How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

Trebor

ishmael it has been explained before, i believe by Madsl, that the Chen case is not applicable to asylum seekers as in the case it mentions that the person claiming residancy "must not be a burdan on the state" i.e. not claiming social welfare. this means that more rich people coming to europe whats wrong with that? they in no way effect the state as they have health insurance.

regarding hospitals it has been shown that there is problem with our health service with cut backs and what not. and again i must say how will voting yes change any of that? we need enforcement of already existing laws not a change in the constitution.

giving citizenship on birth means that all children born in this country start off with an equal footing is that not enough of a reason to grant it?

MadsL

We've identified a real flaw in Irish citizenship laws. It should just be fixed.

And this 'flaw' needs to be suddenly 'fixed' after it has been in place since 1921. When it has peformed a central role in Irish republicanism- now it should be abandoned because FF won't fund hospitals?

why its a good idea to grant citizenship as a device

What catastrophic evil is done by allowing citizenship on the basis of birth?

As the Adovocate General commented "provided that they themselves and the members of their families are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host member-state and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host member-state during the period of residence".

Asylum-seekers cannot therefore simply up and leave and arrive in Ireland to give birth.

What I find ironic in all of this is that I was recently married in NI to avoid the expense and inconvience of getting my wife's divorce papers 'approved' by the Irish state. No-one seems to have a problem with that. Nor do Irish women seem have a problem with travelling to the UK for 'medical reasons'.

MadsL

I just read this report

It would seem that ayslum seekers arriving in labour may sometimes be caused by the justice dept. Surely not.

There was no hospital in Kenmare, so my doctor advised me to ask to be transferred to Cork to be near a hospital. There was no accommodation in Cork. The place they wanted to send me was not fit for children. The manager rang the Justice Dept. said they should not send me there. Justice said I should go to Tralee. I had all my tests done here in Cork. I think it was the stress that I had the baby early. They took me to Tralee on Tuesday…I was so dizzy with the Journey. I was told the hospital is 15 minutes walk, I was walking with my 3 year old son. I was more than an hour walking...on the way my waters broke…I didn't have anything with me so I still had to walk all the way… they took me into labour and took my son outside. My child was meant to be taken into care. My child could have been taken away from me. In the end, one of the other asylum seekers said she would mind my child. I didn't really know her, only two weeks. They rang that lady… I had the baby. After 2 days I begged them to let me out so I could look after my other son but the baby had jaundice. It was a week before I get out.

:

bonkey

Originally posted by MadsL
And this 'flaw' needs to be suddenly 'fixed' after it has been in place since 1921.

This "flaw" has existed in our constitution since it was put there by an Amendment in 1998. Prior to that, people born on the island of non-national heritage had no constitutional right to citizenship. They had a legislative right, not a constitutional one.

You're busy harping on and on and on about arcade ignoring points after they've already been shown to be iuncorrect, and I am positive that it has been pointed out several times that what you are saying above is simply not true. I'm positive because I know that I have pointed it out at least once.

Originally posted by Ishmael Whale
the substantive points in favour of a 'yes' still being ignored

What substantive points are being ignored? I'm not aware of any single point you have raised that has not been answered. YOu may not agree with the answer, but that is far from saying the points are being ignored...especially if you're not coming back and explaining why you disagree.

From what I can see, the main "substantive" point is the assumption that giving citizenship to the children of non-nationals who are born on the island is simply wrong. If its wrong, then why has it been first legislated for and subsequently constitutionally enshrined for longer than I'm willing to bet either of us have been alive? If the constitutional inclusion is a flaw, then why wasn't the legal legislation which also permitted it prior to that an equal flaw? And if it was an equal flaw, then why did it remain in our legislation?

Secondly, as I have pointed out, your assertion that it is a flaw is still entirely based - from what I can see - on the further assumption that where you are born does not define your nationality. Well what does? Again - take the case MadSL has previously put forward. A child, born and raised in Ireland, but to two non-national parents of different nationalities to each other. What nationality is this child? Your stance says that to answer "Irish" is not just wrong, but flawed. Why? What other nationality should that child be? Its father's? Its mothers? Maybe it should be a combination, and we could start creating new nationalities as a result?

