Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?
Options
Comments
-
That does seem like a good solution. The only problem I would see with it is actually caused by this referendum. If the No vote succeeds I couldn't see the government even trying to enact legislation like that.Originally posted by Trebor
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.0 -
Originally posted by Trebor
offer residency to the child but not the parents. if the child is a minor we look after it until it becomes an adult.
Can I suggest that a policy that needs to provide for separating infants from their parents is simply impractical, and suggests that there is a problem somewhere that needs to be addressed.
I might note in passing that Typedef is falling into the same trap as many others by not confronting the reality that this referendum is about Irish citizenship being used as a flag of convenience in other countries.0 -
Originally posted by Imposter
That does seem like a good solution. The only problem I would see with it is actually caused by this referendum. If the No vote succeeds I couldn't see the government even trying to enact legislation like that.
and i don't see that by voting yes will actually change anything. they might not have the child to say "but our child is a citizen" they could still use the racism card as they do already. in a reality nothing will change except they will use some other reason instead. they will continue to come here.Can I suggest that a policy that needs to provide for separating infants from their parents is simply impractical, and suggests that there is a problem somewhere that needs to be addressed.
why is it impractical? if they are coming here and they have a child which will not be accepted in another country then as that child is a citizen it is our responsibility to look after it. not to look after it parents.0 -
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.
The 2 Governments have already issued a joint-statement that the GFA is unaffected by this referendum.
I'm sick and tired of Trebor or whoever quoting Paisley. Paisley wringly said that we are changing Articles 2 and 3. We are not.
We are voting on changing Article 9. Also NI Nationalists will still have Irish citizenship because having a parent born on the island still guarantees Irish citizenship for the child.
Paisley is opposed to the GFA already. He has always been and always will be because he is a dyed in the wool naysayer.0 -
Originally posted by Trebor
why is it impractical? if they are coming here and they have a child which will not be accepted in another country then as that child is a citizen it is our responsibility to look after it. not to look after it parents.
Do I really have to say that separating infants from their parents is an extraordinary proposal ? Have I entered the Twilight Zone ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The 2 Governments have already issued a joint-statement that the GFA is unaffected by this referendum.
I'm sick and tired of Trebor or whoever quoting Paisley. Paisley wringly said that we are changing Articles 2 and 3. We are not.
We are voting on changing Article 9. Also NI Nationalists will still have Irish citizenship because having a parent born on the island still guarantees Irish citizenship for the child.
Paisley is opposed to the GFA already. He has always been and always will be because he is a dyed in the wool naysayer.
yes they issued it after they decided to go ahead with it. they did not consult parties on either side of the border, maybe thats why he got it wrong. none of the opposition parties north or south have been consulted on this. there is no need to introduce this referendum at this speed. this issue only effects only a small number of pregnant women each year. how do we know that there will be no un-intended consequences of this rushed amendment if nobody can raise objections about it.Do I really have to say that separating infants from their parents is an extraordinary proposal ? Have I entered the Twilight Zone ?
as i said in my post it would be a last resort if the country of the parents would not except the child which is rare. thus it would discourage, as arcade calls it, "citizenship tourists".0 -
this issue only effects only a small number of pregnant women each year. how do we know that there will be no un-intended consequences of this rushed amendment if nobody can raise objections about it.
A small number? I strongly disagree. The claims of the "No" side of there only being 440 or so citizenship tourists is based on a laughable narrow definition of the term.Namely that you have to be a later booker and a non-EU national.
Why do the "No" side exclude those in early pregnancy who claim asylum from their calculations?
After all, with a 5% deportation rate of asylum seekers, chances are the mothers will give birth in Ireland.
A rushed amendment? After 6 years of waiting to close this loophole I think the Irish people will disagree.0 -
You're the one who keeps going on about the boat/plane loads of heavily pregnant foreigners coming into the country to collect passports for Al Queda. Why don't you just lump in 99% of female foreigners, they all have the potential to get pregnant and steal our jobs don't they?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Why do the "No" side exclude those in early pregnancy who claim asylum from their calculations?0 -
Originally posted by arcadegame2004
A small number? I strongly disagree. The claims of the "No" side of there only being 440 or so citizenship tourists is based on a laughable narrow definition of the term.Namely that you have to be a later booker and a non-EU national.
Why do the "No" side exclude those in early pregnancy who claim asylum from their calculations?
After all, with a 5% deportation rate of asylum seekers, chances are the mothers will give birth in Ireland.
