How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

simu

John Waters, (yeah, I know he gets a bit crazy sometimes, but he also comes out with the odd interesting idea) had a new reason I hadn't heard before for voting no in an article in yesterday's Irish Times.

Say an Irish man and a non-national woman have a child. For whatever reason the father's name does not get put on the birth cert (you don't have to name the father on the birth cert if the mother and father are not married) - so the child doesn't get Irish citizenship even though its father is Irish. Waters argues that this means that fathers' rights towards their kids would be diminished if the referendum were passed - the woman could leave the country with the child and the father can't do a thing about it (if the child were an Irish citizen, I'm presuming he could get the Irish diplomatic service to try and sort things out).

Or, an example of my own - the non-national mother doesn't want to put the Irish father's name on the birth cert or have anything to do with him because he's violent and she fears he might be a threat to the child so the child doesn't apply for Irish nationality, both she and the child get deported even though the child is actually (if not officially) half Irish.

What do people think of this?


(Me, I've decided to vote no before this anyway. I consider this referendum to be petty-minded, hypocritical and dishonest).

Rock Climber

Originally posted by RainyDay
You're choosing to ignore my point. I wasn't commenting on the rights or wrongs of the Chen judgement. I was pointing out that those who use the Chen case as proof of the 'open the floodgates' argument are on dodgy ground. The fact that she wasn't going to be a burden on the state was a key feature in granting her child citizenship.

Don't you mean there a key feature in granting her child residency rights and freedom of movement in other E.U countries.
She has Irish citizenship as of right at the moment because of her Belfast birth.
A no vote would mean that all children of non nationals would still have automatic citizenship here regardless of the chen ruling...
I don't think that is right, if they are asylum seekers and they choose Ireland to have their babies for that reason, then it is a flagrant abuse of our constitution.
Allowing the qualification of citizenship rights further should in no way effect genuine asylum seekers.
Most western countries regulate strictly who can and cannot come to work and live in the country and many have annual quota's-that would seem practical to me.

Sceptre as far as I can remember reading initially ( but cannot remember where ) Mrs Chen initially moved to Cardiff and was advised by her lawyers to have the Baby in Belfast.
Her situation is important in my view because it seems to copperfasten the loophole that the GFA constitution change brought about.
In other words the right to citizenship and it's privileges have been tested and clarified ( albeit in a preliminery sense )

MadsL

Say an Irish man and a non-national woman have a child. For whatever reason the father's name does not get put on the birth cert (you don't have to name the father on the birth cert if the mother and father are not married) - so the child doesn't get Irish citizenship even though its father is Irish. Waters argues that this means that fathers' rights towards their kids would be diminished if the referendum were passed - the woman could leave the country with the child and the father can't do a thing about it (if the child were an Irish citizen, I'm presuming he could get the Irish diplomatic service to try and sort things out).

I'd also argue from the other side of things...

Say a non-national meets an Irish girl abroad. She gets pregnant, wants to keep the child and returns to Ireland. He manages to get a work-permit and a job in Ireland. The child is born. They split up in less than a year. Time comes for him to renew permit, mother has a row with non-national father, refuses to acknowledge paternity. Father gets deported. Child grows up with the father not even in the country and unlikely to be readmitted after the deportation order.

Now this is mostly to do with the failure to implement father's rights legislation, but it is yet instance of how this referendum has not been thought (and debated) through.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by sceptre
In other words, for us, Chen doesn't change a thing. Fundamentally, it's a UK discrimination case taken under UK law (and limited EU law where appropriate) to a UK Court that sought an EU legal opinion for a UK resident. Chen can't happen here under current law (see Supreme Court cases referred to above).

You've given a very useful description of Chen, more valuable than any media coverage I've seen. However, its main significance to the case for a ‘Yes’ vote is simply to illustrate that the present law grants Irish citizenship in cases where it is hard to see a positive reason. As you note, this is essentially a UK immigration case and there is no particular reason why Irish citizenship should feature here at all.