Not only that, but when people argue that they believe nationality is determined by where you're born, then why are they ignoring your "substantive" issue? They're addressing the issue directly, by stating clearly that their value-system says that it is not a flaw, and that the proposed change is whats flawed.

You also haven't, I believe, done anything other than brush aside (one could say ignored, but that term is perhaps being bandied about too much) the point that I made previously which is that people may also be advocating no because while they agree that the constitution may be flawed, they do not agree that the proposed amendment is the solution. Maybe I'm forgetting some response where you did deal with this, but I seem to recall it was just a short to-and-fro, followed by a throwaway comment at the top of a post when you decided apparently that this wasn't worth you discussing any more.

Or are there some other substantive issues that I've missed which haven't been answered (regardless of whether or not you agree with the answer. arcade clearly doesn't agree with any of the answer's given him, but that doesn't mean his points have been ignored either).

jc

arcadegame2004

From what I can see, the main "substantive" point is the assumption that giving citizenship to the children of non-nationals who are born on the island is simply wrong. If its wrong, then why has it been first legislated for and subsequently constitutionally enshrined for longer than I'm willing to bet either of us have been alive? If the constitutional inclusion is a flaw, then why wasn't the legal legislation which also permitted it prior to that an equal flaw? And if it was an equal flaw, then why did it remain in our legislation?

Bonkey, as circumstances change, so too must legislation, especially where the original legislation has had unintended affect.

You know well that from 1921-1994 the Republic of Ireland was seen as an unattractive destination for economic migrants, given our grinding unemployment and our status as one of the poorer countries in Western Europe.

The arrival of the Celtic Tiger changed that. Suddenly, a lot of people were claiming to be "refugees" that needed to come here. Unquestionably the 1998 Beflast Agreement brought the birth-for-citizenship part of our legal framework into far great prominence international that had previous been the case. In 2002, 65% of female asylum seekers over the age of 16 that arrived here were pregnant. DO you seriously believe this had nothing to do with our citizenship-laws? In 2003 the figure was 58%. Yes, a small reduction perhaps caused by the extremely welcome Supreme Court Judgement of 2003 that attempted to bring some sanity into our laws by ending automatic citizenship for the mother. However the Chen Judgement HAS called this into question, especially when you remember that the Irish Supreme Court denied both automatic citizenship AND residency automatically going to asylum-seeker women giving birth in Ireland. The Irish Supreme Court made NO mention of medical insurance having a role.

Even IF future Chen's have medical insurance, it still ought to be OUR courts right to decide on asylum-cases or on residency. I have always beeen very positive about the EU but this ruling, indicates that the European Court is beginning to view itself as a European Supreme Court, with the right to interfere in individual asylum-cases. I think a lot of people who previously voted Yes to EU treaties, including myself, will not do so next time, if this Court gets even more power to treat us like part of a country called Europe. And the medical insurance stuff was not the only reason for the ECJ ruling that she could stay. It was ruled she derived EU-residency from her child. An odious precedent if our hospitals become even more so the destination for throngs of failed asylum-seekers seeking to give birth here to make themselves legal migrants.

Anyway, if ALL other EU states allowed citizenship on the basis of birth, then I wouldn't mind so much. The burden then would be shared. But we are the only EU state that does allow it. Hence, we are faced with an unfair share of the burden of pregnany citizenship tourists. Not all of them claim asylum. It has been reported in the Jim Cusack report I mentioned earlier that one large group comes regularly from the UK, but are not UK-nationals, to give birth in our hospitals. In my opinion these are Chen-style people. Even this is NOT on as far as I am concerned.

Our citizenship laws debase Irish citizenship by makign it a sourvenir to be claimed by any woman in the late stages of pregnancy who flies into Ireland for w few hours.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Our citizenship laws debase Irish citizenship by makign it a sourvenir to be claimed by any woman in the late stages of pregnancy who flies into Ireland for w few hours.

So what's your view on (as others have pointed out) Americans who would claim Irish passports for the novelty value?

Imposter

I've just read the Irish Council for Civil Liberties FAQ and here's a few comments on it:

The proposal is to completely reverse the basis of acquiring Irish citizenship law, which has
existed since 1921. Ireland has always since its foundation had a common law approach to
citizenship, which is that anyone born on the territory is entitled to citizenship (known as the “jus
solis” legal system). This is exactly the same law that applies in America, Canada, New Zealand,
India, Pakistan – indeed 42 other common law countries, like Ireland, around the world. It is also
the traditional republican approach to citizenship, which treats all children equal at birth and
does not dictate their status by who their parents are.