A rushed amendment? After 6 years of waiting to close this loophole I think the Irish people will disagree.
i was actually referring to the figures you provided they are still not that big a deal.
and as i have said before voting yes will not increase the deportatoin rate, only enforcement will.
then why has no one mentioned this loophole until christmass of last year? and why have the dail not being debating this for 6 years with the all party commitee on the constitution? i'll tell you why because they did not see it as an issues but surprise, surprise it's an election year so now they want to talk about it?0 -
More 'shocking' examples of citizenship abuse, sorry, tourism, emm sorry birthright.
http://www.cheesebikini.com/archives/000231.html
http://members.aol.com/SIDHEis/sidhe3.htm
http://cryptomeme.com/lb/archives/000065.html
"We will only stay long enough to process my Irish passport..."
http://www.sweetasabiscuit.com/mightykymm/2002/august/082902.html
http://www.sweetasabiscuit.com/mightykymm/2002/september/092402.html
"That was the good news, here is the bad news, Mom found Daddy's birth certificate, and on it was listed his mother's place of birth, and it was New York. So Ellen was not born in Ireland, no Irish passport for me. I do have one more shot at a European passport, if my mother can get her Belgian citizenship re-instated, I can get a Belgian one. Not quite as cool as Irish, but it would still make traveling in Europe easier. And just having duel citizenship would be so ultimate cool! Not to mention the fact that I'd have two passports to lose. "
So there you have it folks, the PDs are dropping "Citizenship matters" in place of "citizenship - so ultimate cool!"
Can't believe you allow these idiots citizenship...0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by MadsL
Can't believe you allow these idiots citizenship...
Their entitlements are, of course, not guaranteed by the Constitution.
I take it your point is while we are removing the loophole that grants citizenship to people with no real link to the state whatsoever we should also limit the entitlements of people with an Irish grandparent. I don't see the immediate link, and of course there's no need for a referendum to do what you seem to want.0 -
Can anyone clarify for me what exactly are the rights of an child born in the state to non-national parents if this goes through. Can the child claim citizenship after five years, or do they have to wait until 18?? Or haven't we thought that far ahead
Other EU states...
Belgium
Child born in Belgium, who has resided there continuously since birth, may make a
declaration of Belgian nationality between the ages of 18 and 30.
France
The Act of 16 March 1998 marks a return by France to its traditional role as a melting pot for immigration. This Act is based on the principle of gradual integration of immigrant populations and a more liberal interpretation of the principle of jus soli (territorial birthright).
Entering into force on 1 September 1998, this Act lays down the principle that all children of foreign parents born in France automatically acquire French citizenship when they reach adulthood.0 -
of course there's no need for a referendum to do what you seem to want.
Why not..??? Is it not there in Article 2...
"Furthermore, dude, the Irish nation cherishes its special
affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who
share its cultural identity and heritage."
Alright, the 'dude' isn't really there...
Would it not take a referendum to change this. Admittedly the 'special
affinity' doesn't promise much.
Arcade you have 50 mins left...get Googling!0 -
Originally posted by MadsL
Can anyone clarify for me what exactly are the rights of an child born in the state to non-national parents if this goes through.
What I understand is proposed is that if you are born anywhere on the island to non-national parents, either of whom has been lawfully resident north or south for at least three out of the four years preceding the birth or (alternatively) either can legally reside here without restriction, will have an entitlement to Irish citizenship. Other than that, there would be no automatic entitlement of children of non nationals to Irish citizenship by birth. That means that they would have to apply by naturalisation, which I think means they have to be adults.
And you're absolutely right, 'cherishing' people of Irish ancestory confers no particular rights. It just means we think they are jolly nice chaps.
Its one of those bits of the Constitution that were stuck in for padding. Like 'there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be practicable.' or 'In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that
mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.' to say nothing of my personal favourite 'The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.' In practical terms, none of this stuff amount to jack.0 -
Probably vote No, or spoil my vote.0
-
These Referendums always seem to collide with my holiday plans..
I missed out on the 2 Nice ones...
But I won't miss out this time...
It's up early on the Friday morning, head to the polling office and vote NO and then off to the airport. What better way to start a holiday.0 -
Originally posted by MadsL:
Can anyone clarify for me what exactly are the rights of an child born in the state to non-national parents if this goes through.
AFAIK, they would have no constitutional rights beyond those of any human being.
The 3 of 4 years bit is the proposed legislation - If the parents had been legally resident for 3 of the previous 4 years, the child gets to be a citizen.
