Referenda on non-national births

Johnmb

Well true, what was there wasn't great. But it wasn't racist either, and it is the bogus racist argument that I was arguing against. I would prefer something more along the lines of once you get it it cannot be stripped from you (unless you give it up to become a citizen of another country by choice). But whatever way it is worded, as long as it applies to all people equally, then it is not racist, regardless as to what the scaremongers want people to believe.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
But whatever way it is worded, as long as it applies to all people equally, then it is not racist, regardless as to what the scaremongers want people to believe.

Not so.

Lets say that 95% of all immigrants into Ireland are black. (Yes, I know that this is not the case, but lets say it is so for the moment.)

In that case, passing a law which is ostensibly racially blind, but which will end up primarily targetting a racial group, can be racist - or at least can be racially motivated.

As for what the scaremongers want people to believe, I would refer you to a recent post of your own :

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.

So you're arguing that it is not racially motivated, despite admitting that how it is actually worded will define what it does or does not do. This seems somewhat contradictory.

I personally agree that there are good reasons to bring in better immigration controls. However, I would only go so far as to say that this may be one of those - especially when we don't have the wording of the proposed Amendment (or do we?).

I would similarly be very, very careful about labelling anyone as a scaremonger for making an assumption about the amendment, when your own arguments are also based on nothing but an assumption about what the amendment will be, and what the reasons for its introduction are.

jc

Johnmb

My assumptions are that better controls are needed. I have said that such controls in and of themselves are not racist. Other people have tried to say that even suggesting such an amendment is racist. That is BS. As I have said, it will depend on the wording. I have not said I will vote for or against it, I will wait for the wording. What I have said is that the principle of imigration controls, and the removal of automatic citizenship just because you happen to be born on Irish territory are not racist. I have also pointed out that changing this one thing will not fix the problem, that will be up to the government. Unfortunately I don't believe that any of the current parties are up to the task.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
My assumptions are that better controls are needed. I have said that such controls in and of themselves are not racist.

And as I have pointed out, that is an assumption that does not follow. Yes, better controls are needed. That doesn't mean that a proposed change is not racist.

Other people have tried to say that even suggesting such an amendment is racist. That is BS.

The only person I see making anything like such a comment is Typedef, who is saying that the reasoning behind much of the support for such an amendment is racist (based on similar reasoning to what I suggested in my previous post).

That line of argument is - as far as I can see - reasonably valid (whether or not you agree with it) regardless of the exact wording of any amendment proposed or passed.

As I have said, it will depend on the wording.

No, you have said - and I'm quoting you from two lines above : "that such controls in and of themselves are not racist".

I see nothing there thats qualifying it to say that its dependant on the wording. I see nothing in any of your other posts insisting that its not racist which say "depending on the wording".

Thats the only point I'm making. I'm sure you believe that it is dependant on the wording, but you're not saying that in your posts.

Not only that, but Typdef's argument is actually independant of the wording....because it focusses on who such an amendment would affect in practice, rather than the nice theory of "it equally affects everyone who is not Irish". No, it doesn't - it equally applies to them, but it affects those identifiable groups who come here for immigration/asylum reasons more than those who don't.

What I have said is that ... the removal of automatic citizenship just because you happen to be born on Irish territory are not racist.

Again, see Types argument about who will be affected - its a valid perspective.

I have also pointed out that changing this one thing will not fix the problem, that will be up to the government. Unfortunately I don't believe that any of the current parties are up to the task.

I agree with you here....which further calls into question the reason for the amendment. Why propose something that won't fix the problem? There are two clear reasons :

1) Its popular....which still doesn't contradict the racist argument. If anything it supports it.

2) The minister believes it will fix the problem.....which still doesn't contradict the racist argument in any way that I can see.

Personally, I believe the jury is out on teh motivation behind the suggesting of the amendment, but I do agree with Type, in that a lot of the support for the change will be - at least subconsciously - racist in origin.

jc

jc

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Johnmb

I have said that such controls in and of themselves are not racist.

Originally posted ny Ishmael Whale

This proposal is not about stopping legal immigration. It is about removing a loophole that promotes illegal immigration. It does not relate to race.

For those who do not share your smug self-assurances that illegal immigration has nothing to do with race, I will explain why you are wrong.