I know you may say in exasperation that the undertaking that Irish citizenship be extended where someone is unable to claim any other nationality might, in any event, apply in this particular case. Clearly we don't want to place people in Kafkaesque situations, but to be honest in this case it would seem that the UK should be the ones extending whatever protection is needed.

For example, it is possible to defend granting citizenship to persons born abroad of Irish descent on grounds that many emigrated out of necessity and their children should not lose their nationality as a result. A more pragmatic reason is that maintaining links to emigrant communities is a sensible policy for a small country, as it may provide us with some influence abroad that we might not otherwise have.

I’m not taking this case to extremes. Clearly an American or Australian with an Irish grandparent may not feel any particular affinity to Ireland, and may regard their right to an Irish passport as simply a handy flag of convenience. I’m just pointing out that a positive case for extending citizenship to emigrants’ children is possible. If the positive case evaporates, the Oireachtas can remove these citizenship rights as they have no Constitutional guarantee.

I cannot see any positive case for granting citizenship to the child of someone entering the country briefly as a device, as in the Chen case, and no-one seems to be advancing one. If there is no positive case, then the present law grants citizenship in situations where it cannot be justified. That is a case for the amendment.

MadsL

If there is no positive case, then the present law grants citizenship in situations where it cannot be justified. That is a case for the amendment.

I always thought those campaigning for a change in the law should also provide a case for change. The present law grants citizenship based on historical precedent and location, give me an example of where granting of citizenship cannot be justified by historical precedent and location at the time of birth.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Most western countries regulate strictly who can and cannot come to work and live in the country and many have annual quota's-that would seem practical to me.

Ireland regulates who can live and work here too. What's that got to do with this referendum?

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by MadsL
As a non-national in this country, as is my wife, I find it personally offensive to be lumped into a bunch of nonsense figures and statistics that are banded about without any understanding of the truth behind those statistics. I hear stories daily of the poor treatment of obviously non-national people by ignorant people who believe such statistics. It saddens me that the Government is the worst offender. Arcade should have 58% tattooed on his forehead, as he brings it up at every opportunity, despite having this repeatedly shot down by links to the real statistics.

Well MadsL, according to Dr.Mick Gerry of the Rotunda Hospital, 30% of births in the Rotunda Hospital are to late-booking non-EU nationals. He told this to the Sun. Are you calling him a liar? He says they go straight from the ports to the hospital practically in labour. Should our citizenship law continue encouraging such behaviour, which endangers the lives of the unborn children through long stressful journeys to Ireland to claim the prize of citizenship for their babies and the Chen-provided EU-residency? We are not a colony looking for colonists, unlike the US in the past.

Originally posted by MadsL
Young men like AG have gained enormous financial benefit from foreign workers in the Irish economy, some - like my wife, were recruited outside of the country because the skills to drive the boom were lacking. A few years later they are told 'no more work-permits being issued' The attitude of AG to this is that somehow we should repeal EU law and institute some form of Irish positive descrimination in the labour market, and deport these 'scroungers'. I consider this a deeply selfish policy.

Actually Irish law states that before a non-EU national work-permit can be issued, first the employer must demonstrate that there is no Irish or EU citizen available to do the job. I believe in putting Irish people first. This IS Irish law. I'm sorry but the Irish Government has to protect Irish workers from cheap labour competing for jobs, where Irish people would be the loser. If a skills-shortage is no longer present in a particular sector of the economy, then I fully endorse a decision to expire the work-permit. The Government has to see the bigger picture of the effect on the economy.

Originally posted by Simu
Say an Irish man and a non-national woman have a child. For whatever reason the father's name does not get put on the birth cert (you don't have to name the father on the birth cert if the mother and father are not married) - so the child doesn't get Irish citizenship even though its father is Irish. Waters argues that this means that fathers' rights towards their kids would be diminished if the referendum were passed - the woman could leave the country with the child and the father can't do a thing about it (if the child were an Irish citizen, I'm presuming he could get the Irish diplomatic service to try and sort things out).

Or, an example of my own - the non-national mother doesn't want to put the Irish father's name on the birth cert or have anything to do with him because he's violent and she fears he might be a threat to the child so the child doesn't apply for Irish nationality, both she and the child get deported even though the child is actually (if not officially) half Irish.