But:
1. This can be changed by the government as and when they see fit.
2. Time spent in the country waiting for e.g. an asylum application to be processed doesn't count.0 -
ANNOUNCEMENTI will give 100 euro to the charity of Arcade2004's choice if by 5pm June 3rd 2004 he can provide a single shred of evidence that asylum-seekers in Ireland are being given a free house.
Arcade has decided not to provide any evidence of this (probably because there is none) so I am changing my challenge. I will donate 100 euro to UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) IF Arcadegame2004 will apologise for his offensive remarks by starting a new thread in Politics called "I'm sorry I lied".
If anyone else would care to add to this donation - please PM me.0 -
Originally posted by ishmael whale
I might note in passing that Typedef is falling into the same trap as many others by not confronting the reality that this referendum is about Irish citizenship being used as a flag of convenience in other countries.
Sure its in passing...he's making the same point as I am that you are continuously avoidining discussing. Is it not a bit disingenuous to say there's no postive point being made when you're continuously ignoring one of them? If its such a flawed point, then shoot it down. It can't be hard.
Some people believe nationality is determined by where you're born. Pure and simple. That's their definition of it. These people simply do not want a situation where we deny someone born on the island the automatic right to an Irish nationality.
Yes, its something which is abused. So what? Practically every human right we hold dear is abused by some people, but that doesn't mean that we should decide that a superset of those abusers (encompassing the abusers and more) get stripped of their rights to try and "improve" or "correct" the situation.
If the abuse was staggering, then perhaps a case could be made, but even then there has been absolutely nothing substantive offered to explain how this will solve the underlying so-called problem.
There's plenty of armchair- and keyboard-experts willing to give us non-researched explanations which are based on an awful lot of assumption, but there isn't a substantive piece of information anywhere about what specific problem of abuse exists that the referendum will resolve, and specifically how the referendum will solve that problem. There's plenty of gushing about the former, but when it comes to showing how it is linked to the change the referendum will make, and how new legislation that was impossible without the referendum will solve it.....nothing conclusive. Nothing.
Someone having Irish citiznenship just for being born on the island is not abuse. Its ridiculous to say that a new-born child is abusing the Irish State laws by being born on the island, which is apparently what we're being asked to believe.
The subsequent actions of that person, or the previous and subsequent actions of their parents may be abusive. But again, it seems ridiculous to deny a child citizenship on the grounds that that child may one day abuse the system in Ireland.
So, we're really saying that the parents of this child are abusing the Irish system by getting the child citizenship, presumably for some benefit to them. Well, show me the benefit that this legislation is required for in order to prevent. It won't prevent them coming here, ebcause thats prior to the question of citizenship. It won't deny them free hospital services, as that too is prior to the question of citizenship. It won't give us anything extra in terms of denying the parents the right to stay (unless they're well off enough to not need state assistance, in which case, they're not abusing anything anyway), because we already have that right....so what, exactly, does it accomplish, other than to deny the child the right of citizenship (which I still haven't heard a good explanation as to why this right is some form of abuse)?
To date, not one person on these threads that I can think of has been able to show a serious problem that they can actually properly explain how the referendum will enable it to be solved.
Show me the problem. Tell me why this is the right solution, and - if necessary - expplain how it will resolve it. I still can't see it.
Ishmael mostly seems to be asking "why should I vote no". He is looking for a reason - almost as if "yes" should be the default position.
I would it differently : if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
If you can't actually pinpoint a problem and explain why the referendum is a good solution, then why are you trying to fix something you can't say is broken???
jc0 -
over and over and over and over and over ......Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Wrong. I have repeatedly posted evidence from Dr.Paul Byrne, and the minutes of the meetings of the Masters of the Rotunda with ministers. I have given links to Dept.of Justice documenatation about 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 beign pregnant on arrival.
No, now, no name calling.Originally posted by arcadegame2004
There are 2 extreme positions you can take on the immigration debate. You can either be a zero-immigration person or someone who wants an open-door. The "No" side in this campaign fall into the latter category and I do NOT fall into the former.
What is this in English?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I had already said that I have no problem with the lega migratio nentail in the non-EU national work-permits system provided it is only used ot fill skills-shortages.
Slavery was legal migration at the time, wasn't it?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
My agenda is not racist. I am NOT foreigner-hating. If I am foreigner-hating, then why have I specifically said UMPTEEN times that I am NOT opposed to legal-migration via work-permits to fill skills-shortages?
