Referendum on Citizenship

arcadegame2004

What do people here think of the Government's proposal to amend the Constitution to abolish the automatic right of Irish citizenship of children born to asylum-seekers?

I firmly believe that the current system is being abused and as such I support the referendum and a "Yes" vote. No other country in the world allows such an automatic right of citizenship. Furthermore, the revelation by the Masters of the Rotunda Hospital in 2002 that around 40% of children born there were born to non-national parents illustrates clearly that many asylum-seekers are having children in this country with a view to gaining Irish citizenship for their children, and thereby hoping - in spite of the recent Supreme Court Judgement - that their own claim for asylum will then be looked upon more leniently.

I agree that those who are fleeing persecution are entitled to seek refuge in Western democratic states. However, it is extremely difficult to ascertain what sort of "persecution" immigrants from Poland, Romania and other Eastern European states can credibly claim to be fleeing. Even those who are legitimately fleeing persecution and who come to Ireland are still in violation of the Dublin Convention 1981, under which an asylum seeker is supposed to claim asylum only in the first EU country they enter. With an estimated 80% of asylum-seekers in the Republic of Ireland entering this state via Northern Ireland, there is almost no possiblity of Ireland being the first EU state they entered, Thus, if the Dublin Convention were to be implemented properly, these illegal immigrants would be deported not to their original countries necessarily (unless their asylum claims already failed in other EU states) but rather to the first EU state they entered, thereby ensuring their lives were not at risk.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No other country in the world allows such an automatic right of citizenship.

The USA does, to mention one.

Furthermore, the revelation by the Masters of the Rotunda Hospital in 2002 that around 40% of children born there were born to non-national parents illustrates clearly that many asylum-seekers are having children in this country with a view to gaining Irish citizenship for their children

It illustrates just as clearly that non-nationals have loads of children (which it doesn't at all by the way but it's as logical as what you've said - the percentage is the one reported but motives are a little more difficult to ascertain unless you're a professional mind-reader).

Let's do the world a favour and try to debate this one based on actual facts rather than made-up stuff, eh? It'll make all sides of the argument look a little less rabid.

Hobbes

There has already been a huge thread on this. Quick answer. No. If you are born here then you are Irish. It doesn't mean your parents are.

If parents endangered the child to get it born here then they should face criminal charges.

* It will also mean nothing when the immigrants move to the cheaper countries which is where the majority of foriegn jobs will go once they can.

Xterminator

I will probably support moves to restrict the right of citizenship.

Personally i would like to see the speed which the government deals with refugees dealt with, as its not fair on them, or us (the taxpayer).

However IMO if someone claims asylum, and it turns out they were not justified, then i belive they should be deported, along with any children they have had, as they were here under false pretenses.

X

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Furthermore, the revelation by the Masters of the Rotunda Hospital in 2002 that around 40% of children born there were born to non-national parents illustrates clearly that many asylum-seekers are having children in this country with a view to gaining Irish citizenship for their children, and thereby hoping - in spite of the recent Supreme Court Judgement - that their own claim for asylum will then be looked upon more leniently.

Maybe it just means there's more foreign people here having children?
I personally don't see why they'd see here a soft target for that seeing as the case that ended in the Supreme court resulted in the asylum seekers in question getting a deportation order. But that's just my opinion.

However, it is extremely difficult to ascertain what sort of "persecution" immigrants from Poland, Romania and other Eastern European states can credibly claim to be fleeing.

Perhaps they're economic migrants looking for work, not every foreign person here is looking for asylum, something for nothing and so on.

I'll be voting against the proposal anyway in the referendum. If you're born here you're Irish as far as I'm concerned.

Redleslie

It's a referendum on the automatic right to citizenship of children born on the island of Ireland, not a plan to end asylum seekers childrens citizenship rights. So the poll title is daily mail style bollocks distortion of the issue.