The proposed change rewrites Irish Citizenship law. To say it completely reverses the basis of acquiring Irish citizenship is perhaps true to an extent but it is an overdramatic way of looking at it. The truth is the change will affect very few people but will close a loophole that the iccl more or less admit is there.

There may be people who come to Ireland because they know that children born in Ireland will
be citizens of Ireland, but there is no evidence that this is a large number, and certainly it is not a
crisis.

To adress their point about common and civil law they say that 42 other common law countries have this system. How many other common law coutries are there and what systems do they have? (I don't know this i'm just picking holes in their argument) If they said "All 42 common law countries ..." then it would be a point. As phrased above, I'd dismiss it as biased use of statistics.

Similarly their point that our current approach is the "traditional republican approach to citizenship" is easily dismissed seeing as no other EU republic takes this approach.

If I was in ireland at the moment i'd probably vote yes as there is a loophole there and closing it doesn't do any harm. It also brings us in line with the EU which although not neccessary, I think is a good thing.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, as circumstances change, so too must legislation, especially where the original legislation has had unintended affect.

The intent in the original legislation was to give people born on the island citizenship.

This was then moved to a constitutional right.

Now, because its suddenly more popular than some people feel accustomed to, its all of a sudden some sort of a mistake??? I don' t think so....not unless you can show that it was only ever there for

You know well that from 1921-1994 the Republic of Ireland was seen as an unattractive destination for economic migrants, given our grinding unemployment and our status as one of the poorer countries in Western Europe.

So what? Are you saying that from 1921 to 1998, the only reason we had legislation covering this was to entice people to move to Ireland, and now that they're here in large numbers we can stop???

Unless you are offering that as teh reason for hte original legislation - and I'd expect something other than "in my opinion it is" to back it up - then your argument is entirely specious, as it does not address why this was put in our legislation originally?

Ultimately, arcade, your current argument seem to boil down to "sod what principles we may have had, this is costing money so principles should go out the window". If thats the case, then I sincerely hope the nation in general isn't as willing to set aside their principles for cash as you are.

jc

arcadegame2004

147 countries, including all other members of the EU - with whom we are in a free-movement arrangement - DENY automatic citizenship on the sole basis of being born in one of their country's. I think the European sitaution is more relevant to Ireland because we are in a free movement arrangement with them, unlike our relations with the US and the other 40 countries mentioned.

There is NOTHING in the ethod of Republicanism that dictates we must give automatic citizenship to the children of foreigners born here. I consider the ICCL as biased on the asylum issue. Every time there is a report in the media about deportations, the ICCL and IRC seem to rant on about racism or it beign unfair to deport people. Our citizenship laws are EXTREMELY well-known internationally and if the ICCL or IRC are saying differently than they are just biased. They give ALL asylum-seekers the benefit of the doubt. What do they expect asylum-seekers to say but things that support the veracity of their claims. They are hardly going to admit that they knew about our citizenship laws, or that their claims are false.

The Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria, the French Republic, the Republic of Portugal, the Republic of Finland, the Italian Republic do not allow automatic citizenship on the basis of birth. Since modern-republicanism derives largely from France, I strongly disagree that the roots of citizenship on the basis of birth stem from traditional republicanism. Indeed in the Roman Republic, there was large numbers of slaves. Are you saying we should bring back slavery just because originally that Republic had them?

arcadegame2004

The intent in the original legislation was to give people born on the island citizenship.

The intent was the confer citizenship on NI Nationalists and this is how it was described by Ahern and co. at the time of the referendum. I voted for the GFA on that basis.

Having worked out as being used for other purposes, and having regard to the waiting-list for hip and other operations, I cannot condone non-nationals abusing our hospitals just to claim citizenship for their babies. These babies would not even exist but for the fact that their parents wish to use them to stay in Ireland or the EU. Yes, the cost issue is a major factor in my position.

A free for all exists where theoetically, if millions of pregnant non-nationals were to come here to give birth ALL their children would have to be given Irish citizenship. Clearly this is unsustainable.

