Immigration Referendum

Phil_321

Hopefully this referendum(the real one) will put a stop to the abuse of our immigration system once and for all.

Johnmb

Has the wording been published yet?

Johnmb

To answer my own question, it has. I cut and paste this from:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0408/citizenship.html

The proposed amendment:

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland which includes its islands and seas, and who does not have at the time of his or her birth, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen of entitled to be a Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless otherwise provided for by law.

2. This section shall not apply to persons born before the date of the enactment of this section.

To comment, I'll go with it. I would have prefered something a little more concrete than "provided for by law", but if it was, it wouldn't really be serving the purpose of a constitution.

Sleepy

When is this referendum to be held. To be honest I'd prefer if the law was backdated but I assume that's impossible.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sleepy
When is this referendum to be held. To be honest I'd prefer if the law was backdated but I assume that's impossible.

11 June, along with the Local elections and the European elections. I think backdating it would be a little unfair, as the people who currently have citizenship satisfied all the requirements that were asked of them, to backdate this would set a dangerous precedent.

Beruthiel

I am really undecided about this one, I do not believe you are entitled to become an Irish citizen just like that, I don’t want it to get to the stage where any women thinks she can just hop on a plane and give birth here.
However, I know how slowly the Irish government and their paperwork takes, i.e. – it is not fair to send a child of 5,6 or 7 or how ever long it takes them to send them back to where it’s parents have come from, they would have gotten used to living here by then and I don't believe a child should be made suffer because of its parents.
:dunno:

zedsDeadBaby

What happens to the child if they are born here and deemed not to be an Irish citizen because of this?
What if the parents country also has a law to say that not being born there means you are not a citizen? Or is this even possible?
Are they a non-any-national.
A citezen of the world?

Johnmb

Originally posted by zedsDeadBaby
What happens to the child if they are born here and deemed not to be an Irish citizen because of this?
What if the parents country also has a law to say that not being born there means you are not a citizen? Or is this even possible?
Are they a non-any-national.
A citezen of the world?

I don't think it matters. The child not being a citizen won't effect the asylum claim. And if there is any danger to the child in going back to the parents country of origin, that in itself would cause the claim to be successful.

Kell

Originally posted by zedsDeadBaby
What happens to the child if they are born here and deemed not to be an Irish citizen because of this?
What if the parents country also has a law to say that not being born there means you are not a citizen? Or is this even possible?
Are they a non-any-national.

Not knowing the exact specifics, but I am assume they would be just non-national and never at any point have a claim on Irish citizenship. Doesnt mean they automatically have to be deported because they're not Irish same as every other country in Europe.

K-

Victor

Originally posted by Johnmb
The child not being a citizen won't effect the asylum claim.

What asylum claim? A bit presumptious isn't it?

rde

As it stands, I don't know how I'm going to vote, and in the hope of seeing an argument that'll convince me, I'll offer this observation:

The fundamental question is "should you be Irish if you're born in Ireland?" If you answer yes, absolutely, then that's it; you vote no and let the Good Friday amendment stand. If you think then there should be limits, then you should wait until the bill is published to see what limitations will be set. You'll also have to bear in mind that these limitations could be changed by future governments. If you vote 'no', then any future change will have to be ratified by referendum.

To be honest, I've a bit of difficulty seeing why this is necessary. Ignoring McDowell's initial dubious justification, the argument seems to be that descendents of these citizenship tourists will also qualify for Irish nationality. The word he described on the 6 O'clock news was 'unsustainable'. But what does that mean? What's unsustainable? Why shouldn't someone who's been born on this country be a citizen? I would've thought that'd be central to any definition.

ai ing

A child can always have the nationality of its parents or in the well known case of the 90's Irish football team, grandparents. I dont think any country in the world would deny the child the nationality of its parents because it was born outside the country

ai ing

The problem of citizenship tourists is quite a large problem in the Dublin maternity hospitals .A figure given by the masters of the hospitals was upwards of 20% of births were to non-nationals.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
What asylum claim? A bit presumptious isn't it?

Well, if there is no asylum claim, what's the problem? If the parents are here long term, the child will get citizenship, if the parents are here short term, why would the child require citizenship?

rde

A figure given by the masters of the hospitals was upwards of 20% of births were to non-nationals.

I seem to spend a lot of time on the internet giving out about the use of statistics. Anyway, here I go again...
Twenty per cent of births were to non-nationals. I'll accept that in some hospitals in certain sections of the country those figures are correct. But over what time period? The shorter the period, the greater the chance it was a temporary spike. Before this 'crisis' began, what percentage of non-nationals were there? We have many, many non-nationals working here, perhaps for the long term. How many of these are in that twenty percent?

And why is it such a large problem? If it's simply one of resources in some hospitals, a referendum seems a horrible overreaction.

