Referenda on non-national births

Johnmb

Citizenship in Ireland should be brought in line with citizenship in Europe. This business of just being born here has always been crap. When that is done away with, it will cut the attraction that Ireland has as a doorway to Europe for illegal immigrants. Then, if the government gets it's act together, and introduces a proper immigration policy, genuine refugees will find it easier to get in and live here. The people causing the problems are those who are not genuine trying to use loopholes to their advantage. Closing those loopholes will get rid of those people. Genuine refugees will continue to come because they have no choice. Non-genuine cases will look elsewhere for an easy ride.

Also, I don't think that a child of an American, British, French, etc... couple should get citizenship just because they where born here during a temporary stay. I certainly wouldn't consider myself French had I been born there while my parents were on holiday.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I don't see how it will do anything about illegal immigration or deportations.
A Czech family last year were set to be deported even though their child was born here (only links I have are ireland.com links), and the Supreme Court did rule that having an Irish child did not mean the parents had a right to stay here.

The suggestion is that this loophole encourages people to come here simply to give birth in Ireland, not that birth here will confer any special status on the parents. That said, the Master of Holles Street is on the record in the article below saying many of the women who come are unaware of the Court's decision, and still think the birth will give them residency.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/12/02/story493071313.asp

Extracts from a few more relevant articles are below. The full articles are at the links indicated.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/09/15/story488289275.asp

Monday, September 15, 2003 :

Non-national baby boom ‘pushes system to the brink’

By Neans McSweeney
…………….
Births to non-nationals have more than doubled in the last three years and as many as 15% of non-national expectant mums turn up either in labour or just 10 days before giving birth, new figures show.

Master of Maternity at the Rotunda Hospital’s Dr Michael Geary said some women are travelling from abroad very late in their pregnancy. He said women from outside of Ireland are landing at our ports and airports and heading straight for hospital. “It’s all just a tragedy waiting to happen,” he said.


http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2002/09/22/story328198.asp

Dublin maternity hospitals under increased pressure
Sunday, September 22, 2002
By Kieron Wood
The rising number of pregnant asylum seekers is putting pressure on services at Dublin's biggest maternity hospitals. Expectant mothers have been told they may have to leave the hospital just one day after having their babies because of the rising number of births and resulting shortage of midwives.

Ten years ago, 6,277 babies were born in the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street. Last year, that figure had risen to 8,142.

According to health board figures, almost 2,000 asylum-seekers had babies here in the first eight months of last year. Of these, 1,500 babies were born in the Dublin maternity hospitals.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The suggestion is that this loophole encourages people to come here simply to give birth in Ireland, not that birth here will confer any special status on the parents.

It's not a loophole, it's in the consitution.
And if it confers no rights on these parents, what is the problem with it being there?

Redleslie

Originally posted by Johnmb
I certainly wouldn't consider myself French had I been born there while my parents were on holiday.

I'm sure you've got evidence to the contrary but I don't think many 9 month pregnant women decide it's the best time to go on holiday somewhere. Especially not to Ireland.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie
I'm sure you've got evidence to the contrary but I don't think many 9 month pregnant women decide it's the best time to go on holiday somewhere. Especially not to Ireland.

I don't need to provide evidence for anything other than what I said, and I am that evidence. I would not consider myself anything other than Irish, regardless as to where I was born. As for whether or not many 9 month pregnant women go on holiday, it is irrelevant if the referendum is passed, as their child would not be given Irish citizenship. It doesn't just single out immigrants as some scaremongerers would like everyone to believe.

bonkey

Personally I'd favour something like what is in effect here in Switzerland (which will come as no surprise to regulars here...).

I have what is currently called a B-Class permit. This is a residency & work permit that is typically annually renewed (except now for EU citizens who get a 5-year B-class, because of bilateral agreements).

After 5 years of a B-class permit, no major problems with the law (i.e. a littering or speeding offence wouldn't be a major problem), and not having been resident anywhere else for any of the duration, my B-Class gets upped to a C-Class.

That gives me permanent residency, and most of the rights of a citizen, but no right to vote (except possibly at a local level. It can also be revoked if I ever have a serious run-in with the law, etc. etc.

People who marry Swiss people get C-Class permits. People born in the country to non-Swiss parents get C-Class permits.

Anyone with a C-Class permit (again, you possibly need ot have it for more than 5 years) is eligible to apply for citizenship.