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
It also brings us in line with the EU which although not neccessary, I think is a good thing.

Isn't it funny....

in the last referendum (Nice), people were wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Ireland shouldn't cede our sovereignty in any way to the EU.

And here we are, dealing with a new referendum, on an issue which the EU explicitly leaves as our sovereign right and responsibility to determine ourselves.....and so many people are arguing that we should become EU-clones and no-one is getting visibly upset!!!

Stunning.

I'm just wondering how many of the people who are avocating this EU-Cloning exercise were amongst those who were rabidly opposed to Nice because our loss of independance would make us into what they are now advocating as the right thing...a subservient nation-state who drafts its so-called independant laws in order to suit the EU.

For example, I would hazard that arcade was opposed to Nice (what with all those poor Eastern Europeans it lets in to abuse Ireland's wealth).....but is now practically begging us to snuggle up a little closer to the EU beccause...hey...we're an EU state and its the right thing to do so we're not the odd man out....

jc

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
They give ALL asylum-seekers the benefit of the doubt.

What way do you suggest they be treated?

arcadegame2004

I'm just wondering how many of the people who are avocating this EU-Cloning exercise were amongst those who were rabidly opposed to Nice because our loss of independance would make us into what they are now advocating as the right thing...a subservient nation-state who drafts its so-called independant laws in order to suit the EU.

I actually SUPPORTED Nice thank you very much Bonkey. I voted "Yes". I am amused that the same parties - on the No side - ranting on about our independence and not wanting to be taken over by foreigners now seek to let foreigners come here and take Ireland over by outnumbering us in our own country. It seems contradictory on their part. I calculated that because Eastern European would no longer be able to apply for asylum here, and because their automatic right to live here would mean they had no need to engage in pregnancy for citizenship purposes, that the burden of migration from the East would actually DECLINE after enlargement. I also felt that as their economies improve in response to EU membership, feweer would come than before. I appear ot have been proven correct in this assumption.

I am usually pro-EU. I feel that we need to implement the part of the Amsterdam Treaty dealing with common immigration and asylum-policies, to deter asylum-shopping, where an asylum seeker shops around for the most generous asylum-system, i.e. us. I welcome the opportunity given by the referendum to help do this, by removing perhaps the single biggest reason to cross 6 or 7 national EU to claim bogus asylum in Ireland.

As far as I am concerned, only people fleeing war, famine, or persecution should be entitled to claim asylum. Otherwise, why is it called asylum?

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
Isn't it funny....

in the last referendum (Nice), people were wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Ireland shouldn't cede our sovereignty in any way to the EU.

And here we are, dealing with a new referendum, on an issue which the EU explicitly leaves as our sovereign right and responsibility to determine ourselves.....and so many people are arguing that we should become EU-clones and no-one is getting visibly upset!!!

Stunning.

I'm just wondering how many of the people who are avocating this EU-Cloning exercise were amongst those who were rabidly opposed to Nice because our loss of independance would make us into what they are now advocating as the right thing...a subservient nation-state who drafts its so-called independant laws in order to suit the EU.

They are different issues though. I was against Nice as I felt the changes to voting numbers and the definition of what was needed to pass votes was unfair on smaller countries. That doesn't mean I was against EU expansion, just the way they wanted to do it.

Moving in line with the EU is important here imo as a very important idea in the EU is that of free movement (unless your from the new states:rolleyes:). Ireland's current citizenship laws directly affect other states because of this.

I think those two positions are valid and non-contradictory.

arcadegame2004

What way do you suggest they be treated?

Frank I expect their asylum-claims to be assessed rationally. I expect that we should not point blank automatically believe what they tell us. They are hardly going to say anything which will implicate themselves in illegal-immigration. But that doesn't mean that this is not what they are engaged in.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
...now seek to let foreigners come here and take Ireland over by outnumbering us in our own country.

I'd rather live in a country "outnumbered by them" rather than live somewhere that has people with that sort of attitude in the majority.
Do you even read what you're typing before you click Submit?
People like you are an embarrasment to this country, I just hope for everyone's sake (Irish and non-Irish alike) you are not in the majority.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I expect that we should not point blank automatically believe what they tell us.

