Ken Jones, Contributor

In Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens has a delightfully officious character named Mr Bumble. At one point, he is informed that "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction."

To this, the irritated man replies in mangled English: "If the law supposes that ... the law is a ass - a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst. I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience ..."

I am reminded of this gem of literature whenever I read Section 40 of the Jamaican Constitution. This odious ordinance is designed to make second-class citizens of Jamaican-born nationals who have become dual citizens, in accordance with the laws of Jamaica.

This newly endangered species may have been born right here and been thoroughly schooled in the ways of the people, fully absorbed the 'culcha', paid taxes due and even provided employment for fellow citizens.

There is a law that discounts these acts of good citizenship and judges patriotism by circumstances of birth resulting in dual citizenship, or any acknowledgement of the fact. That law to me resembles Mr Bumble's ass.

It doesn't take an Einstein or an Isaac Newton to figure out that the quality of patriotism and the strength of loyalties cannot be determined by the geographical location of a person's birth or possession of a passport from another country.

Benefited from migration

It is quite possible for one to be naturally endowed with inalienable rights and yet experience little or no emotional attachment to the country that provides these privileges. Nor can a political representative offer a guarantee of incorruptibility on the grounds that he never set foot beyond the shores of his native land.

No one born in Jamaica needs swear allegiance and faithfulness to this country. Such fidelity is an assumption widely accepted, despite abundant evidence that the great majority of thieves, traitors and turncoats have never owned a single passport, let alone two.

And to the contrary, Jamaica, like many small territories of the world, has benefited tremendously from the intellectual and material contributions of migrating citizens and those with dual nationality.

When 'Doubting Thomases' express distrust of dual citizens, they seem to be forgetting that Jamaica survives on the remittances that flow so heavily that Western Union and other money managers find it profitable to set up shop even in the countryside.

Also, many industrial, commercial and financial concerns in Jamaica have been made extremely profitable through the patronage of dual citizens living abroad. Should we with a broad brush brand such Jamaicans as unworthy to represent our interests?

It is established historical fact that small islanders tend to reach out to the nearest metropolitan mainland, not because they are disloyal and untrustworthy, but because they seek a better life for themselves and their children.

Does anyone need proof of this? The Jamaican Diaspora's general devotion to Jamaica is unquestionable, and this dates back to and beyond the age of such dual nationals as Walter Adolphe Roberts and the real fathers of the Independence movement, the Jamaica Progressive League of New York.

That was in 1936 and even before that, in 1921, our great National Hero Marcus Garvey applied for United States citizenship to facilitate his fight for the liberation of black people.

Garvey swore: "It is my bona fide intention to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince. potentate, state or sovereignty and particularly George V, King of Britain."

The application was never approved, but had it been, would today's puny, self-anointed patriots claiming to be 100 per cent Jamaican, dare to say he was unfit to represent Jamaicans in our Parliament?

Fervour of nationalism

At a time when the fervour of nationalism was highest in this land, Osmond Fairclough came back home from Haiti to inspire the founding of the People's National Party (PNP). He and others had difficulty persuading Norman Manley to accept the leadership role because, at the time, the great advocate did not believe that party politics was the answer to Jamaica's problems.

Before going to prison to suffer for Jamaican people, Bustamante had sworn allegiance to and served in the Spanish army. Is he now to be scandalised by those who benefited from his sacrifices?

There are those who believe that the present constitution is inviolate and should not be challenged, for it was written by our fathers in their wisdom.

I beg to disagree. The present constitution was put together under the watchful eye and at the instance of the then colonial masters. As the preamble states, it was given at the order of her majesty in exercise of the powers vested in her by the British Parliament and with the advice of her Privy Council.

It was not meant to satisfy all of our peculiar needs. Neither did it reflect the traditional English self-esteem that urged them to believe in the theory of perpetual allegiance; that once an Englishman, always an Englishman.

It was this self-esteem that led to the War of 1812, fought because of English sailors who had deserted to America and taken on the status of dual citizens.

This citizenship controversy has very little to do with any wish to see our people enjoying peace and prosperity. Rather, it is about tribalism and the setting of one set of people against the other. It is about encouraging the poor to envy, rather than emulate the hard working and the financially successful; rating a person's honesty and integrity by whether or not he or she has one passport or two.

Distract from nation building

It is about speaking from one side of the mouth: 'Out of many, one people' and then skewing the lips to mumble: "In Section 40 we trust, but dual citizens must pay cash."

I believe that the time has come for all well-thinking and proud Jamaicans to think for themselves, to identify what is lasting and good for all of us, and not just for those temporary gains that satisfy individuals or the different sectors of our society.

Jamaicans need to stop and see that this whole issue about dual nationality is not just about the House of Representatives; not about PNP and Jamaica Labour Party; and not about Dabdoub and Vaz.

It is about the tendency to reach for any cleaver that will divide the people and distract them from the task of nation building.

Faced with crises of these times, it is imperative that we Jamaicans stop fighting over foolishness. It is time for unity.

I am particularly heartened by recent comments of former Attorney General A.J. Nicholson. He concluded a well-reasoned appeal for national unity by saying in a recent Sunday Gleaner article, "... an everlasting tribal and partisan approach is a recipe for underachievement in normal times; it is a certain road to disaster and chaos in times of challenge or in times of peril."

Remove contentious section

I believe that it is time to remove Section 40 from the constitution because it is contentious and divisive.

I further believe that if dual citizens were as mean as their detractors, they would write a caveat across the back of every money transfer, saying: "This is my last letter until you change the Constitution and give us due respect."

They would scrawl the same message on every barrel and container shipped to anxious dependents here.

I guarantee that within a fortnight of such declarations, our legislators would be huddled together working for a solution to the sudden downward turn of the island's economy.

Ken Jones is a veteran journalist and general secretary of the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs. He may be reached at alllerdyce@hotmail.com.