment of a Member is due to the withdrawal of candidates from the same list, the committee shall ensure that the withdrawals in question have taken place in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Act of 20 September 1976 and Rule 4(3).

6. The committee shall ensure that any information which may affect the performance of the duties of a Member of the European Parliament or the ranking of the substitutes is forwarded to Parliament without delay by the authorities of the Member States or of the Union, with an indication of the date of effect in the case of an appointment.

Should the competent authorities of the Member States initiate a procedure which might lead to the disqualification of a Member from holding office, the President shall ask them to keep him regularly informed of the stage reached in the procedure and shall refer the matter to the committee responsible. On a proposal from that committee, Parliament may adopt a position on the matter

This makes reference to section 7 of an 1976 Act, lets have a looks shall we It was a 1997 act here by the time it was promulgated.,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1977/en/act/pub/0030/sec0007.html#sec7

7.—(1) A person who is not eligible to become a member of Dáil Éireann shall not be eligible for election under this Act to the Assembly.


(2) If while he is a representative in the Assembly by virtue of this Act a person becomes subject to any of the disqualifications applicable to membership of Dáil Éireann he shall thereupon cease to be a representative in the Assembly.

So while she was not disqualified from her foreign excursion I BELIEVE she should have notified our government so they could assert that she was not disqualified ..on her behalf..... in 1999.

Then there is procedural rule 5 which extended her the benefits of the:

Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union

and the 'Laisser Passer' privileges she therefore enjoyed.

Did she follow the Council regulations on the Laisser Passer to the letter or should she have informed the Commission of a material change to citizenship which should have been noted on her Laisser Passer.?

None of these are family matters, she refuses to talk about them now

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

barring any naturalized U.S. citizen from standing for election to the Dáil

Why would you want to do that?? Sure, thousands are emigrating. If they stay and naturalise and eventually come back will they be barred from the Dáil?

Doesn't that limit the political gene pool to the same old safe job ex-teachers.

I knew Irish society extracts social punishment for emigrating but this is a bit strong.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't know why you're so fixated on the idea of barring naturalized US citizens from seeking office in Ireland. As I said above, I would not support that -- the voters should be free to decide for themselves whether that candidate is fit for office.
Seems to be a straw man you're wheeling out.

Permabear wrote: »

I don't think you can draw such a firm dividing line between the president and the taoiseach. Both are important representatives of the country. Why is it okay for one to have renounced his allegiance but not the other?

Misrepresenting my postition again. Sneaky. I didn't say it's "okay" for a taoiseach (actually, TD) to have renounced his allegiance to Ireland; on the contrary, I said "that would stand against him in my estimation."

I think I've explained my view very thoroughly. You don't agree with me --- that's fine.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Coriolanus

A fair compromise I think would be for the applicant to issue a similar oath renouncing the previous citizenship.

So in Dana's case she'd swear an oath renouncing her allegiance etc to any previous state she was subject to and so on and so forth.

Given that this would be sworn in an Irish Court or at least in front of a Commisioner of Oaths, it should have no legal bearing on her American citizenship.

Though, it may prove true that the Americans put a greater weight on such repudiations of their citizenship than the Irish seem to put on ours.

MadsL

@permabear - gotcha now, misunderstood your position earlier.

Sponge Bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yah quite but you are missing the essential point. She swore allegiance to misc.yadda yadda American stuff in 1999 AFTER SHE CAME BACK TO IRELAND and AFTER she ran for president first time round and WHILE representing a part of said Ireland in the EU Parliament.

Had she done so in 1989 after years living there and no sign of a return then there would be no issue.

Berwick

So Dana is American?

First thing I 've heard ....

Snakeblood

Berwick wrote: »

So Dana is American?

First thing I 've heard ....

She applied for citizenship, so she's an american citizen. It was all over the papers.

anymore

stoneill wrote: »

Is she an Irish citizen or a US citizen?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1007/1224305390909.html

People becoming naturalised US citizens take an oath renouncing their allegiance to all other states. Ms Scallon said she could not recall taking the oath. She said that being a US citizen did not bar her from becoming president of Ireland.


If she did take the oath, does that mean she is not legally allowed to run for president?

Well the fact that she is not US born, means for starters that she would be ineligible to run for the US Presidency - the fact that she was willing to take out dual citizenship suggest she does not have a whole hearted committment to Ireland and thus for myself i cannot consider giving her the sympathy vote I was considering. I presume as a committed catholic, she would not consider dividing her loyalties between the catholic and Protestant faiths, so I see no reason to justify her divided political loyalities if she intended herself to be Ireland's first citizen.