That doesn't happen, you do know people get deported from Ireland right?
But, like everything else, you'll just ignore these minor annoyances (i.e. reality).

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I actually SUPPORTED Nice thank you very much Bonkey. I voted "Yes".

I'm surprised, given that it means those hundreds of thousands who can descend on the nation and "steal" our jobs, given that seem you only support the idea of immigration with some sort of "Irish for jobs first" preference.

But how and ever...

I am amused that the same parties - on the No side - ranting on about our independence and not wanting to be taken over by foreigners now seek to let foreigners come here and take Ireland over by outnumbering us in our own country.

Taken over by which foreigners? The ones who are born here and have irish citizenship and thus aren't foreign in any sense of the word, or some other group who's right to stay in the country isn't touched in the slightest by this referendum

It seems contradictory on their part.

Huh? Our independance means that we have the freedom to choose our own path, as opposed to others choosing it for us. No more, no less. If we choose to open our borders (which I don't support, before I get mischaracterised in that way again), it is still no abrogation of our independance. If anything, its an affirmation of our independance, because it would be a choice we freely made on our own.

Suggesting kowtowing to the EU on an issue which is supposedly still our own business (right to citizenship) is however such an abrogation. This whole "we're the only country in the EU who..." lark.....thats the only defilement of our independance I'm referring to, because I can't see anything else where we are not making our own choices for our nation. Thats what independance is.

As far as I am concerned, only people fleeing war, famine, or persecution should be entitled to claim asylum. Otherwise, why is it called asylum?

No, thats not as far as your concerned....unless you're yet again changing your definitions to suit your mood.

AS far as you have been concerned up to now, they have to be fleeing this, and not have crossed a single nation between where they flee from and to that could also have offered them shelter in order to be asylum seekers.

According to your previous statements, in the various threads, someone fleeing war, famine and persecution, but who doesn't apply for asylum in the first place they possibly could is an economic migrant.

Or have you changed your mind on that?

jc

Trebor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
147 countries, including all other members of the EU - with whom we are in a free-movement arrangement - DENY automatic citizenship on the sole basis of being born in one of their country's. I think the European sitaution is more relevant to Ireland because we are in a free movement arrangement with them, unlike our relations with the US and the other 40 countries mentioned.

ok but why is this only a problem now. we have been a member of the EU for over 20 years but this is only stating to happen now? i find it hard to believe that they have only recently found out about our citizenship. the reason they want to come to ireland is because we are the fastest growing economy in europe with the lowest unemployment rates. changing the constitution will not deter them. it will change nothing as this govt has for years failed to enforce the law and to implement the new immigration policy that they promised. if this change happens it will only effect a minority of cases, if any, but could jeopardise the GFA as the unionist have already said that if the irish govt can make changes that effect the GFA then they should be able to aswell.

Imposter

Originally posted by Trebor
ok but why is this only a problem now. we have been a member of the EU for over 20 years but this is only stating to happen now?

Are you saying there is a problem (by problem I mean a possibility to abuse NOT that it's a crisis)?
If there is a problem then why not fix it?

if this change happens it will only effect a minority of cases, if any, but could jeopardise the GFA as the unionist have already said that if the irish govt can make changes that effect the GFA then they should be able to aswell.

I didn't see this Unionist reaction, so how can it change the GFA?

ishmael whale

To deal with the points so far, Yoda points out that citizenship is conferred on the child and clearly whatever her parent’s intentions, ultimately, the child may decide to live in Ireland or elsewhere. To be honest, I don’t think this really addresses the issue which is why we are involved at all in this case.

I don’t doubt that Mrs Chen can make the case that she is an asset to UK society, and contributes more to it that many of its natives. But it should be up to the UK authorities to decide if they want to give her residency or if they want to give citizenship to her child. If the referendum is successful and she (legally) moves to Ireland then any further children she might have here will be Irish. The issue is why we are involved in what is a UK immigration case – the answer is because Irish citizenship is being used as a device.

Mrs Chen's child has Irish citizenship, and no-one is suggesting that should be changed in this individual case. What we are talking about is the issue raised by the case, not the people concerned who are clearly just trying to get through life as best they can like the rest of us.