There is a big difference between "I don't want to be last." and "I want to be first."Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Hobbes, it is patriotic for us to put our own people first. After all when SF and the Greens were calling for a "No" vote in the Nice Referendum, wasn't that basically the kernel of their argument? I say this as a "yes" voter in the Nice debate who now views as ironic those same parties preaching about "xenophobia". Why don't they look at their own xenophobia in opposing EVERYTHING that comes out of the EU?
What if they didn't have a parent born on this island?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
NI Nationalists will still have Irish citizenship because they have a parent born on this island.
While I can't particularly remember having contemplated asylum-seelers, I had contemplated tourists, diplomats, temporary residents, people doing the Shannon stopover ....Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I assure you that I and most others had NI Nationalists in mind when we voted for the Citizenship-provisions now in place. I had no idea that asylum-seelers would be able to come to Ireland to claim citizenship for their children.
If you are going to revise the implementation of this part of the Belfast Agreement, whats to say someone else won't change some other part of the implementation?
Travelling while pregnant isn't inherently dangerous.Originally posted by arcadegame2004
She is endangering her unborn child by travelling long distances to get to Ireland.
Michael Martin was saying 50% of 1,000 births (an awfully round number) to non-nationals in the Southern Health Board area were to asylum seekers. Now thats at most 1,000 out of about 9,000. How does this equal 30% (I presume of maternity ward beds, not beds, there being maybe 3 million beds in the country - that would be 1 million women a week passing through our maternity wards :dunno:)?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Foreigners travelling here to get citizenship for their babies are taking up 30% of the beds according to media reports.
And what of the American "free healthcare" tourists?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I do NOT consider the baby of a random foreigner travelling here to be automatically a child of the Irish nation. Citizenship should not be debased as a souvenir to be claimed by anyone who travels here solely to gain it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by bonkey
Show me the problem. Tell me why this is the right solution, and - if necessary - expplain how it will resolve it. I still can't see it.
I can only refer you to my lengthy reply on the previous page, which already covers this ground. I’m still waiting for a positive reason why we should extend Irish citizenship as a device.
As to the suggestion that I am avoiding the possibility that some people may have a belief in nationality by place of birth as a core value I have said on the previous page:
“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.”
So, as I’ve already said, I’m totally open to the idea that someone might take place of birth to have some mystical connotations. There’s no point in having a discussion with anyone who professes this as a mystical belief. It the same way there’s no point in trying to explain what’s wrong with female circumcision to a true believer. But if they want any of the rest of us to go over to their side they need to think up a case, and the case needs to explicitly address known realities.0 -
Speak of the devil. By extension, presumably no-one should vote for Ivana Bacik because she’s ugly as sin.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2004/0604/1265686755HM11WRITERS.html
Artists defend right to citizenship
Fiona Tyrrell
Referendum: No campaign
A group of Irish artists and writers have called for a No vote in the referendum saying that the right to citizenship through birthplace is a "beautiful concept" which should be kept.0 -
Originally posted by ishmael whale
“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?
I see.
So, for people who believe that nationality is determined by where you are born, you're saying that the correct solution is to say that nationality is not determined by where you are born, but rather by where your parents choose to live.
So, the right way to vote is to deny what you beleve in, and instead support something else.
Wow! I'm convinced. Thats my opposition wiped out
But hold on...maybe not.....what about a person born to Irish parents, in Ireland, who then move abroad as a family for 40 years? Why should that person be entitled to citizenship, and the person who was born to non-Irish parents in Ireand, who subsequently move abroad as a family for 40 years not be?
That situation meanst that what you're really saying is that if I believe that nationality is determined by where I'm born, I should be supporting a position which says that nationality is not determined by where I'm born, but rather by my parents nationality!!!!!
I'm definitely convinced.
Less generous with what??? With citizenship?
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.
What substantive issue? I've looked through the long post, and the substantive issue seems to boil down to basically saying that the government didn't intend for the constitution to mean this, and so it should be changed.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.
I don't care whether they meant it or not. Just because they didn't mean to do it doesn't make it right or wrong, merely unintentional.
I'm concerned about what is the preferable situation, and as I said, I cannot see any just grounds for saying that you are not entitled to the nationality of the country you are born in. Just because everyone else may not be doing it doesn't change whether it is right or wrong.
Can you give me any reason why it is any less of a valid reason to determine nationality than what you are proposing, which is that your nationality is determined by that of your parents.believing in an unqualified right to nationality by birth for no particular reason is a relatively mild eccentricity.
