Kopfbereich

Direkt zum Inhalt Direkt zur Navigation
CLJS has opened up their online t-shirt store. Buy one of their popular "Statue of Liberty" t-shirts for only $10 with your credit card or PayPal account online!
 

Inhalt

Yes, PLB Is Lying to You
Vartotojų vertinimas: / 0
Įrašė Moacir P. de Sá Pereira   
2008.05.07 14.12
Image
R. Narušienė. (AL)
My lack of faith in my intuition about the dual citizenship issue has sort of encouraged me to keep my opinions wishy-washy and indirect—to criticize with glancing shots. In my previous post, for example. I have to asterisk the most important point out of diffidence.

The wariness was the result of the fact that though I suspected that my eligibility for Lithuanian citizenship had not changed as a result of the 2006 Lithuanian Supreme Court decision regarding dual citizenship, I did not know that it had not changed.

In preparing a letter to the editor that I sent to Amerikos lietuvis to denounce the dishonest distortion of the citizenship issue provided by my representative, PLB chairperson Regina Narušienė, I decided that the force of my rhetoric crucially depended on my being able to turn my suspicion into fact.

Turns out I was right—and I didn't even have to make a phone call. The Lithuanian Embassy's website says clearly (and in mostly intelligible English, even!):
[P]ersons, restoring  or applying for the citizenship of Lithuania as of 16th of November, 2006, must remounce their current citizeship after it will be stated that he or she is eligible and can become a Lithuanian citizen. Those who are willing to apply may do so according to the established procedure (see bellow). After analyzing the application the person will be informed if s/he is eligible to become a Lithuanian citizen. Person, willing to obtain Lithuanian citizenship and a passport, will then have to renounce his or her current citizenship and prove this fact to the Lithuanian migration authorities. [sic all of this]
The “bellow” includes both eligibilities:
  • persons who were citizens of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, residing in other states (provided that such persons, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren did not repatriate);
  • persons of Lithuanian descent who reside in other states.
In other words, and I’ll write this in huge letters:

Everyone who was eligible for Lithuanian citizenship before the Supreme Court ruling is STILL eligible for Lithuanian citizenship.

There is no “taking away.” There is no “revoking.” There is no “abusing rights.” There is no “betraying.”

All that changed after 16 November 2006 is that anyone who exercises a right to citizenship must, also, renounce their previous citizenship.

This is obviously not a small thing to renounce. But it does mean that anyone who complains about the decision is not actually complaining about a right to citizenship. Given the recommendations by the Seimas work group on dual citizenship, this complaining person (read: Narušienė) is using the rhetoric of rights to argue for the mere privilege of indecision. If I want Lithuanian citizenship, I can get it. But it, like everything in life, has a cost. It is now a far steeper one than it was before. But I can still get it.

The payoff: to say that the focus of the argument is misguided when it is about dual citizenship, as the focus should be on the revoking of a birthright is A LIE.
Paskutinį kartą atnaujinta ( 2008.05.07 14.21 )
 
The Lies PLB Tells Us
Vartotojų vertinimas: / 0
Įrašė Moacir P. de Sá Pereira   
2008.05.06 19.39
ImageThis... This is why people who are intelligent, self-aware, and young have absolutely no desire whatsoever to volunteer to help out with Lietuvių bendruomenė...

PLB chairperson R. Narušienė is stooping to the some of the most depraved spin and propaganda imaginable in trying to boost the popular support for overturning the Lithuanian Supreme Court's decision to stop respecting dual citizenship:
Lietuvoje buvo ir yra kalbama tik apie DVIGUBOS PILIETYBĖS principą, kuris LR Konstitucijoje, išskyrus numatytus „atskirus atvejus“, yra  draudžiamas. Tačiau juk Lietuvos Konstitucija teigia, jog LR pilietybė įgyjama gimstant ir kad žmogaus teisės yra prigimtinės. Užsienio lietuviai tiki, jog jų pilietybės teisė yra prigimtinė. Štai kodėl, diskusija pirmiausia turėtų būti apie užsienio lietuvių PRIGIMTINĖS PILIETYBĖS TEISĖS atėmimą, o ne apie dvigubos pilietybės suteikimą.
In short, for the non-speakers: the issue here is not about dual citizenship, but, rather, about the revoking of a birthright to citizenship. This is, easily, the most offensive thing I have read today, and it is in the running for the most offensive thing I have ever read regarding the citizenship debate.

NO ONE—absolutely NO ONE—who was eligible for Lithuanian citizenship before the Court's decision was made is now ineligible. NO ONE is having their citizenship revoked ("yet," she FUD-ishly adds later in the document).* Her invocation of international rights to secure political cachet among the expatriate/diaspora Lithuanian community is an appalling OBSCENITY in its audacious comparison to actual, legitimate abuses of human rights.