I can only point out to Trebor that I am not making any particular link between the Chen case and asylum seekers. Equally I am not making any particular case for reducing the numbers of people arriving at hospitals. I am simply pointing out that some people are entering the country simply to obtain citizenship for their children as a device. That much cannot be denied.

When Trebor says “we need enforcement of already existing laws not a change in the constitution.” I am interested to know what he intends, because two ‘no’ voters I have pressed on this point have suggested immigration controls on pregnant women which seems to me more draconian than the simple change proposed to our citizenship laws. Giving citizenship on birth to all children born in this country to people, including non-nationals, who actually reside here is rational and this is what is proposed. Offering a flag of convenience to people residing in other EU countries with less generous provisions does not.

As to Madsl point, the change is not necessary because FF won't fund hospitals. It is necessary because people are obtaining Irish citizenship in situations that don’t make sense. I think I have already suggested that ‘sure what harm’ is not a reason for granting citizenship. I have asked several times for a positive reason why its a good idea to grant citizenship as a device, and no-one has been able to provide one.

As Bonkey notes I have made these points before and some (inadequate) answers have been provided. However, no-one is volunteering a positive reason for granting citizenship as a device.

Moving through his text, the main "substantive" point is not that giving citizenship to the children of resident non-nationals who are born on the island is wrong, its that granting citizenship to the children of non-nationals living in other EU states who enter the State briefly simply to obtain Irish citizenship for their children is senseless.

I have already explained why this provision was legislated for originally. I have explained this several times and I am surprised the issue has been raised again. It was done with the intention of guaranteeing the citizenship rights of people in Northern Ireland and people who had emigrated before the State was founded. That is in the Dail record.

I’m perfectly open to the idea that place of birth is an important determinant of citizenship. After the referendum it will remain an important determinant. But it needs to be qualified by a requirement that the parents actually reside here. Why? Because we know that people are coming briefly to Ireland to obtain Irish citizenship for their children, because they live in countries with less generous regimes. No-one has been able to tell me why we should do this. Flatly stating that nationality is determined by where you're born without making explicit reference to this phenomenon is, I would submit, ignoring the substantive issue.

That said, people clearly can have all kinds of value systems. There’s parts of the world where people think the best thing you can do for your daughter is to mutilate her genitals. I accept that, compared to this, believing in an unqualified right to nationality by birth for no particular reason is a relatively mild eccentricity.

Certainly there might be people saying that they agree that the constitution may be flawed, but they do not agree that the proposed amendment is the solution. I know there are people saying there is not enough of a debate, although amendments have been passed with less debate than this. (To be honest debating on the basis that there needs to be more debate seems a little circular to me.) However, the only alternative I have actually seen proposed by ‘no’ voters is immigration controls on pregnant women. This seems invasive (how do you determine pregnancy) and draconian (presumably all non-national women become ‘suspect’ in some way). I don’t see how this is better than changing our (by European standards) very generous approach to citizenship to a merely generous approach.

Trebor

Originally posted by Imposter
Are you saying there is a problem (by problem I mean a possibility to abuse NOT that it's a crisis)?
If there is a problem then why not fix it?

I didn't see this Unionist reaction, so how can it change the GFA?

i don't see it as a problem but arcade does. if the govt wanted to they could still enforce the 2003 supreme court judement as the chen case only applies to people who do not require state aid.

source
Paisley is saying that if the irish govt can make changes that effect the citizenship of people in northen ireland with out first consulting them then this show that the "Belfast Agreement is dead" which could lead for him calling for renegotiation with grounds that if the irish govt can do it then so should they.

Trebor

ishmael, to put it bluntly i think that if the baby is born here then it should stay, if the parents don't have the right to residency then the baby should be taken off them and put into care if their own country will not accept it. as far as i am concerned that child is irish an is entitled to citizenship, this should not confer rights to the parents and this can be dealt with through legislation.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Trebor
ishmael, to put it bluntly i think that if the baby is born here then it should stay, if the parents don't have the right to residency then the baby should be taken off them and put into care if their own country will not accept it. as far as i am concerned that child is irish an is entitled to citizenship, this should not confer rights to the parents and this can be dealt with through legislation.

The point is not about children staying in Ireland. Its about Irish citizenship being used as a flag of convenience to enter/stay in another EU country. You are not addressing that reality.