Racism is the unequal treatment by the state of people based on their different backgrounds. Now it is patently clear to anyone that when people talk of illegal immigrants, they are talking about the poor and unskilled from Africa and Asia. Now, I could not give two hoots about the bigoted prejudices of racists. But to claim that there is such a thing as multicultural fairness when it comes to forcefully undermining the liberty of Africans and Asians to work here is patently ridiculous. There is no such thing as equal discrimination. You are either an egalitarian or an apologist for privilege. McDowell is clearly opposed to equality, and so it seems are most posters in this forum.

If you don't have any conviction to a political aspiration such as equality, then don't be too surprised if you are charged with defending privilege based on 'deserving citizenship'.

ishmael whale

From what has been said, the amendment will simply allow the Oireachtas to pass detailed legislation on the topic. The amount of discretion that would be given to the Oireachtas is not yet clear, and the devil may be in the detail, but what seems planned is a requirement that one parent be legally resident for three years. I would quibble over why we need the three year wait. If someone is legally resident that’s good enough for me. But the essential proposal does not seem unreasonable.

It is right to say that the practical impact of measures needs to be considered. I've heard it said that whites in Rhodesia kept their supremacy through electoral laws based on income rather than race, but the practical effect was the same. However, we need to recall that the immediate issue relates to persons entering the country illegally. It is difficult to envisage how to promote equality in illegality. How do you impose a gender quota on human traffickers?

If we find that people of a certain race cannot legally enter the country on the same basis as others, then we should address the unfair barrier obstructing them. But this loophole, which would seem to be simply an unintended effect of the Good Friday Agreement, should be closed.

Johnmb

Originally posted by bonkey
And as I have pointed out, that is an assumption that does not follow. Yes, better controls are needed. That doesn't mean that a proposed change is not racist.
It doesn't mean that any specific proposed is not racist, but no specific change has been mentioned, we have just being discussing the idea of having to change existing rules. Changing the existing rules is not racist, although what they are eventually changed to might be.

The only person I see making anything like such a comment is Typedef, who is saying that the reasoning behind much of the support for such an amendment is racist (based on similar reasoning to what I suggested in my previous post).
This subject is being debated over a wider spectrum than just this board. Plus, when I mentioned it, it was Egalitarian that I was thinking of, not Typedef.

That line of argument is - as far as I can see - reasonably valid (whether or not you agree with it) regardless of the exact wording of any amendment proposed or passed.
Whether or not someone is bringing up the idea of controls with the intent of making it a racist tool doesn't mean that the idea is racist. It is how the idea is implemented that matters.

No, you have said - and I'm quoting you from two lines above : "that such controls in and of themselves are not racist".

I see nothing there thats qualifying it to say that its dependant on the wording.
That is because I was discussing the ideas "in and of themselves", not how they would be implemented. The wording will effect how they are implemented.

I see nothing in any of your other posts insisting that its not racist which say "depending on the wording".
Well it seemed pretty obvious. If the wording is that the new controls only effect one type of people then it is clearly racist. I doubt however that the wording will only effect one type of people.

Thats the only point I'm making. I'm sure you believe that it is dependant on the wording, but you're not saying that in your posts.
??? It's self evident regarding the implementation. Since we have no wording to discuss, I have mainly discussed the idea of controling imigration, and the removal of the clause which gives automatic citizenship rights. That in and of itself is not racist. How it is dealt with may be, but until the wording is published we doun't know. My betting is that the wording will return things to pre-1998 (with the exception of Northern Ireland people).

Not only that, but Typdef's argument is actually independant of the wording....because it focusses on who such an amendment would affect in practice, rather than the nice theory of "it equally affects everyone who is not Irish". No, it doesn't - it equally applies to them, but it affects those identifiable groups who come here for immigration/asylum reasons more than those who don't.
No more so than it did before the 98 ammendment, which was not intended to give extra rights to everybody generally, just those in Northern Ireland. If people weren't harping on about things being racist then, why are they doing it now when chances are we will just go back to the way things were?

Again, see Types argument about who will be affected - its a valid perspective.
It may be, but it doesn't change the fact that discussing such a thing is not racist.

I agree with you here....which further calls into question the reason for the amendment.
Because the Article being used was never meant to be used in such a way, so a new amendment is needed to correct that.