Johnmb

Just to say why I'll most likely vote yes, it has nothing to do with the so-called "citizenship tourists". While I think that should be controlled in some way, I don't feel the numbers warrant me bothering to vote on that issue alone (plus I like the fact that Ireland is much more multi-cultural now than ever before). My main reason is to allow us to standardise with the rest of the EU. I am a very pro-EU person, and I feel that certain things, like citizenship, should be the same throughout. That is my reasoning, and I'm stating it clearly now because I have a feeling this debate (generally, not necessarily here) will become solely about asylum seekers, as my earlier post proved without me even intending it to

ai ing

http://www.justice.ie/802569B20047F907/vWeb/wpMJDE5WZMEU

Have a read of this . I point you attention to points 11 and 12.
We are being targeted by people looking for EU citizinship being the only country in the EU to offer automatic citizenship through birth( Point 15).
Over 6 months 57% of femaleasylum seekers over the age of 16 were pregnant on arrival in Ireland

arcadegame2004

The proposal will say that a parent has to be an Irish citizen or living in Ireland in 3 years first to be entitled to apply for Irish citizenship. I will vote "Yes". Expect lots of scaremongering from the "No" campaign who will tell us how "confusing" or "rushed" or "railroaded" this excellent but VERY belated supposedly is. "Rushed"!?!!? Haven't we had 6 years to think about this since 1998?!?!? I want to protect Ireland from potential infiltration by international criminal gangs (there are at least 3 major gangs in Cork - a Chinese triad gang, a Nigerian gang, and a Russian gang, so says a friend of mine living there whose business premises was trashed by one of them). I want to protect our Health Service from gross abuse by asylum-seeking women who get pregnant solely to emotionally blackmail the courts and politicians into granting them asylum, thereby lessening the impact of the huge increase in our Health-spending (at least in part). I also want to protect Irish jobs from being lost due to the fact that asylum-seekers are prepared to work for below the minimum-wage, making them more attractive for bosses than us.

This proposal is NOT racist. We are simply re-introducing the pre-1998 reality. Before 1998, citizenship law was the preserve of the Dail, not the Constitution. No-one realised then that the changes to Articles 2 and 3 could be interpreted as allowing asylum-seekers or their children to get Irish citizenship, as we were only at the start of the bogus-asylum problem then. No other country - including the US - has a Constitutional provision automatically conferring national citizenship on the children of asylum-seekers. Yes, it may be allowed by US law, but it is not in their Constitution, unlike here.

Let us turn out in great numbers to defeat the extreme-left for whom only unrestricted immigration will suffice.

Phil_321

Originally posted by rde


And why is it such a large problem? If it's simply one of resources in some hospitals, a referendum seems a horrible overreaction.

State services for asylum seekers cost 350 million Euro in 2002. I see that as a LARGE problem. That money could have been much better spent on health services, public transport, etc......

Chaz

Originally posted by Phil_321
State services for asylum seekers cost 350 million Euro in 2002. I see that as a LARGE problem. That money could have been much better spent on health services, public transport, etc......

What - like the LUAS?

halkar

I will go Yes for this one knowing and seeing that the system is abused openly. You just have to go to street and see. Hard to see a non pregnant non-nationals these days. Why are they getting pregnant and bring a child to use it for their case? I am not blaming them for abusing the system that was left open to be abused. But they should at least be warned about abusing the system while their cases being heard and decided. If their assylum application approved there is already a law for non-nationals to become nationals in 5 years or something.

arcadegame2004, after May when the rest of the east block joins Europe we might start seeing Czech gang, Latvian gang, Hungarian gang and what not gang All these gangs will gang on eachother and leave us alone hopefully

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I want to protect our Health Service from gross abuse by asylum-seeking women who get pregnant solely to emotionally blackmail the courts and politicians into granting them asylum, thereby lessening the impact of the huge increase in our Health-spending (at least in part).

Can you give one example of when a person has been given asylum due to their child being an Irish citzen.
Btw, that's a nice subtle comment hidden in that post. "Asylum seekers are responsible for the state of our health system".
You're not a member of that anti immigration party that operates down the country by any chance?

Phil_321

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Can you give one example of when a person has been given asylum due to their child being an Irish citzen.

What are you talking about? It was only a few months ago that the government decided to stop this practice(giving asylum to parents of children born in Ireland). There was an outcry over it from the refugee rights organisations in Ireland. There has already been a big drop in the numbers seeking asylum since this happened.

Btw, that's a nice subtle comment hidden in that post. "Asylum seekers are responsible for the state of our health system".
You're not a member of that anti immigration party that operates down the country by any chance?

Read what he said:
"lessening the impact of the huge increase in our Health-spending (at least in part)."
The asylum seekers are partly responsible for the state of the health service.... 50 million euro was spent by the Dept. of Health on asylum seekers in 2002.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Phil_321
What are you talking about? It was only a few months ago that the government decided to stop this practice(giving asylum to parents of children born in Ireland).

Can you provide a link to back that up?

There has already been a big drop in the numbers seeking asylum since this happened.

Can you provide a link to back that up?

Read what he said:

Note the word subtle in my post.

Chaz

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Can you provide a link to back that up?

Can you provide a link to back that up?

Note the word subtle in my post.