Interesting that McDowell claimed that the hospital masters pleaded with him to change the law but they denied doing so. Someone isn't telling the whole truth.

ishmael whale

As noted above, this issue was already covered in a previous thread. As I understand it the Masters of the main maternity hospitals have stated publically that they have a problem with women arriving from abroad in the very late stage of pregnancy and sometimes in labour, which carries an amount of risk and is putting a lot of pressure on maternity services. They report that the numbers coming forward have not diminished despite the Courts deciding that parents of an Irish born child can be deported, and say that at least some of the women seem unaware of this decision and have an expectation that they will be granted residency on the basis of being the parent of an Irish born child.

As I understand it McDowell has presented the Masters as seeking his assistance in solving the issue. This seems questionable, as the Masters have said they merely met McDowell (at his request). They described the issue to the Minister, but did not advocate a solution. Inevitably, McDowell over hyping the Masters’ role causes credibility problems for those of us advocating a yes vote.

Nevertheless, I still feel this is a loophole that needs to be closed. All persons born in Ireland to a parent with a legal right of residence should be regarded as Irish citizens, but children of people entering the country illegally to take advantage of a loophole should not. I really see this as just a matter of common sense.

simu

Furthermore, the revelation by the Masters of the Rotunda Hospital in 2002 that around 40% of children born there were born to non-national parents illustrates clearly that many asylum-seekers are having children in this country with a view to gaining Irish citizenship for their children

Not all non-nationals are asylum seekers. How many of these people are EU citizens or other foreigners who are working here legitimately?

Is it right to change our constitution just because some hospital is a bit overcrowded? I don't think so - it makes more sense simply to enlarge that hospital a bit.

And, even if there are some kids of African, Russian etc origin getting Irish citizenship, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It would give Ireland goodwill and possibly future economic and cultural ties with new countries.

ishmael whale

You are right to point out the error in assuming that all births to non-nationals are births to illegal immigrants. Judging from the article below, only a minority fit into the category addressed by the proposed amendment. But there is a loophole, and it should be addressed. From a health point of view, arrival from abroad very late in pregnancy is generally deemed to be risky for the mother and infant and puts particular pressure on services as they have no medical history on the case. It must also be difficult to plan service requirements, as there is no way of predicting how many people will present.

The proposal does not seem to deny citizenship to people with non-national origins who have entered the country legally and made their homes here, and nor should it (although it does require two years residency by the parents, which I cannot see the point of). The proposal will remove an unintended loophole in the Constitution.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexamine...ry488289275.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.

swiss

Originally posted by simu:

Not all non-nationals are asylum seekers. How many of these people are EU citizens or other foreigners who are working here legitimately?

Is it right to change our constitution just because some hospital is a bit overcrowded? I don't think so - it makes more sense simply to enlarge that hospital a bit.

And, even if there are some kids of African, Russian etc origin getting Irish citizenship, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It would give Ireland goodwill and possibly future economic and cultural ties with new countries.

I agree with all of the points you have raised here (and your point about enlarging hospitals reminded me of this) but I don't think they really relate to the problem.

It is clear that a lot of people come here to take advantage of our favourable economic conditions. It is also clear that in order for them to do so, some of these economic migrants are taking advantage of our policy of granting automatic citizenship to persons born here. In principle, I don't have an issue with people moving here to work - after all Irish people have been economic migrants for generations. However, I don't like the fact that our the very mechanisms we have in place to help people who wish to live here are being abused by people with this very goal.

Now, I'm not advocating that we should end this right for non-nationals. After all, we have a social welfare system that I am certain is being abused to a certain extent by both Irish people as well as non nationals - and we are certainly not going to end social welfare payments. What I am suggesting is that we vet those who have children very shortly after arriving here, firstly to make sure they are not abusing the system, and secondly to see if they should be brought up on negligence charges by travelling while heavily pregnant.

arcadegame2004

It's a referendum on the automatic right to citizenship of children born on the island of Ireland, not a plan to end asylum seekers childrens citizenship rights. So the poll title is daily mail style bollocks distortion of the issue.