Why propose something that won't fix the problem? There are two clear reasons :

1) Its popular....which still doesn't contradict the racist argument. If anything it supports it.
Just because something is popular doesn't support any claims that it is racist or otherwise.

2) The minister believes it will fix the problem.....which still doesn't contradict the racist argument in any way that I can see.
Another reason is that it corrects the existing Article to reflect what it was meant to do. And yet another reason is that it will aid in solving the problem, even though on it's own it won't solve anything.

Personally, I believe the jury is out on teh motivation behind the suggesting of the amendment, but I do agree with Type, in that a lot of the support for the change will be - at least subconsciously - racist in origin.
That still doesn't mean that the amendment itself is racist. there are many laws that are fair and equal, yet racists support them, why should that suddenly make the law itself racist?

sceptre

Originally posted by ishmael whale
this loophole, which would seem to be simply an unintended effect of the Good Friday Agreement

There's a bit of confusion about this so here's the original text from the 1956 Act (section 6, I've tagged on s7 as well because it's relevant to the GFA amendment)

6. —(1) Every person born in Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth.

(2) Every person is an Irish citizen if his father or mother was an Irish citizen at the time of that person's birth or becomes an Irish citizen under subsection (1) or would be an Irish citizen under that subsection if alive at the passing of this Act.

(3) In the case of a person born before the passing of this Act, subsection (2) applies from the date of its passing. In every other case, it applies from birth.

(4) A person born before the passing of this Act whose father or mother is an Irish citizen under subsection (2), or would be if alive at its passing, shall be an Irish citizen from the date of its passing.

(5) Subsection (1) shall not confer Irish citizenship on the child of an alien who, at the time of the child's birth, is entitled to diplomatic immunity in the State.



7. —(1) Pending the re-integration of the national territory, subsection (1) of section 6 shall not apply to a person, not otherwise an Irish citizen, born in Northern Ireland on or after the 6th December, 1922, unless, in the prescribed manner, that person, if of full age, declares himself to be an Irish citizen or, if he is not of full age, his parent or guardian declares him to be an Irish citizen. In any such case, the subsection shall be deemed to apply to him from birth.

(2) Neither subsection (2) nor (4) of section 6 shall confer Irish citizenship on a person born outside Ireland if the father or mother through whom he derives citizenship was also born outside Ireland, unless—

( a ) that person's birth is registered under section 27, or

( b ) his father or mother, as the case may be, was at the time of his birth resident abroad in the public service.

Hence what the constitutional amendment did was take away the ability of the government to take away entitlement to citizenship from people simply by passing a law that said so. There has been a statutory entitlement to citizenship to all people born on the island of Ireland since 1956. The constitutional amendment merely made that entitlement impossible to take away at the whim of the government. It was one of the prime reasons I voted yes to the amendment as even ignoring any aspects of the peace process, the amendment confirmed an entitlement that should have been constitutionally guaranteed to my parents (who weren't alive in 1937, their parents and grandparents as citizens of Saorstat Eireann had their right to citizenship confirmed by the original article 9 - a right not constitutionally extended to their children) when the constitution was originally passed.

So if it is the intention of the government to use such an amendment to restrict the right to citizenship this will not merely restore the status in quo that existed prior to 1998. It's always a help when we know what we're discussing.

Paddyo

It is difficult to envisage how to promote equality in illegality.

I think this is probably the most succsinct statment of the whole discussion so far.

Paddyo

Johnmb

Originally posted by sceptre
There's a bit of confusion about this so here's the original text from the 1956 Act (section 6, I've tagged on s7 as well because it's relevant to the GFA amendment)



Hence what the constitutional amendment did was take away the ability of the government to take away entitlement to citizenship from people simply by passing a law that said so. There has been a statutory entitlement to citizenship to all people born on the island of Ireland since 1956. The constitutional amendment merely made that entitlement impossible to take away at the whim of the government. It was one of the prime reasons I voted yes to the amendment as even ignoring any aspects of the peace process, the amendment confirmed an entitlement that should have been constitutionally guaranteed to my parents (who weren't alive in 1937, their parents and grandparents as citizens of Saorstat Eireann had their right to citizenship confirmed by the original article 9 - a right not constitutionally extended to their children) when the constitution was originally passed.