Trebor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The point is not about children staying in Ireland. Its about Irish citizenship being used as a flag of convenience to enter/stay in another EU country. You are not addressing that reality.

but if what i proposed was implemented then other countries could do the same. offer residency to the child but not the parents. if the child is a minor we look after it until it becomes an adult. i see no reson why Chen should be allowed it tbh, the only thing going for her is that she would not be a burden on the state and i have nothing against more rich people coming to europe but i am sure she would be able to buy a passport in some way anyway.

Imposter

Originally posted by Trebor
i don't see it as a problem but arcade does. if the govt wanted to they could still enforce the 2003 supreme court judement as the chen case only applies to people who do not require state aid.

Do you not think there is a possibility to abuse the current system? If you answer yes to that then why not fix that loophole?

source
Paisley is saying that if the irish govt can make changes that effect the citizenship of people in northen ireland with out first consulting them then this show that the "Belfast Agreement is dead" which could lead for him calling for renegotiation with grounds that if the irish govt can do it then so should they. [/B]

Next thing Paisley'll be looking for an Irish Passport. :)Thanks for the link.

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
Isn't it funny....

in the last referendum (Nice), people were wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Ireland shouldn't cede our sovereignty in any way to the EU.

And here we are, dealing with a new referendum, on an issue which the EU explicitly leaves as our sovereign right and responsibility to determine ourselves.....and so many people are arguing that we should become EU-clones and no-one is getting visibly upset!!!

Stunning.

For whatever it's worth, I think that it's wholey right Ireland holds on to facets of our individuality like this.

I think that after centuries of English misrule, migration, immigration and poverty, that as a nation Ireland would be a place which is friendly the hardships with which people can be faced and would *embrace* the vulnerable, especially children, who enjoy a high level of constitutional protection vis-a-vis their right to life.

I find it distressing that Irish people can so quickley forget where it is our nation came from and turn people away so readily because, those people are substantively black, poor, foreign and thus not welcome in this nation.

I can't say I find that attitude in Irish society 'surprising'. When one looks at how easily the Israelis can dehumanise the Palestinians and enunciate an internationally *condoned* apartheid state, despire the millenia of persecution of the Jews ( or maybe because of it), I don't find it surprising that the Irish, who flocked to Britain and the US, can *easily* invent excuses to have an exclusionary immigration and asylum seeking policy. Justifying that xenophobia and the lockdown on the "blacks getting free houses" in the context of the EU, is deplorable, but similarly not surprising.

Vote No to Nice people!

Trebor

Originally posted by Imposter
Do you not think there is a possibility to abuse the current system? If you answer yes to that then why not fix that loophole?


Next thing Paisley'll be looking for an Irish Passport. :)Thanks for the link.

yes there is a possibility that the system is being abused but it is not because of the Constitution it's because the courts will not enforce the 2003 case that says the parents do not get residency rights. why must we change our Constitution when we could solve the problem with enforcement and legislation.

Imposter

Originally posted by Trebor
yes there is a possibility that the system is being abused but it is not because of the Constitution it's because the courts will not enforce the 2003 case that says the parents do not get residency rights. why must we change our Constitution when we could solve the problem with enforcement and legislation.

Does changing the constitution not have the same effect and if anything has the advantage of taking the decision out of the hands of a judge that may be influenced by a particularly vocal but minority group who cry racism at every turn?

Originally posted by TypeDef
I don't find it surprising that the Irish, who flocked to Britain and the US, can *easily* invent excuses to have an exclusionary immigration and asylum seeking policy.

Can you explain what you mean here as surely any immigration or asylum policy will be exclusionary?

Trebor

Originally posted by Imposter
Does changing the constitution not have the same effect and if anything has the advantage of taking the decision out of the hands of a judge that may be influenced by a particularly vocal but minority group who cry racism at every turn?

no cause then the child would not be irish, i believe that anyone born here is irish as has been the way since the inception of the state. the judge has to implement legislation, if the govt brought in legislation that clearly says "you do not get residency based on your child" it leaves no room for the judge to give it as then he would be breaking the law.

let them cry racism, just because they say it doesn't make it true aslong as we apply the same law to all non-nationals no matter their religion/colour/beliefs then it's not racist.