Government last night looked set to reject a bid to allow born Bermudians who have sworn allegiance to a foreign power to sit in the House of Assembly.

Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness said last night that Government would oppose a motion brought by Shadow Home Affairs Minister Alex Scott to remove clauses in the Constitution on eligibility.

Mr. Scott's motion followed controversy over Warwick West MP Dr. Ewart Brown taking his seat in the House of Assembly after the last General Election when he had taken US citizenship in 1990.

The Constitution bars a person from sitting in the House if he or she is "by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.'' Ms. Scott's motion asked for the House to take "immediate steps'' to have this discriminatory clause removed from the Constitution.

He said the clause was discriminatory as people from other countries who later received Bermuda status were allowed to sit in the House while retaining their foreign citizenship.

He said if the clause in the Constitution did discriminate against any party then "honest and honourable men and women will want to seek immediate remedies''.

Mr. Scott stressed that the matter went beyond Dr. Brown's circumstances and went to the heart of the Constitution.

Later in the marathon debate, Dr. Brown hit back, saying Government's interpretation was "mean-spirited, illogical and just plain wrong''.

"I keep hearing members from the other side saying `renounce'. I will tell you what I will renounce -- this Government's racist policies and this Government's economic assassinations.

"I am hearing tonight that being born Bermudian has no value.'' Mr. Scott said an article in yesterday's Royal Gazette reflected a lawyer's opinion and if three different lawyers were consulted then a person would get four different opinions.

The article quoted a legal opinion from a British Queen's Counsel which stated that Dr. Brown could face prison or a fine for taking his seat. The opinion was sought by former Premier Sir John Sharpe who lost his Warwick West seat to Dr. Brown by 14 votes.

Mr. Scott said that if the mater was not up for discussion yesterday, then the paper's headline would have still found its way onto the page when a general election was called.

The article established a prejudice and there would be similar prejudicial thoughts coming from the Government benches during the debate, he added.

And Mr. Scott said while the US was normally considered a friend to Bermuda, when it was "politically expedient'' it was considered a foreign power.

Mr. Scott added the issue was of fundamental importance considering the number of young Bermudians who travel and live abroad.

Brown motion He also pointed out a number of other foreign-born Members, some from Jamaica, Canada, and the UK, who have taken their seat in the House, including Kim Young, who was born in Australia: "And that is right; we should allow it, we should be progressive.'' Mr. Scott also pointed to the case of Dr. E.F. Gordon, who took his seat in Parliament even though he was foreign born.

"He was welcomed by the people, no one questioned when he took his seat in Parliament; I'm told the very same seat as the Honourable Member (Ewart Brown).'' The point being made, said Mr. Scott, was that a foreign-born member was more welcome in Parliament than a "son of the soil.'' Mr. Scott also argued the discriminatory clause in question, was at odds with a prior clause, which guaranteed against discrimination.

Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness replied Government took the motion very seriously, but said the burden of the motion was to validate past offences against the Constitution by Dr. Brown.

He rejected Mr. Scott's contention that the Constitution was discriminatory, arguing instead that it protected Bermudians from those who have sworn allegiance to a foreign power.

The clause in question, he argued, was set up to protect Parliament from those who have sworn allegiance to a foreign power, and the same clause existed in many other national constitutions.

"If you swear allegiance to another flag, is it right for you to be a Member of Parliament; the answer is no. You can't serve two masters. If there was a dispute between the US Congress and the Parliament of this tiny little country, who would the Honourable Member serve?'' The issue had nothing to do with discrimination against those of dual nationalities, Mr. Edness said, and charged the Opposition with trying to mislead the public and misconstrue the logic of the issue.

Concluded in tomorrow's newspaper.