So if it is the intention of the government to use such an amendment to restrict the right to citizenship this will not merely restore the status in quo that existed prior to 1998. It's always a help when we know what we're discussing.

According to the Constitution, Citizenship can still be revoked by law. The idea of this ammendment (from what I can see) is to get the Constitution back to where it was pre-1998, but (I would assume) retaining the special status of the people in Northern Ireland.

sceptre

Originally posted by Johnmb
According to the Constitution, Citizenship can still be revoked by law.

It can. That still makes me a little uneasy to be honest - although I'm not a fan of bundling complicated wording into what should essentially be a simple document, I'd like to see formal rules there for revoking citizenship that can only be changed by the people. Nevertheless it's a red herring that I unfortunately brought up.

What I was actually referring to (badly) was that future Irish children were not constitutionally guaranteed their right to citizenship at birth until 1998. It might be a little or even semantic thing considering that a hypothetical law could be passed to take away their right to citizenship at any time but the constitutional right of my (hypothetical) children to Irish citizenship at birth was enough for me to support the amendment on its own.

The idea of this ammendment (from what I can see) is to get the Constitution back to where it was pre-1998, but (I would assume) retaining the special status of the people in Northern Ireland.

On its own that's effectively all it does. In this case though it's not irrelevant to ask why the government are doing this as the same rights[1] existed for all people both before and after the amendment, the sole difference being that what was enshrined in law became enshrined in the constitution. Therefore the reason behind the amendment becomes as important.


[1]with one small difference. Under the 1956 act someone born on a ship in Irish territorial waters could only become a citizen if they weren't entitled to citizenship anywhere else. Under the amended Article 2, this was no longer the case - the right to citizenship was extended to anyone born on a ship in territorial seas.

monument

Originally posted by pdh
just because your born in Ireland does not make you Irish.

:rolleyes:

"Irish

\I*rish"\, n. sing. & pl. 1. pl. The The natives or inhabitants of Ireland, esp. the Celtic natives or their descendants.

2. The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic.

3. An old game resembling backgammon.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. "

Villain

Was listening to someone of the Ryan show yesterday saying he's living in spain and that neither of his children that were born there have the right to a Spnaish passpost.

He said Ireland was the only country still giving the right going on birth alone??

Is that correct??

Johnmb

Originally posted by monument
Irish
3. An old game resembling backgammon.

I haven't heard that one before. I don't suppose anyone here knows where more information can be found about it

Johnmb

Originally posted by irish1
Was listening to someone of the Ryan show yesterday saying he's living in spain and that neither of his children that were born there have the right to a Spnaish passpost.

He said Ireland was the only country still giving the right going on birth alone??

Is that correct??

We are the only country in the EU doing it. I think the US still does it (not certain though), and I have no idea about any other non-EU countries.

sceptre

Originally posted by Johnmb
I haven't heard that one before. I don't suppose anyone here knows where more information can be found about it

1 2

Johnmb

Originally posted by sceptre

1 2

Thanks.:)

ishmael whale

On the Gerry Ryan stuff, normally what is said is that Ireland is the only place in the EU with such a law, so presumably there may be other countries in the world that permit it.

It is interesting to see that the 1998 amendment was really only confirming the existing law could not be changed by the Oireachtas, and certainly I did not know that. However, I don’t think this changes the essential position.

When Section 6 of the 1956 Act was considered by the Dail on 22 March 1956 (I’ve trimmed it, but the full text is at http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/) the Minister for Justice described it in these terms:
“Existing law makes no provision for citizenship in the case of considerable overseas populations of the Irish race who were born, or whose immediate forefathers were born in Ireland. In Australia, Britain, Canada, the U.S.A. and elsewhere, there are large numbers of persons who emigrated from Ireland before 6th December, 1922. They are not citizens under Article 3 of the 1922 Constitution.

As regards persons born since 6th December, 1922, the provisions of Section 2 of the 1935 Act which govern their citizenship seem to us to be defective in many respects. While citizenship is provided for by birth in the Twenty-Six Counties, birth in the Six Counties is treated the same as birth in any alien land.

Section 6 of this Bill (as qualified by Section 7) proposes to rectify that position.”

