Does Sarath Fonseka has “Strong and Admitted Motive” for retaining Legal Permanent Resident status in U.S?
Daya Gamage – US National Correspondent Asian Tribune
Washington, DC. 04 January (Asiantribune.com):
In one of our previous reports it was stated that Sri Lanka is facing an unusual situation in the forthcoming January 26 presidential election in which one of the candidates, General (rtrd) Sarath Fonseka the common candidate of the opposition, is a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) of the United States which can lead to the ‘invitation’ of foreign interference, manipulations and influence in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka never experienced before.
The United States works very strangely addressing situations of this type.
It is interesting to note here the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 that allowed an Israeli man to retain his citizenship status while being elected to the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) because, according to the Supreme Court, the Israeli expressed his “strong and admitted motive” for retaining the legal resident status he gained in the United States while retaining his citizenship in Israel.
In fact the Israeli, Rabbi Meir Kahane, informed the U.S. State Department that even after his election to the Israeli parliament he has the “strong and admitted motive” to retain his legal resident status in the U.S.
Did the U.S. see him as a 'conduit' between U.S. and Israel?
The question is whether Sarath Fonseka notified the U.S. State Department that he “has a strong and admitted motive” to retain his legal resident status despite running for the office of the president of the Democratic Socialist republic of Sri Lanka, and how the U.S. view this unusual situation.
On October 2, 1985, the United States Department of State stripped Rabbi Meir Kahane of his American citizenship. The State Department based its action on section 349(a)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides for loss of American nationality for any U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident (LPR) “accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state….if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state.”
Kahane came within this provision, the State Department asserted, when he assumed a seat in the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) in August 1984. Rabbi Kahane appealed to the State Department’s Board of Appellate Review. On May 1, 1986, the Board in In re Kahane affirmed the administrative determination of loss of citizenship.
The U.S. Supreme Court has all but eliminated the power of Congress to terminate U.S. citizenship without the consent of the citizen. “In the last analysis,” the Court wrote in Vance v. Terrazan , “expatriation depends upon the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct.”
Both before and after assuming his Knesset seat, Kahane informed the U.S. State Department that he had no intention of relinquishing his legal status in the U.S. And the State Department has acknowledged that Kahane “has a strong and admitted motive” for retaining U.S. citizenship: as a citizen (or a Legal Permanent Resident), Kahane may enter and leave this country virtually as a matter of will – right that would be lost if citizenship were terminated.
The above story is presented here to give the reader some insight to the implications of having “dual loyalty” while being a legal permanent resident in the United States while running or assuming high office in a foreign country.
- Asian Tribune -
Comments
I am not supporting anyone in
I am not supporting anyone in particular for the Sri Lankan Presidency. Not yet, anyway.
But one has to wonder what citizenship the author of the above article holds. As Andre Gide put it: "The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."
Also, it is funny that I never read anything by Gamage about all the people with dual citizenship in the current GoSL. And I mean full citizenship in a foreign country, and not merely having residency papers or a residency card.
Dual Citizens and the Presidency
Having Dual citizenship does not preclude a person from serving at an ordinary level, either of the countries that afforded him/her that privilege. However, it does preclude a person with Dual citizenship or Permanent Residence (which is granted as a prerequisite to full Citizenship) from running for election as President, the highest office in the land, since the person's oath of allegiance to protect and serve the country, is compromised: A clear conflict of interest that would apply as far as both Sri Lanka and the US are concerned in this case. Gen Fonseka's run for President in SL is probably being challenged in the SC on these grounds by Mr. Kongahage.
In the US, not only has a person running for President to be a citizen, but the person has to have been actually BORN in one of the 50 states. This precludes recent immigrants who have obtained citizenship from running for the highest office in the land. Even President Obama's rights to the presidency have been challenged on grounds connected with his having been born in Hawaii, and to an American mother but a Kenyan father!
These are the facts behind
These are the facts behind the requirement that a President of the U.S. be a "natural born" citizen of the U.S. At the time the United States broke away from Britain and proclaimed its Independence, one of the Founding Fathers, who was born in the territory that now forms the United States, was determined to prevent another Founding Father, who was not born in the territory that became the United States, from ever becoming President.
And this Founding Father who opposed the person who was not born in the U.S. from becoming Prez succeeded in his efforts to get the necessary support to put in the necessary restrictions in the U.S. Constitution (Clearly, it is not only Sri Lankan politicians who are third rate bums)
Now suggestions are afloat to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to make it possible for a naturalized citizen to even become Prez provided he/she has been a citizen for around 20 years, at least. Very recently, this suggestion was again mooted so that Calif Governor Arnold S. could run for Prez.
This restriction in the U.S. will eventually be removed. (Yes. Even a Sri Lankan- American may be able to become U.S. Prez.) But it will take time. Even a mere five years ago no one would have believed it possible for an African American to become Prez of the US in 2009.
As for the arguments against Obama becoming Prez, this shows that politics is the same dirty game all over the world. Not that this should be a consolation to Sri Lankan politicians. The U.S. Constitution requires the Prez to be a "natural born" citizen of the U.S. It doesn't matter whether the father, or mother, or both, were born in Timbuktu. The parents of Bobby Jindal, who almost became the Republican V.P. candidate, were born in India. And Hawaii is not a foreign country. Hawaii is one of the 50 Federal States that form the United States of America, one country.
And, in Britain or Australia, for instance, there are no Constitutional impediments to prevent a foreign-born Member of Parliament from becoming Prime Minister. Very recently, a burgher Sri Lankan became the Governor-General of one of the Federal States in Australia.
Dual Citizens/Green Card holders and the Presidency
Correct...however, efforts to amend the US Constitution and permit those who are not "natural-born" in the US like Schwarzenegger to contest for the Presidency have been brought up several times, but have failed thus far. The Republicans who have usually stood against it are now interested in pushing some legislation because they see Schwarzenegger as a viable future candidate, but they will again come up against a lot of objection by many conservative Repubs themselves who consider that unchallengeable patriotism, an essential quality for a President, comes only with being born in the US itself.
As for Hawaii, it is not one of the "contiguous states", and does not have the same historical place in the carving of American history as the other states of the mainland that were associated with the War of Independence.
Thamby7 points out that, "in Britain or Australia, for instance, there are no Constitutional impediments to prevent a foreign-born Member of Parliament from becoming Prime Minister", BUT, no non-White foreign-born person (as far as I know), has come close to even a Ministerial position in Britain despite Britain's long historical association with Asians in particular.
My main point is that almost all countries consider uncompromised commitment to the country to be essential for a Presidential candidate in whom the responsibility for National Security will be entrusted, and therefore Dual Citizenship or even Permanent Resident status in another country would be decidedly unacceptable.
SriLankans might as well
SriLankans might as well select Barak Obama as their president than electing Sarath Fonseka.
On the oher hand if elected, Sarath Fonseka has a place to run when the JVP starts its armed struggle.