What do people think of this?

All the more reason to vote YES Simu, since the Dail can sort thie out under the new powers a YES will give it to legislate for citizenship.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by MadsL
I always thought those campaigning for a change in the law should also provide a case for change. The present law grants citizenship based on historical precedent and location, give me an example of where granting of citizenship cannot be justified by historical precedent and location at the time of birth.

Yes. The rest of the EU and the rest of the European continent, among 147 countries worldwide, do NOT allow citizenship solely by being born in one of those countries.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Ireland regulates who can live and work here too. What's that got to do with this referendum?

Everything. Women are using our citizenship laws to fly into Ireland in time to give birth here to create Irish citizens to prevent their deportation. The Chen ruling means the parents get EU residency and are immune from deportation. We need to vote Yes.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by MadsL
I always thought those campaigning for a change in the law should also provide a case for change.

We have, its that the present law grants citizenship as a device in situations that have nothing to do with us, like the Chen case. The refutation of this argument requires a positive reason to grant citizenship in such circumstances. I have not seen any positive reason from any ‘no’ voter, despite raising this point many times. I have most recently given examples of what might constitute a positive case for the (non-constitutional) citizenship rights of children of emigrants in the hope of enticing some ‘no’ voter to provide a similar case. None has been provided, and the inevitable conclusion is that none exists. In other words, the constitution contains a flaw and unsurprisingly no-one can explain why its there.

Originally posted by MadsL
The present law grants citizenship based on historical precedent and location, give me an example of where granting of citizenship cannot be justified by historical precedent and location at the time of birth.

As exhaustively explained above, the present law aims to protect the rights of people in Northern Ireland initially in the context of partition and subsequently guaranteed by the constitution in the context of the GFA. The law also aims to guarantee the rights of children of emigrants and emigrants who left before the state was founded, although this is not guaranteed by the constitution. It was never the intention to provide for children of people with no real link to the state, entering Ireland briefly to obtain citizenship as a device to frustrate the immigration laws of other countries.

simu

All the more reason to vote YES Simu, since the Dail can sort thie out under the new powers a YES will give it to legislate for citizenship.

I doubt that - that would call for some major changes on how paternity and even the family is seen under Irish law. Besides, I'd already decided on NO before I read this article. Why?

Because I think (1) the referendum is the government's poorly thought-out attempt to pretend it's doing something for asylum seekers etc , (2) It's an attempt by the goverment to capitalise on latent xenophobia in many Irish people and distract the electorate from more important issues, (3) because there has been no clear cut information on so-called "citizen tourism" and any available evidence indicates that such a term could only be applied to a very small number of people, (4) Ireland is under-populated and our birth rate is dropping so we could do with more people here, (5) I think most non-nationals who come here will contibute to society in a positive manner given the opportunity to do so, (6) we in the West can't just close ourselves off from the rest of the planet and pretend their problems don't have anything to do with us, (7) one of the few things that makes me proud of this country is that we have the principle of treating all children born on this territory as equals enshrined in our constitution (even if, in practise, this equality is not followed up on subsequently) and if other EU countries don't do this, I see it as a fault of theirs rather than something Ireland should emulate, (8) we should be glad that times have changed so much that instead of being a country that droves of young people had to leave on finishing their education, Ireland has become a place where people can come to live peacefully, earn a decent wage, develop their talents and raise their families in security.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Everything. Women are using our citizenship laws to fly into Ireland in time to give birth here to create Irish citizens to prevent their deportation.

That doesn't happen here.
Can you provide 1 (not too hard eh? there's so many people doing it, right?) specific example of when this has happened?
Don't ignore this, don't side step, don't post some irrelevant answer - just 1 example of when this happened.

The Chen ruling means the parents get EU residency and are immune from deportation.

You obviously haven't read sceptre's excellent post have you? Or like everything else have you just ignored everything that doesn't fit into your own view of reality.

We need to vote Yes.