The intention in the original law seems to have been to guarantee the citizenship of Irish people who had emigrated before the State came into existence, and were therefore technically not citizens, and to guarantee the citizenship of people in Northern Ireland. As we have already seen, the intention of the 1998 amendment was to guarantee the citizenship of people in Northern Ireland (which as we now see was just confirming the status quo could not be changed by the Oireachtas without a referendum).

Chiefly, this really is about closing a loophole.

sceptre

Thanks for those quotes ishmael. I tend not to go near the Dail debates as the repetitiveness gives me head-pains:)

Anyone mind if I leave the intricacies behind for the moment and interject at this point with a question?

What categories of people do posters think should automatically gain citizenship?
(edit) And which categories of people do posters think should be specifically excluded?


(please note that I'm not going to accuse anyone of being a racist based on responses to this question provided that the responses aren't made in a racist way. In other words, how long should someone have lived here (or their ancestors) before their children have a right to citizenship, what about illegal immigrants as opposed to people with legal residency, children of diplomats and so on.)

Johnmb

Originally posted by sceptre
What categories of people do posters think should automatically gain citizenship?

For me, I would probably go with being born to parents that are Irish citizens, and being born in Ireland to parents that have been granted asylum. All others would have to ask, although in some cases, such as where you were born to parents who were legally resident, or you have been granted asylum and lived here for about 3 years crime free, etc., the asking would just be a formality.

Hobbes

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
I believe the child has a right to citizenship, but the parents do not.

Exactly. The parents shouldn't get rights. If they don't have the right to stay they have the option to give up for adoption or take the child with them (who can return later).

Also any parent who endangers the life of the child just to have them born in Ireland should be jailed.

Villain

People Born here who have at least 1 parent who is an Irish Citizen.

People resident here for 7 years who have made a contribution to the state, i.e. worked and not claimed welfare for the majority of that period.

ishmael whale

People born in Ireland with at least one legally resident parent. Once one parent has a legal right of residence I don’t see a problem, or a need for a time limit.

I have no particular thoughts on citizenship by naturalisation, other than having some reasonable provision following whatever are the international norms, or any thoughts on current policy on people of Irish descent born abroad.

Egalitarian

Anyone who wishes to reside in Ireland should be entitled to automatic citizenship, conditional solely on their agreement to the law of the land

Simple, aint it.

PS I note the lack of conviction to defend your nonsensical 'egalitarian' immigration bar.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Egalitarian
Anyone who wishes to reside in Ireland should be entitled to automatic citizenship, conditional solely on their agreement to the law of the land

Simple, aint it.

PS I note the lack of conviction to defend your nonsensical 'egalitarian' immigration bar.

What lack of conviction? And why would we defend egalitarian's nonsensical statements?

monument

Originally posted by Egalitarian
Simple, aint it.

No, it's not.

Victor

Other than giving people false hopes, I don't see any problem with the existing arrangement. The strictist that I would go for new-borns would be that the mother (I'm not sure if the father was Irish resident and the mother wasn't) would have to be Irish resident at the time.

What about foreign adoptions (largely discouraged now)?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
Other than giving people false hopes, I don't see any problem with the existing arrangement. The strictist that I would go for new-borns would be that the mother (I'm not sure if the father was Irish resident and the mother wasn't) would have to be Irish resident at the time.

What about foreign adoptions (largely discouraged now)?

Well, I would hope that both now and after the referendum, if any failed asylum seekers wished to leave their children here that they would be accepted regardless as to their citizenship. Given that, I would assume that the state would allow them to be adopted/fostered, and that they could apply for citizenship, even if they didn't get it automatically.

Victor

Originally posted by ReefBreak
new-born immigrants

Isn't that one of them oxymoron thingys. If they were born here, they aren't immigrants.

Originally posted by uberwolf
I believe it is a loop hole that is being exploited and that the exploitation has to be ended.

A loophole has no legal basis. The courts position is the law is the law, if the Oireachtas wanted it any different that would have made it different.

Originally posted by midget lord
Whether or not non-nationals giving birth in this country entitles their sibling to citizenship is a completely different matter and one that warrants a seperate referendum.

No one has argued for this, so your point is irrelevant.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
Isn't that one of them oxymoron thingys. If they were born here, they aren't immigrants.

Don't let the pro-lifers hear you saying that. :ninja: