This… 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.
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.