And while you're at it, answer me this...I'm Irish and my girlfriend is Swiss. Lets say we move to Australia and have a child there, but only shortly before we intend to move to a fourth country. What nationality is the child? Irish? Swiss? Australian? Something else entirely?
The only determining factor which gives the most people one, and only one, nationality is their birthplace....but apparently thats eccentric. Arbitrarily deciding that the child in the scenario on the previous chapter is Irish or Swiss, though, because it inherited some DNA from one of its parents who happened to have that nationality is apparently far more logical.
Please.
No more mystical and far less arbitrary than anything you seem to be suggesting about nationality.
So, as I’ve already said, I’m totally open to the idea that someone might take place of birth to have some mystical connotations.
And yours is any less mystical? Exactly how is it any less mystical to say that because a child has a biological connection to its parent, it therefore has the nationality of its parent...and when its parents have two seperate nationalities, well, hey, it can have both, or arbitrarily choose either, or - if it lives somewhere else entirely long enough - can pick up a third one completely.
There’s no point in having a discussion with anyone who professes this as a mystical belief.
Yeah, thats just reeking with solid logic and no arbitrariness at all.
But if they want any of the rest of us to go over to their side they need to think up a case, and the case needs to explicitly address known realities.
What realities?
You still haven't shown any abuse other than to basically say that having a right to citizenship if you're born to non-nationals is intrinsically an abuse, but it wouldn't be an abuse if it was simply legislated that you could have it.
So, lets sum up. Your argument is :
1) If you believe birthplace determines nationality, then you should be supporting a change that says parents' residency, not birthplace determines nationality.
2) A non-arbitrary method of clearly assigning a maximum of one nationality to individuals is mystical, arbitrary, eccentric and not possible to discuss. Meanwhile, a system where nationality can be arbitrarily determined by a number of distinct factors, making it possible to have many nationalities at once (or at least to have many valid choices of nationality available at once from which you have to pick one) is non-arbitrary, fair, and logical.
3) Having a right to citizenship based on where you are born is a clearly abusive, but being in identical circumstances and having leglisation make you eligible for the same citizenship is not abusive.
4) You should have a default position of wanting to vote for change, and need a reason to remain "as is", rather than the other way around.
Yup. Thas all my arguments shot down. I am humbled by this rationale.
jc0 -
Originally posted by bonkey
I am humbled by this rationale.
As I am flattened by your irony.
I glad you have attempted to summarise my views. It makes pointing out where you’re going wrong much easier.
“1) If you believe birthplace determines nationality, then you should be supporting a change that says parents' residency, not birthplace determines nationality.”
Quite clearly what I’m saying is if someone is defending the principle that nationality is always determined by where you are born, they have to address why this should include someone resident elsewhere using this as a flag of convenience. We know that people are coming briefly to Ireland to obtain Irish citizenship for their children, because they live in countries with less generous citizenship regimes.
Again my request for a positive reason for this is unanswered.
”2) A non-arbitrary method of clearly assigning a maximum of one nationality to individuals is mystical, arbitrary, eccentric and not possible to discuss. Meanwhile, a system where nationality can be arbitrarily determined by a number of distinct factors, making it possible to have many nationalities at once (or at least to have many valid choices of nationality available at once from which you have to pick one) is non-arbitrary, fair, and logical.”
I’m not sure any of this actually refers to anything I’ve said, but seems to an attempt to avoid providing a positive reason granting citizenship as a device. As to the nationality of your potential Swiss-Irish child born in Australia en route to wherever, the child might claim Irish citizenship. I don’t know enough about the regimes in the other countries to know if they would also extend citizenship. As I understand it some countries demand that you give up any other allegiance if you are taking out citizenship, other don’t. What this has to do with plugging a loophole in Bunreacht na Eireann is beyond me.
3) Having a right to citizenship based on where you are born is a clearly abusive, but being in identical circumstances and having leglisation make you eligible for the same citizenship is not abusive.
I cannot really recognise this remark at all. Clearly the issue raised is the granting of citizenship as a device, which you have not addressed.
4) You should have a default position of wanting to vote for change, and need a reason to remain "as is", rather than the other way around.
Clearly a distortion of what I’m saying. Granting Irish citizenship as a flag of convenience makes no sense. The amendment seeks to address this, in combination with legislation from the Oireachtas. I take it as read that laws should aim to make sense. Therefore the reason for change is ‘the current law makes no sense’. Having made a case for a ‘yes’ vote it is then necessary for ‘no’ voters to respond. They need to say either ‘the current law makes sense’ or ‘the amendment is not the best course’.
Saying ‘the current law makes sense’ requires confirmation that we grant citizenship in the right circumstances. Currently we grant citizenship, inter alia, as a device. No-one has yet put forward a positive reason for doing so. For example “EU countries are grossly unfair to their immigrant communites by not being generous in granting citizenship, so Ireland should undermine their policies through direct action” would at least be a positive reason. But I have seen no positive reason given whatsoever. So ‘the current law makes sense’ case has not been made (except for the case made by that group of artists that the current law is ‘beautiful’, particularly in mauve).
I have seen some ‘no’ voters saying ‘the amendment is not the best course’. I have seen two alternatives proposed by ‘no’ voters. One is immigration controls on women. The other is taking non-national children into care and deporting their parents. Both of these options seem far more draconian than a simple change to citizenship laws.
Unlike the group of Irish artists I’ve quoted above I will vote ‘yes’, even if they feel the present law is ‘beautiful’. Equally I won’t vote for Ivana Bacik, but that’s not because she’s ugly.0 -
That'll take a while as long as McDowell is typing with two fingers and having his drafts sent back by the AG because they're not very good.Originally posted by ArthurDent quoting Amnesty International
Specifically, the government should deliver as a matter of urgency the Immigration and Residency Bill, promised since 1998 to deliver an immigration policy for the State."0 -
Originally posted by ishmael whale
Quite clearly what I’m saying is if someone is defending the principle that nationality is always determined by where you are born, they have to address why this should include someone resident elsewhere using this as a flag of convenience.
So let me understand this. If I say I believe it always applies to everyone equally, then I have to address why it applies to some people in specific situations?
Thats like saying that people who believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have to explain why some bad people are entitled to these Universal Rights.
What you are saying I have to address is something that is automatically addressed by the belief. If you are born there, its your nationality (or, more correctly, you have a right to claim it as your nationality). Full stop, end of story. No exceptions, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. To do any less would be to immediately admit that you don't actually believe that your birthplace determines your nationality.
So there is nothing to address.
You still haven't explained what this means. I genuinely don't understand what you mean by "less generous citizenship regimes". Do you mean that these people are coming here because their own nations won't give their kids citizenship? If thats the case, then I really can't see any logic in saying that the right thing for us to do is to deny them citizenship as well. If its something else, then could you explain what you mean and what the problem is, because what you're describing (people coming here) is a symptom, not a problem.
We know that people are coming briefly to Ireland to obtain Irish citizenship for their children, because they live in countries with less generous citizenship regimes.
You said (between various places in the post I was responding to) the view of "birthplace determines nationality" is arbitrary, mystical, eccentric, and only believed by people its impossible to discuss the point with. Iignoring the insults directed at the people holding the belief, you're denigrating the logic of it without bothering to explain why. You say its mystical and arbitrary, but not why.
I’m not sure any of this actually refers to anything I’ve said,
I'm showing that what you're casting aside as nothing but foolishness is far more consistent than what you propose as a "better" solution. As a better solution, you are surely asserting doesn't suffer arbitrariness and isn't mystical. If you weren't, the knocking one system for those reasons would simply be intellectually dishonest.
I have shown that your "better" solutoin is more arbitrary and less consistent than the one you are dismissing as being just plain daft.
No, its an attmept to show that you offer the less consistent, more arbitrary system as the fairer, more logical, less arbitrary solution. Which is exactly what you're doing.but seems to an attempt to avoid providing a positive reason granting citizenship as a device.
Change the countries, so that its a kid born in Ireland, to non-Irish parents. Like the example MadSL has mentioned several times earlier in the threads.
As to the nationality of your potential Swiss-Irish child born in Australia en route to wherever, the child might claim Irish citizenship. I don’t know enough about the regimes in the other countries to know if they would also extend citizenship. As I understand it some countries demand that you give up any other allegiance if you are taking out citizenship, other don’t. What this has to do with plugging a loophole in Bunreacht na Eireann is beyond me.
Basically, what I'm pointing out is that your argument causes a situation where when one asks "what nationality is this child", the answer has to be "well, that would depend on the nationality of its parents, and it might have several nationalities as a result, or it might not", and yet you still offer this as a solution which is more logical and fairer. Fairer to whom? Its not fairer to the person actually being affected by it. "Sorry son. I know you were born here as was your mate, but you can't be Irish and he can be, even though I believe that being born here is all that matters."
You say it is abusive that people can obtain citizenship constitutionally. And yet, as a nation, we had this enshrined as a piece of legislation for decades and that wasn't abusive - the abuse has only existed since the GFA - apparently - when it changed the rules.I cannot really recognise this remark at all.
So....constitutional right to citizenship through birth == abusive system, but legislative entitlement to citizenship through birth == non-abusive system.
No, it is not a distortion. You're looking for a reason to vote no. Not only a reason but a "positive" reason, implying that just saying "unless what's proposed can be shown to be better, we shouldn't change" isn't enough.Clearly a distortion of what I’m saying.
Yeah, just like having laws which allow some guilty to escape in order to protect the innocent (like that onorous "innocent until proven guilty" concept) makes no sense. Its simply a sop to criminals and so on.
Granting Irish citizenship as a flag of convenience makes no sense.
And the UDHR...as mentioned aboce....thats just abused left right and centre by others, so it should drop the U in favour of being a Conditional Declaration of Human Rights. That would stop the abuse...we just make sure they're not Rights but rather privileges!
Yes, it seeks to say that nationality is not determined by your place of birth.
The amendment seeks to address this, in combination with legislation from the Oireachtas.
You're saying that anyone who believes that it is determined in that manner should simply support it anyway as the best solution, despite the current constitution enshrining exactly what they see as the right solution, and despite it being enshrined in law prior to that.
For people who believe that birthplace should determine nationality, having the GFA move this from a legislative entitlement to a constitutional right was the ideal. Now you want them to accept that because the government didn't actrually mean to do it, they should go back, not even to what they had previosuly but to something even more restrictive than that when one considers that hte aim of the new legislation is to be more restrictive than at any time in our nation's history in terms of entitlement to citizenship.
Yup. They should also be as non-discriminatory as possible. You know "all equal before the law", as opposed to "all equal before the law, unless they've got parents of a different nationality".
I take it as read that laws should aim to make sense.
It does make sense - it is entirely consistent.
Therefore the reason for change is ‘the current law makes no sense’.
If you are born here, you're entitled to be Irish. If you're not born here, you're not consitutionally entitled to be Irish.
Just because you object to some of the consequences of that consistency doesn't make it any less consistent, or non-sensical.
Would we care if there were a million filthy rich non-nationals turning up to have kids here at their own expense because they wanted their children to be Irish? I very much doubt it. Hell, we're not even looking to deal with Irish-Americans EU-Passport-shopping in a manner almost identical to my hypothetical Swiss child, so we really aren't looking to close the loopholes here, we just want to limit who gets to use them.
And those right circumstances are entirely dependant on what you personally consider constitutes nationality. As I've pointed out before : if you read past threads (prior to even the thought of this referendum emerging), you'll find that an awful lot of people do indeed consider birthplace to determine nationality.Saying ‘the current law makes sense’ requires confirmation that we grant citizenship in the right circumstances.
So for them, current law does indeed grant citizenship in the right circumstances, regardless of what you might say. And you expect a more positive argument than "its what I believe in" ??? How much more positive can you get for the person who is using that justification to cast their vote? It won't convince the people who don't share that belief, but if you're not going to even try and explain why that belief is wrong , but rather say the onus on someone is to explain why the belief that will determine how they themselves vote is right, or else they should be voting the other way.....then you can't seriously expect to get very far.
Plenty of people have. They believe it is right. For them, thats as positive as it needs to be.No-one has yet put forward a positive reason for doing so.
Just as you believe it - and they - are wrong. So for you, their argument isn't positive, but neither is your argument containing any positive points for them.
The problem is that there is no clear "correct" way of determining nationality. It means different things to different people. But knocking a belief simply because its not the one you would choose is a bit unfair. Its like saying "because I'm a believer in religion X, all other religions are clearly wrong, only believed in by nuts who just don't understand what they should be choosing".
No positive reason for you. For those who believe nationality means other than what you believe in, there are plenty of positive reasons.
But I have seen no positive reason given whatsoever.
...0 -
...
Yes it has.
So ‘the current law makes sense’ case has not been made
The current law is consistent. Your nationality is determined by where you are born. Not where you are born combined with some "ancestor dependance".
The new system, the better, not-so-eccentric, not-going-to-be-abused system (as you would have us believe) will allow myself and my girlfriend (should we decide to have children) to return to Ireland from here in Sweitzerland, have a child at the State's expense, return to here, to Switzerland, and raise our "Irish" child there. We may never teach it English or Irish, or anything about where it comes from.