It was a high court judgement around Feb last year. If you look at the fact sheet you will see around that time the numbers went 0, 0, 0 onwards for the amount of Passports issued.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Chaz
It was a high court judgement around Feb last year. If you look at the fact sheet you will see around that time the numbers went 0, 0, 0 onwards for the amount of Passports issued.

The Supreme Court ruled in January last year that having a child who is a citizen is not grounds for automatic citizenship.
There is no need, imo, to change the consitution. McDowell said last year(*) there wasn't going to be any changes made to it.
It all just smacks of appealing to rascist views/ignorance/paranoia of people, i.e. a voting gimmick.
And what else are we being asked to vote on the same day?


*Source

He [McDowell] also says there will be no move to amend the citizenship provisions of the Constitution, including the new Article 2 adopted with the Belfast Agreement, which had previously been mooted.

If you look at the fact sheet you will see around that time the numbers went 0, 0, 0 onwards for the amount of Passports issued.

Does this not mean the ruling of the Supreme Court is putting the scam artists off coming here?

Chaz

Yep

It seems at the moment - what they are saying - is that between the high court thing and when the law is(if) passed, the people turned away are still eligible.

I watch with a careful eye as I am a non national. Hardly asulym seeker class. I work hard, pay tax and am part of the Irish system as I am on a professional work authorisation. We are planning on having another child - our first is already 5 and not born here - what then?

According to their wording - if you are non national, but born here - then you remain non national. OK - fine.
As it happens, my family is from Ireland - at least from my Dad's side. He, as well as his monther (my gran) was born in South Africa. She is Irish, her parents born here. If you follow that train of though - that means they have never 'lost' Irish citizenship as they are from here - and simply born elsewhere. Thats the law they are pass.

Whats good for one - is good for the other. If they would like to pass a law basically alientating people that are born here - then people that are orignally from here should be eligible to return.

On the current policy - I cannot claim citizenship as my gran was not born in Ireland - but her parents were.

corley

Just a couple of thoughts on this referendum:

- Statistics about "non-nationals" giving birth in our hospitals are dubious in relation to the citizenship referendum. Any citizen of another EU country is entitled to live and work here (and even give birth here!) but they will all be classed as "non-nationals" according to these statistics.

- The NCCRI (National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism - the state body which monitors racist incidents) has said that they have found that the number of racist attacks in Ireland increases around the time of an election. For the government to hold a referendum on such a highly charged issue on the same day as the local and European elections is totally irresponsible.

- The government are making statements about the citizenship not being "a useful thing to people with no connection with our state". I have an American friend who has never set foot in Ireland but took out Irish citizenship because she wanted to work in Paris and had an Irish grandparent. I personally think that someone whose family have moved to this country and started a family here is more entitled to citizenship than my friend.

Just my tuppence (or is it two cents?) worth,

Corley.

silverside

This law is not aimed at legal residents. The government will pass a law so that if the parents were long-term legal residents the child will be entitled to citizenship.

The government just want to close off automatic residency for children of the thousands of scam artists from certain countries who come here every year solely to give birth. And they are entirely right.

AngelofFire

both of my parents are english. i was born in this country i love this country i consider myself to be irish. nobody should have the right to cast me from the land where i was born.

nobody comes here with the intention of having children so that they can get citizenship those claims are as narrow as the claims that teenage girls get pregnant to get themselves on the housing list. assylum seekers come here to escape persescution and have no idea about articles in the constituiton allowing their children to become citizens. taking away the right for children born here to become citizens is just institutionalised xenophobia.

people can bring up social and economic arguments all they like, its a just a way of hiding their prejudice against other races.they are also showing a gross ignorance to their country`s history. between 1900 and 1990 an average of 65,000 irish emigrated each year. thats not to mention the millions that went to australia, scotland and america during the 19th century

DadaKopf

Hopefully this referendum(the real one) will put a stop to the abuse of our immigration system once and for all.

I was under the impression that categorical evidence for this assumption was neither conclusive nor forthcoming.

What we have are a few figures from maternity hospitals. In today's Irish Times, there were a number of articles outlaying the referendum's shaky grounds of justification.

First, the maternity workers deny they 'pleaded' to McDowell to sort out the overcrowding problem - of course, there's no proof been offered that everyone born here stays here because the figures aren't forthcoming. Now McDowell switches his justification to the all-important issue of cohesion in our citizenship laws, although the jurisprudential argument hasn't been stated, nor has the conclusive evidence that the citizenship laws, as they are, are being 'abused'.

It seems to me the government is skirting around the real issue. Our politicians are attempting to redefine the conditions of Irish citizenship in the absence of a proper public debate on the issue.

They could prove to us this constitutional reform is necessary by showing us the facts and explaining to us the ramifications of a 'yes' and 'no' vote - but that'll be left to the Referendum Commission. Don't let the politicians convince us, leave it up to the civil servants.

Given that the government doesn't seem likely to spell out exactly why it's introducing this legislation, I think it's only fair to conclude that it is, at some level, racially motivated.