Sir, – It transpires that Dana Rosemary Scallon is in fact a naturalised US citizen, and was so when she last contested the Irish presidential election (Colm Keena, Front page, October 7th).
This leaves me bemused. A naturalised US citizen by definition cannot be a citizen of any other country. It is an absolute legal requirement when adopting US citizenship that all foreign allegiances are foresworn and relinquished.
The Irish Constitution requires that the President be an Irish citizen. It is the case that a provision tucked away in the Irish 1956 Citizenship Act allows for Irish citizens who were born in Ireland (as distinct from Irish citizens born elsewhere who claim their citizenship through matri- or patrilineal descent) to renounce their citizenship and then later get it back. My understanding is that this provision exists specifically to allow Irish citizens to obtain US citizenship and then quietly (and illegally under US law) get their Irish citizenship back.
However, this provision does not apply to Irish citizens born elsewhere than in Ireland. Once such a citizen, deriving their citizenship from jus sanguinis, the law of blood, rather than jus solis, the law of the sun, renounces their Irish citizenship it is gone for ever.
Dana Rosemary Scallon was born in London. Therefore, by the above lights, she cannot still be an Irish citizen. In which case I would ask, why is she a candidate for the presidency of Ireland now, and why was she a candidate the last time she ran, when she was by then a US citizen? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Your article concerning Ms Scanlon’s citizenship of the United States of America (Front page, October 7th) is a very serious issue and isn’t just a matter, as she flippantly contends, of whether Ms Scanlon votes here or in the US.
The oath of allegiance that all naturalised citizens of the US are obliged to take specifically requires them to renounce all previous citizenships. This therefore bars Ms Scanlon from standing as a candidate in the presidential election as each candidate for the office of president is required to be a citizen of the State (Bunreacht na hÉireann 12.4.1).
Ms Scanlon’s renunciation of her US citizenship at this stage will be too little too late – she was constitutionally barred from standing for election as president of Ireland at the closing date for nominations. However, she will be glad to hear that the closing date for nominations for election for president of the US has not yet passed – though as she wasn’t born in the US she is also constitutionally barred from standing there too. Oops – time for another oath or two from Ms Scanlon, I suspect.
In addition, if Ms Scanlon is the type of individual who lightly takes oaths of allegiance, is she then someone we wish to take the oath of office of the president of Ireland? Will she turn around in a couple of years and fail to remember that she took that oath too? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Minister Phil Hogan claimed that the election of Martin McGuinness as president would ruin Ireland’s reputation abroad and might even jeopardise the country getting more corporate investment from America.
Now, we have a candidate who is a US citizen, was born in the UK has connections with the Vatican (they might re-appoint a new ambassador to Ireland, who would be good for hiring a couple of Irish unemployed to make the tea, etc).
Dana is a shoe-in to attract more investment into Ireland. She has good public service experience as an MEP. She seemingly also has experience in the export of religious music; the taking on of US citizenship would have helped her with her business dealings in the States.
She would have good connections with the Irish US Diaspora who put their religion on a far more important plane than many of us at home. Dare I say it, also with the Bible belt? She is as well known in Europe as Nana Mouskouri and would be able to open many doors.
The US citizen thing is a storm in a teacup! She could undertake to resign if there ever was a clash of her responsibilities, which I very much doubt there would be. It would be stupid of the Irish not to recognise a superb presidential package that is staring them in the face. I am sure the US-owned multinationals over here will recognise this.
In light of the Fine Gael attack on Mr McGuinness, and their worry about future jobs etc, I suggest that they withdraw Gay Mitchell and give their support to Dana. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – What really worries me, more for the sake of our outraged and incoherent commentariat than for any reason that could be of itself described as moral, is the prospect of Martin McGuinness – him above all – inviting to Áras an Uachtaráin, in the admirable pursuit of his stated aims of peace and reconciliation, a war criminal, such as, say, fellow peacemaker, Tony Blair, to whose Christian fundamentalist ideology and unrivalled capacity for lying, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives, Iraqi and Afghan, and many others too, can be safely attributed.
But such an eccentric anxiety may be entirely misplaced, even outrageous; the moral shudder at violence in Ireland – or should that be rephrased as “in Ireland the moral shudder at violence”? – fades when the violence has an external origin or when it reaches a truly heroic scale.
Yet I fear we will indeed see invitations to the Áras, afforded to many representatives, sponsors and practitioners of a global violence which has become so naturalised that, in the stampede to join them at the top table, we shall become their ever more adroit allies in smoothly legitimating it. Yet, the anxiety may be needless; perhaps we have at last become “mature” enough to be gratified by such a sleek role in this new moral world order. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – You are to be commended for the publication of the article by Danny Morrison (Opinion, October 6th). This is a cogent presentation of the complex story that is Northern Ireland. The historical accuracy and logical analysis is in sharp contrast with the almost hysterical contributions of some members of our Government. Our Taoiseach does not inspire confidence in his failure to deal with those of his party involved. I trust that The Irish Timeswill ever provide a forum as you do today. – Is mise,
Sir, – Last February The Irish Timespublished a letter highlighting my frustration at the absence of subtitles on Vincent Browne's TV3 general election leaders debate.
Such subtitles are the only way deaf people can access important political information. The omission has occurred once again during the presidential debate this week. Has TV3 – or the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland – no policy in place to ensure deaf people have access to national events such as this?
Maybe Vincent Browne can put words into action and demand the station introduce compulsory subtitling? – Yours, etc,
Sir, Seán A McDermot wonders which of our seven presidential hopefuls might be “happy” (October 6th)? A clue may lie in those lies, damned lies and statistics which tell us that six out of seven dwarves are not happy. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I see Government Chief Whip Paul Kehoe has defended his comments made on Twitter about Martin McGuinness (Home News, October 6th).
Most organisations now have a written policy that covers their members’ use of social media. This usually requires members to state on their personal social media profile that any comments made are their own and not necessarily those of their organisation. It seems that Fine Gael does not have such a policy given that Mr Kehoe clearly stated that he has a duty to say what he likes just because he is elected. I would suggest Fine Gael implements a social media policy for party officials immediately so everyone is clear on their official line. Any consideration that the policy should extend to declaring on personal profiles that unpopular economic news broadcast is not the responsibility of Fine Gael but of the EU, ECB and IMF troika is best left without comment. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – On the one hand I sincerely sympathise with David Norris. Hepatitis is a very nasty and debilitating illness, and I have no doubt it rendered him unable to meet the high standards obtaining at Trinity College.
On the other hand, the fact that not only was he able to cope with his duties in the Seanad but was one of its most able members must surely stand as a damning indictment of the standards obtaining there.
How ironic that such a cogent argument for the abolition of the Seanad (as if another one were needed), should emanate, however inadvertently, from one of its most senior members. – Yours, etc,