All works swimmingly.

jc

Egalitarian

Who killed equality ?

The responses to this Citizenship Referendum smack of no real conviction on either side. McDowell is clearly fostering a debate on non-nationals for electoral gain, but the reason he is able to do this so effectively is because there is not a shred of priniciple held by his opponents.

The farcical distinction between economic migrants and asylum seekers has degraded the key issue regarding the unequal treatment of non-nationals, whether that is based on immigration control, citizenship restrictions or the low-wage 'work permit' worker. Immigrants need bleeding heart liberals like a hole in the head right now. They have produced this mess in the first place. The evasion of fighting for equal rights and the flight into the courts to plead 'human rights' for those from less-prosperous parts of the world has served to apologise for the blatant inequalities suffered by non-nationals by this and previous administrations.

McDowell deserves the contempt of all egalitarians, not because of specious allegations of racial prejudice but for his contempt of equal rights. As a republican, I welcome any non-national to join Irish society and demand their rights to equal pay and welfare services that the rest of us take for granted. I do not think that I'm special or deserve to be privileged simply because of some cultural/racial inheritance, nor do I think most Irish citizens aspire to a society of privilege. So why be so defensive about equality?

Rather than welcome this opportunity to expose the prejudices which condemn Africans for getting on their bike and trying to improve their fortunes and their families futures, we get McDowells opponents condemning him for playing the race card before election time. With friends like that, immigrants know they're in for a hiding to nothing.

GuanYin

Bonkey, I think that sort of system would be the ideal solution and an incredibly forward thinking move by the government, as such I doubt it would ever be implimented inIreland

[edit]
I didn't read Egaltarians post properly (I've been distracted by other World News, )

Sparks

Originally posted by Egalitarian
The responses to this Citizenship Referendum smack of no real conviction on either side.

'scuse me? You reading this thread or another one somewhere else?

McDowell is clearly fostering a debate on non-nationals for electoral gain, but the reason he is able to do this so effectively is because there is not a shred of priniciple held by his opponents.

Actually, the reason he's able to do so effectively is that the FF/PD government has a majority in the Dail.
Which isn't to say that I wouldn't trust the bulk of the opposition TDs as far as I could throw them with one hand, but still.

Rather than welcome this opportunity to expose the prejudices which condemn Africans for getting on their bike and trying to improve their fortunes and their families futures, we get McDowells opponents condemning him for playing the race card before election time. With friends like that, immigrants know they're in for a hiding to nothing.

So, to summarise:
If you support taking away the rights of immigrants, you're doing them good - if you protest the taking away of these rights as the electioneering stunt that it is, you're out to harm them.
Hmmm.
Apparently, I've misread the dictionary definition of "logical".

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
It's not a loophole, it's in the consitution.

Legal texts can have mistakes or unforeseen consequences, which is essentially my understanding of a loophole. I don’t see why the Constitution is immune to this. My understanding of the relevant provision is it contains a flaw to the extent of conferring citizenship on the children of people who have entered the state illegally. I don’t think that was the intention of the drafters who framed this provision or the electorate who voted for it, and I don’t seem to be alone in that belief. If a referendum is held and the amendment passes I’m right. If the amendment does not get a majority I’m wrong.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
And if it confers no rights on these parents, what is the problem with it being there?

As we are the only EU member state with such a provision, it increases illegal immigration. As the articles I posted above suggest, an immediate effect of this is a lot of pressure on maternity services.

Remember, all that’s needed is a very simple change – that citizenship requires one of your parents to have lived here legally for a relatively short period.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
If a referendum is held and the amendment passes I’m right. If the amendment does not get a majority I’m wrong.

Not quite.

No matter which way a referendum would go, you still won't know what the original intent was. All you know is what the opinion today thinks the intent should be.

If every single person in the country voted for a Constitutional Amendment, it still doesn't mean that deV et al did not intend the law to function as it currently does. It simply means that people today don't want it to.

There is a distinction......but one which in no way undermines the validity of any decision made by the current populace.

jc

ishmael whale

Let me say you are absolutely right that we do not know why people vote for a particular measure, only that they did so. Indeed, it could be the case that they misunderstand the question to be decided and vote against their own preferences. I recall press comment at the time of the referendum on the International Criminal Court that there didn’t seem to be a copy of the relevant international treaty in the country. The Department of Foreign Affairs were unable to supply one, there was no debate about what the Court was about, yet the people voted for it overwhelmingly. Presumably the electorate reckoned that international criminals sounded like the kind of people who should be brought to Court.

On the citizenship question, as an earlier contributor has provided a relevant link.
http://www.justice.ie/802569B20047F907/vWeb/wpMJDE5E4FVG

The relevant provision of the Constitution says: "Every person born in the island of Ireland, its islands and its seas, has an entitlement and birthright to be part of the Irish nation". This provision is not part of the original Constitution and was added in 1998 as part of the Good Friday Agreement package. It was intended to give effect to Article 1(vi) of the British-Irish Agreement, where the two Governments recognise "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland".

It seems clear to me that the Government were proposing an amendment with the intention of granting clear citizenship rights to the people of Northern Ireland, not persons entering the state illegally. From the electorates point of view the main issue was giving effect to the Good Friday Agreement, and citizenship was only a detail. I totally accept that I cannot look into everyone’s heart and say why they voted for this amendment, but in truth I don’t see any basis for suggesting that the people intended the Constitution to go beyond the Good Friday Agreement.

Victor

Does anyone have the text of the pre-1998 clauses?

Johnmb

I would assume that Article 9 would be the relevant one for pre-1998 citizenship. It says:
9.1.1 On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.
9.1.2 The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law.
9.1.3 No person may be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship by reason of the sex of such person.

9.2 Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.

Victor

Won't such a referendum alienate quite a few people who will be voting in the local elections?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
Won't such a referendum alienate quite a few people who will be voting in the local elections?

Like who?

Victor

Originally posted by Johnmb
Like who?

Recent immigrants.

Johnmb

I don't see why recent immigrants should feel alienated. The referendum will simply return things to the way they were pre-1998. It will not make things any more difficult for them, we will simply be just like every other EU country. If they are genuine, then both they and their children can expect a good deal. If they are not genuine, then who cares if they feel alienated? The key test will be what the government does afterwards in order to improve things by weeding out the chancers quickly, and allowing the genuine cases to seek work and start the process of becoming a part of Irish society much quicker than is currently the case.

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Sparks

So, to summarise:
If you support taking away the rights of immigrants, you're doing them good - if you protest the taking away of these rights as the electioneering stunt that it is, you're out to harm them.
Hmmm.
Apparently, I've misread the dictionary definition of "logical".

Please in future consult the dictionary, since I neither said removing Irish citizenship was good for immigrants or opposing McDowell's stunt is likely to harm them. I clearly explained that McDowell's proposed constitutional discrimination against non-nationals is being aided by the spineless equivocation of his opponents to argue for equal citizenship rights for all immigrants - adults and children. If you allow McDowell to restrict economic immigration, then you have already conceded the principle of equality. To repeat:

Rather than welcome this opportunity to expose the prejudices which condemn Africans for getting on their bike and trying to improve their fortunes and their families futures, we get McDowells opponents condemning him for playing the race card before election time. With friends like that, immigrants know they're in for a hiding to nothing.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Egalitarian
Please in future consult the dictionary, since I neither said removing Irish citizenship was good for immigrants or opposing McDowell's stunt is likely to harm them. I clearly explained that McDowell's proposed constitutional discrimination against non-nationals is being aided by the spineless equivocation of his opponents to argue for equal citizenship rights for all immigrants - adults and children. If you allow McDowell to restrict economic immigration, then you have already conceded the principle of equality. To repeat:

This is just daft. Every country discriminates against non-nationals. It needs to be done. If it wasn't done then no country would be viable. Any rich countries would be over-run by immigrants which would cause too much of a burden on their system, and poor countries would lose most of their citizens to the rich countries and would therefore not have the human resources to ever improve their lot.

Victor

Originally posted by Johnmb
If they are not genuine, then who cares if they feel alienated?

Fianna Fáil, because these people (perhaps 200,000) have votes in the local elections. And many people would feel alienated if they had some of their rights removed.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
Fianna Fáil, because these people (perhaps 200,000) have votes in the local elections. And many people would feel alienated if they had some of their rights removed.

Fianna Fáil obviously don't care because they are the ones proposing it. It is also highly unlikely that many of them are registered to vote.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
This is just daft. Every country discriminates against non-nationals. It needs to be done. If it wasn't done then no country would be viable.

Yes, but its how you do it thats important.

jc

Redleslie

Originally posted by Johnmb
It is also highly unlikely that many of them are registered to vote.

Why?

Typedef

On this topic.

I'm voting against this measure, I think it's xenophobic and thinly veiled racism.
I don't care if I get castigated as a bleeding heart left-winger for that either.

I strongly believe that if the 'immigrants' in question were white East European immigrants, that this referendum would not be taking place. I think this referendum targets Black and Asian people, in an attempt to exclude them.
Since the East European accession countries joined the EU, there literally 'is no-one' else this ammendment would exclude.

To drive home my point, I was working in Dail Eireann for a while.
One day I heard two civil servants joking about Black immigrants.
Civil Servant 1 : "Yes the Taoiseach supports the immigration of Black people to Ireland"

Civil Servant 2 (coily) : "Yeah... so long as they don't house them beside Celia".

For all the claim and counter claim, that this 'measure' is targeting people taking advantage of our laws on child birth... ie flocking to Ireland in order to have a baby and stay, the fact is, blindly racist notions like the above are 'rampant' in this society.

For countless years, when Ireland had somewhere near 16% unemployment, the government only paid lipservice to cracking down on Welfare leeches.

Now suddenly, the ostensibly non-white immigrants this ... 'ammendment' would exclude, pose such a threat to the wellbeing of this nation, which has, 'total employment'?

I say, let them live here and give them work visas to do so, too, otherwise don't whinge about immigrants being on welfare and please don't embarress Ireland and show us up as being, racists.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic.

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Johnmb

Any rich countries would be over-run by immigrants which would cause too much of a burden on their system, and poor countries would lose most of their citizens to the rich countries and would therefore not have the human resources to ever improve their lot.

QED

Sorry to piss on your parade, but as a British son of an Irish emigrant I am amazed at the amnesia of pre-Celtic Tiger emigration. You may think it 'daft', but immigration control is neither good for immigrants nor residents of Ireland. If you want to hide behind Michael McDowell, fine! But equality is a far more inspiring objective for Irish aspirations, than fear of being 'over-run'. As for the drain of human resources, emigration in the 80s did not negatively impact Irish economic growth in the 90s. On the contrary, when US FDI and EU membership catapulted Irish economic fortunes Irish emigrants flocked back with all the skills and know-how from employment abroad - legal and illegal.

Johnmb

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes, but its how you do it thats important.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying. However, the argument that I described as being daft is the one that seems to be saying that there should be no descrimination whatsoever.

ishmael whale

In this morning’s papers there are a few voices suggesting that if the referendum is to be held it should not be timed with the local elections, as candidates may use it as a football. Looking at Typedefs contribution I’m inclined to agree. The way he bundles this up with issues of race does give an example of how the issue could be abused.

This proposal is not about stopping legal immigration. It is about removing a loophole that promotes illegal immigration. It does not relate to race. As before, a person of any race who is an EU citizen has the right of free movement and a person of any race who is not an EU citizen will have the same access to the work permit scheme. The key change is that a person of any race entering the state illegally will not confer rights of citizenship on their children. The race issue seems to be dragged in only as a smear, presumably because there is not much to be said against the actual proposal. The debate against is all about how the proposal might be perceived.

Johnmb

That's correct ishmael whale, and depending on the wording used it will most likely just return things to the way they were pre-1998 under Article 9, and nobody ever called that a racist article back then.

Redleslie asked why I don't think many are registered to vote. By many I was speaking of those who are not genuine and are just looking for an easy ride. To register to vote requires effort, something that I don't think many of those people are much into giving. Before you bring up the 200,000 figure, that was Victor's, I have no idea how many refugee imigrants there are, nor do I have any estimates as to how many are genuine and how many are not, my reference was only to those who are not genuine (whatever number that may be).

sceptre

Originally posted by Johnmb
That's correct ishmael whale, and depending on the wording used it will most likely just return things to the way they were pre-1998 under Article 9, and nobody ever called that a racist article back then.

I have to say that I was never a fan of the old article 9 in any case. The fact that Article 9.1.2 without the extra protection afforded by the new article 2 essentially made it possible for a law to be passed at any time to revoke anyone's citizenship (or more importantly, not grant it to them in the first palce) for no particular reason always made me a little uneasy. My fear was nothing to do with racism or anything near it - it simply gave the State more power than it should have. I'd like to see my own citizenship protected by a little more than section 6 of the Irish nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (or the new section 6 inserted in 2000). Section 5 has obviously been totally abused over the years.

(edit: changed "makes" to "made" as I was talking about the old article)