Same thing in effect. The new amendment proposes to restrict the automatic granting of Irish citizenship to those living in Ireland for 7 years, and those for whom one of their parents is born in Ireland. So effectively, this will disqualify the children of most asylum seekers, given that 33% of women asylum-seekers arriving here are in late-term of pregnancy for reasons I doubt are coincidental with the automatic citizenship we follishly grant to their children, thereby allowing the parents to emotionally blackmail the courts into letting both the parents and children stay, despite the recent Supreme Court Judgement. The Supreme Court judgement is insufficient since it only states that the children and parent(s) MAY be deported. It does not state that they automatically WILL be.

Is it right to change our constitution just because some hospital is a bit overcrowded? I don't think so - it makes more sense simply to enlarge that hospital a bit.

Oh come on now. The point surely is that additional pressure is being piled upon the Health Service which is already hard-pressed to meet the Health needs of the Indigenous population. With 33% of births in some hospitals being to non-nationals, this is unwanted additional pressure. We could slash waiting-lists if illegal immigrants weren't coming here on a baby-racket to claim our citizenship, having contributed nothing to our country nor been born of a national from it. It devalues our citizenship to give it away to just any tom, dick or harry. In the age of international terrorism, it becomes a crazy system, because the Madrid bombings were carried out by Morrocan immigrants from Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaede is exploiting the asylum-systems throughout Europe to emplace its terrorist-cells in our democratic countries. This is a danger that I for one am not satisfied about leaving be.

Perhaps they're economic migrants looking for work,...

Exactly. But in an age where cheap labour from the Applicant states will make it harder for Irish people to find work, I see no reason to increase that difficulty even further.

I suspect that as the referendum draws nearer, opponents will use al sorts of misleading tactics to try to defeat it, ranging from claiming the proposal is "confusing" to denouncing all those supporting it as racist. I don't think it will work though.

spanner

Originally posted by Xterminator
Personally i would like to see the speed which the government deals with refugees dealt with, as its not fair on them, or us (the taxpayer).

However IMO if someone claims asylum, and it turns out they were not justified, then i belive they should be deported, along with any children they have had, as they were here under false pretenses.

X

completely agree with you here. the loop hole were by the parnets of irish born citizen can stay here must be changed. it really is getting out of control. if us and britain continue been the soft touch of the EU the problem will get worse and worse. I have nothing againist people coming into the country llegally and i also do not not belive in racisim but the asylum issue is causing more racisim, the people at the bottom of our society are seeing asylum seekers getting free accomdation, free cars, buggys etc. and are feeling its not fair(i understand that the asylum seekers get very little in cash). the asylum seekers also dont like the fact that they cant work for there living and have the threat of been deported hanging over them.

i think that the government should do two things:

1) develop a more streamlined effcient asylum process.

2)offer a once off asylum to all current asylum seekers to clear the back log

spanner

also i find it a little strange that in this largely left wing forum that people are voting for this amendment to the citizenship law, imagine what the general country would think

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

spanner

Originally posted by daveirl
I hope I'm not in that largely left part of the forum

thats for you to decide

JHMEG

Al-Qaede is exploiting the asylum-systems throughout Europe to emplace its terrorist-cells in our democratic countries.

WTF?

So part of the rationale behind the referendum is to stem the spread of Al-Qaeda?

IMHO this is a smoke-and-mirrors trick by the completely useless Minister for Justice we have, to deflect away from the fact that he and his department are unable to effectively deal with the issue of immigration.

Because of this it's convenient for the Minister to jump on the back of ill-informed public opinion, and blame the immigrants.

Blame the Minister and his Dept instead for not dealing with the issue properly since the outset.

We don't need a referendum. We need proper policy.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
We could slash waiting-lists if illegal immigrants weren't coming here on a baby-racket to claim our citizenship, having contributed nothing to our country nor been born of a national from it.

Leaving aside the fact that we could say the same about the Irish people who contribute nothing to society being on the lists, do you seriously think all the woes of our medical system will be solved by denying people who are born in Ireland citizenship based on their parent's nationality?
You keep saying that it will allow the parents of these children to stay on automatically but this has been proven untrue. Going by this sort of logic we shouldn't let any foreign people in just in case they want to stay.
What about the foreign people who do contribute to our society? What about them?

I suspect that as the referendum draws nearer, opponents will use al sorts of misleading tactics to try to defeat it, ranging from claiming the proposal is "confusing" to denouncing all those supporting it as racist. I don't think it will work though

Well, from the tone of your comments I don't really know what other word to use to describe them.

ishmael whale

Arcadegame is profoundly overstating the case. It is true that the main maternity hospitals are reporting that a significant number of people are coming here in the hope of acquiring residency on the basis of being the parent of an Irish born child, that this number has not diminished since the decision of the Courts. The hospitals are reporting that this happens often enough to place a strain on services. That does not mean that unrelated waiting lists will suddenly be relieved. It does mean that current pressures on maternity services would probably be relieved. But even this is not really the point about this proposal.

The point is that, since the 1950s, Ireland has granted citizenship to anyone born on this island. The intention behind this is to guarantee the rights of people born in Northern Ireland and of people born here who emigrated before the State was established. It also means that the many people of non-national origin who have legally entered the State to work or who have been granted refugee status have the reasonable expectation that their children will be Irish citizens. It is not the intention of the proposal to change that. The intention is to remove any incentive to enter the State illegally late in pregnancy (which, yes, seems to be enough of a problem for the health services to be worried), simply by requiring that one parent must be legally resident for two years before citizenship is granted to any child born here.

As I have said before, I would quibble over why the two years is necessary. But, leaving that aside, this is not about excluding people from citizenship on grounds of race. It is about establishing the reasonable principle that a person should have entered the State legally before they can expect citizenship for their children.

arcadegame2004

JHMEG, you might want to read the following from the Sunday Business Post after the Madrid bombings:

Sunday Business Post: > 2004/03/14 > Spanish bombs: Irish al-Qaeda suspects to be investigated.....a leading al- Qaeda figure in Spain has an Irish passport and was reportedly linked with a defunct Dublin charity formerly used as a fundraising operation for Osama bin Laden's organisation.

Special Branch officers said more than 30 people in Ireland were suspected of involvement with al-Qaeda.

``It is very difficult to take action against them. The legislation is still not effective in terms of arresting people on suspicion of being involved in these groups,'' a branch source said.....In 2002, it emerged that a man with an Irish passport had attended a meeting with six of the hijackers of the two airliners that crashed into New York's World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

The meeting took place in July 2001 in Tarragona in Spain, according to the Spanish daily El Pais.

The paper quoted Spanish intelligence sources as saying that the two pilots, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhand, and four others plotted the attacks during the meeting.

It said a 44-year-old Arab with an Irish passport met with Atta at the Diana Cazadora hotel near Madrid airport. The details are said to form part of 700 pages of evidence in two reports prepared by Spanish authorities for US counterparts into al- Qaeda's pre-September 11 meetings in Spain.

Spanish authorities have charged 18 people with supporting Islamic militants. One is a man named Mohamed Belaziz, whose diary, Spanish police say, showed he had contacts with a Europe-wide network, including people in Ireland.

Belaziz was accused of having phoned Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who was arrested in Belgium two days after the September 11 attacks with bomb-making material that suggested he was planning suicide attacks against US interests in Europe.

That sortof puts a different perspective on things doesn't it?

JHMEG

arcadegame2004, I'll say it again:

So part of the rationale behind the referendum is to stem the spread of Al-Qaeda?

I think not.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
That sortof puts a different perspective on things doesn't it?

No, not really.
Why would the results of that referendum stop members of any terrorist organisations from coming here or living here?