That child will have a constitutionalright to be Irish under either system.
If I wasn't Irish, that child would have no such right under the new system.
When said "Irish" child grows up, it can do the same should it also marry a non-Irish person. And so on, through the generations. You'll have people with a constitutional right to be Irish, doing exactly what you are saying is the problem, and the only connection they'd have with the island is that some ancestor actually came from there once 'pun a time.
And its not just hypothetical. Victor (I think) has pointed to cases where this is happening.
That is apparently ok. Nothing wrong there. No abuse. No citizenship shopping. Not at all. Because I'm Irish, my living-abroad ancestors can rightly do this, and you clearly have no problem with this because you are saying that this is the solution.
And what do we need this solution for?
Because other people doing exactly the same thing (only without an Irish ancestor) are abusing the system!!!
Your preferred solution says that these never-set-foot-in-the-country-other-than-to-be-born-or-give-birth-there there people should have a constitutional right to citizenship, whereas someone who isn't Irish doing the same thing is clearly abusing the system.
And I wouldn't mind if it was because you believed ancestry gave a right to citizenship, but the new system doesn't do that either, cause if you ain't born on the island, you only have a legislative entitlement to citizenship, and not a right.
Seriously Ishmael....that is consistent?
jc0 -
Bonkey your attitude reminds me of the attitude of the pro-gun lobby in the US,i.e. just because some are abusing this right doesn't mean everyone should face controls. Just as the public want tax-loopholes to be closed, so too should this one on citizenship. Even the potential for organised crime to abuse our citizenship laws (no more Al-Qaeda baby jokes please you know that is not what I mean) is unacceptable and must be addressed.
On the argument about supposed other loopholes regarding 3rd generation Irish-Americans having Irish passports, I am not concerned by this for two reasons: The US is such a wealthy country that massive conomic migration from that country is extremely unlikely. Also, these people DO have a sufficient connection with Ireland in my opinion to be entitled to Irish citizenship. I consider jus-sanguine to be a better system, especially from a point of view of preserving our identity, of determining "Irishness". We cannot afford to house everyone who wants to come here. If I was in the Third World of course I would want to come here. But then, if everyone was allowed to do what they want there would be chaos, e.g. people taking things from shops for free. The consequences of immigration are a double-edged sword, and the "No" side should stop making out that all the consequences of immigration are positive.0 -
You say it is abusive that people can obtain citizenship constitutionally. And yet, as a nation, we had this enshrined as a piece of legislation for decades and that wasn't abusive - the abuse has only existed since the GFA - apparently - when it changed the rules.
That is because Ireland has only recently become an attractive destination for economic migrants (by recently I mean from late 1990's).
I believe Ireland should be entitled to restrict as well as allow immigration into our country and that current policy should be based on current events, not events 6 years ago.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bonkey
You’ve given a lengthy reply, but I’m not sure if much is added. If someone maintains that place of birth should be unqualified and someone draws attention to an issue that suggests qualification is necessary, it would seem reasonable that this point would be answered. In other words if, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or, in our case, the Constitution seems to have flaw and someone says that’s a flaw, we can fix it, it seems reasonable that the comment would be answered. It also seems reasonable that a fixable problem be fixed.
In the hope of clearing up the mystical element to our debate on the beautiful law, some people may maintain, as a core value, that place of birth is absolute. This is a possibility that you originally raised. I am pointing out if someone truly believes this then, like the way biblical fundamentalists claim the dinosaur bones were put there by God to test our faith, there is no basis for a discussion. If, on the other hand, someone feels there is a reason why unqualified place of birth is justifiable (referring to current realities) a debate is possible. I’m just trying to find a ‘no’ voter of the second type who can tell me what the reason is.
When I say "less generous citizenship regimes” I mean cases similar to Chen where a non-national in another EU state enters Ireland briefly to give birth essentially because our citizenship regime is more generous that the state they reside in. I’m pointing out that it’s a matter for the states they reside in to grant or withhold citizenship as they see fit, and there’s no reason for us to be involved.
It is simply a fact that some people can claim more than one nationality, and this has no particular bearing on this debate. Maybe if we were debating a global agreement on citizenship it would be relevant, but we’re not. Your introduction of a point that I am saying “the abuse has only existed since the GFA” is irrelevant to any point I’m making.
I’m still waiting for a reason why in a case such as Chen Irish citizenship should be granted, other than a flat assertion that place of birth is absolute (see reference to dinosaur bones above.)0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement