The Editor, Sir:We love to duck issues, but the truth is that the majority of persons who migrate do so out of their own desire to pursue financial betterment, to pursue greener pastures. Remittances made to Jamaica were a fulfilment of their own family obligations and without any altruistic intentions towards Jamaica. Remittances are a by-product of their personal pursuit.
Foreign allegiance
We need to keep certain positions in this country limited to those who have never sworn foreign allegiance. Here is why:
Many, if not the majority, of the nations of the world have such clauses in their constitution with varying degrees of stringency. Such clauses do help to protect the sovereignty of nations. Is the US going to change its constitution to accommodate its citizens who seek key positions in the state and who have sworn allegiance to Jamaica or any other state? Hardly likely, so why should we? The vast percentage of Jamaicans have no such citizenship and are not seeking any such. This push to change the Constitution could almost appear to be tyranny of the minority. Many of us chose to stay and gave more than remittances to Jamaica. We gave ourselves. Is it fair to us? All actions have consequences both advantageous and disadvantageous. Some choose the route of dual citizenship and make large income gains and foreign pensions. Some of us forfeited that and so are eligible for certain offices. You can't have your cake and eat it. Many of our people are ignorant of the issues and are open to being exploited to suit different interest groups.Big mistake
I want to remind us that it is a big mistake to make such major constitutional change in a time of heated political fury. In fact, it is a mistake to attach issues of constitutional change to party politics.
Let national interest and sound planning and policy take the forefront to crass politicking and personal interest at this time.
I am, etc.,
HELEN ANN BROWN
helenann_brown@yahoo.com
Bedward Crescent, Kingston
Via Go-Jamaica