The Lithuanian law grants that nearly anyone who would want Lithuanian citizenship (or would argue a Lithuanian ethnic heritage) is allowed to have it. What they are not allowed to do is have their cake and eat it. If you want to be a citizen of Lithuania, go ahead—but leave your blue US passport at the door.

So again:

NO ONE—absolutely NO ONE—who was eligible for Lithuanian citizenship before the Court's decision was made is now ineligible. NO ONE is having their citizenship revoked.

To turn the argument from one about the elitist demands of the diaspora community into one about human rights is grotesque. Words fail. Shame.

* This is my understanding of the constitutional argument, though I am not, of course, a practicing constitutional lawyer in Lithuania. Then again, neither is anyone on the PLB board. Furthermore, Narušienė makes no effort to disabuse one of my reading in her remarks. It makes rhetorical sense to do so, which is why I suspect my reading is simply obscured in FUD. [UPDATE 7 May 2008] This diffidence is not necessary. As I write, the Lithuanian Embassy clearly states that the ruling has not changed eligibility requirements other than by adding the renouncing aspect.
Paskutinį kartą atnaujinta ( 2008.05.07 14.24 )
 
Onomastic bias
Vartotojų vertinimas: / 0
Įrašė Moacir P. de Sá Pereira   
2008.04.29 11.54

ImageVia lietuviams.com, I read an article in Delfi by Eglė Digrytė about the recent surge in “non-Lithuanian” names among children of Lithuanian emigrants in the UK. The lede is worth reproducing in full:

Shakyra, Lee, Leya, Sameeras, Adnan, Radu, Kvinta, Younas… Tai – ne muzikos ar kino žvaigždžių vardai. Taip savo atžalas šaukia Didžiojoje Britanijoje įsikūrę naujosios bangos išeiviai. Todėl mūsų šalies ambasada pradėjo raginti juos mažyliams duoti lietuviškus vardus.

I’ll be getting back to this troubling paragraph later in this post. In any case, Digrytė worries that UK Lithuanians have started competing among themselves for who can have the most exotic name. Or they borrow names from stars, or, ultimately, she writes, they choose such unfamiliar names that guessing the gender of the child becomes difficult. (!)

In steps the Lithuanian Embassy in London, with their promotion “Mano vardas LIETUVIŠKAS!,” which encourages emigrants to encourage the spread of Lithuanian linguistic traditions without forgetting Lithuanian names. The article concludes with the usual non sequiturs regarding the age of the Lithuanian language, but the conclusion is clear: Lithuanians should be naming their children Lithuanian names, preferably ancient ones (such as “Eglė,” one might surmise).

Paskutinį kartą atnaujinta ( 2008.04.29 12.00 )
 
Why this citizenship petition sucks
Vartotojų vertinimas: / 0
Įrašė Moacir P. de Sá Pereira   
2008.04.23 14.48

[Surely you have probably received an email encouraging you to sign the Bičiulystė e-petition asking the Seimas to grant dual citizenship to NATO member nations and Australia. I think the petition is junk in its reasoning (and in its practice, but that is a different issue). Amerikos lietuvis asked people to write in with their opinions on this petition, and so I did. Then I translated what I wrote into English, and now I am printing the English translation here. The Lithuanian original is available on lietuviams.com.]

ImageWhen I first heard the news about the recommendation to the Seimas that they not allow US citizens to also be citizens of Lithuania, I immediately guessed the US Lithuanian community would flip the hell out. I knew I'd be reading screed after screed with an LB logo affixed to it.

In fact, I was so on point with my prophecy that I should’ve bought a lottery ticket that same day. On the other hand, maybe it’s best that I didn’t, since one thing I failed to predict was the bizarre turn that the dissatisfaction with the Seimas work group's recommendation would take.

Simply, there are a lot of great reasons why Lithuania should allow US citizens to hold dual citizenship. It would clearly strengthen relationships between both nations, especially financially. We so quickly forget that it was capital provided by the denigrated “first-wave” Lithuanian-Americans that kept the economy of first Lithuanian Republic solvent. So though Lithuania is now in better economic shape, it doesn’t make sense to ignore such a potentially large set of human ATMs. Furthermore, should there be some kind of crisis (terrorist, say) that befalls Lithuania but does not invoke the NATO charter, the presence of many US citizens in Lithuania might encourage the US to take a more active approach in helping defuse (as it were) the tension. Finally, dual citizenship is hardly unprecedented, and Lithuania can boldly incorporate it.

However, among the great reasons for US/Lithuanian dual citizenship, you will not find the reasoning of choice in the Lithuanian-American public sphere: the fact that both the US and Lithuania are in NATO. I don't understand why both PLB chairperson R. Narušienė and the Amerikos lietuvis editorial board have taken this path, especially as it leads to ludicrous attempts at equating NATO with the EU.

Paskutinį kartą atnaujinta ( 2008.04.24 04.26 )
 
<< Pradėti < Prieš 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kitas > Pabaiga >>

Rezultatai 1 - 4 iš 111