The sad thing is, people will probably vote Yes based on the sad, ignorant and bigotted garbage spewed forth by people like you.

simu said it best earlier:

I consider this referendum to be petty-minded, hypocritical and dishonest

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by ishmael whale
We have, its that the present law grants citizenship as a device in situations that have nothing to do with us, like the Chen case. The refutation of this argument requires a positive reason to grant citizenship in such circumstances.

In what circumstances exactly? Being born here? I would find that a positive enough reason to give someone citizenship here.
That's all this referendum is about remember, whether or not a child is going to get citizenship automatically.

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Everything. Women are using our citizenship laws to fly into Ireland in time to give birth here to create Irish citizens to prevent their deportation. The Chen ruling means the parents get EU residency and are immune from deportation. We need to vote Yes.

Do you even read other peoples posts? Did you read sceptre's post regarding the Chen ruling. I think not. If you had you would not have posted the above.

Keep going AG. Every post you make makes my sig better.

MrP

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Simu
because there has been no clear cut information on so-called "citizen tourism" and any available evidence indicates that such a term could only be applied to a very small number of people,

Depends what "evidence" you choose to ignore and what evidence you choose to take note of. The 58% figure for the % of female asylum seekers over 16 who are pregnant when they claim asylum is clear evidence.

To find this go here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152567&perpage=10&highlight=Immigration%20Referendum&pagenumber=2
then click on ai_ings's link which begins with www.justice.ie . Then scroll down to the heading "Figures for Number of Pregnant Female asylum seekers" and read the statistics for yourself. It shows 1,893 pregnant women claimed asylum last year.

Also have a read of this report from the Sunday Independent, where the minutes of meetins between the Masters of the Rotunda Hospital and Minister Michael Martin (the Health Minister) are quoted, wherer they warn of a "tragedy" and that a 4th maternity hospital would have to be built to cope with non-national numbers. Also, note the reference to non-EU nationals coming to Irish hospitals from the UK. Are these women like Mrs.Chen? Are they using our hospitals to get Irish/EU residency for themselves like Chen used the Belfast hospital? Wasting our taxpayers' money and clogging up much needed beds, at a time when the waiting list for hip operations is so long. We should put Irish people first. These illegals should stop this abuse of our health-service. A yes vote should help deter them.

Ireland is under-populated and our birth rate is dropping so we could do with more people here,

We don't want Irish people having to compete for work with cheap labour from non-EU states, or for housing which Irish people already have to wait a long time for. There are advantages of having a small population, not merely disadvantages, e.g. less pollution.

I think most non-nationals who come here will contibute to society in a positive manner given the opportunity to do so

What does that have to do with citizenship? We have already let in 200,00 peopl legally on work-permits, and these work-permits are not for life. They are for a period of say 1.5 yrs or 2 years, after which they may be renewed. Even if a "Yes" vote happens this will not stop, so why are you linking it to the issue of the referendum?

we in the West can't just close ourselves off from the rest of the planet and pretend their problems don't have anything to do with us,

We have already let in 200,000 people to fill vacancies Irish people aren't willing to fill. That is generous. But you imply we are shutting people out of the West by votign "Yes". How do you draw that conclusion? 80% of asylum-seekers get here via NI, so the vast majority have been in another EU state prior to coming here. The Dublin Convention requires an asylum-seeker to claim asylum only in the first EU state of entry. Let us maintain that. The bigger states have FAR more taxpayers than us and as such are in a FAR better position to cater with these numbers of people. We need to remove the incentive to come here pregnant to get citizenship for babies.

It's an attempt by the goverment to capitalise on latent xenophobia in many Irish people and distract the electorate from more important issues,

Don't be running down your country. We are NOT racists. Nor are we xenophobic. Is it the sign of a racist nation to let 200,000 legal economic non-EU migrants to come here. But neither should we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by just any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants a finger in the social-welfare/housing pie. Are the rest of the EU racist too?

one of the few things that makes me proud of this country is that we have the principle of treating all children born on this territory as equals enshrined in our constitution (even if, in practise, this equality is not followed up on subsequently) and if other EU countries don't do this, I see it as a fault of theirs rather than something Ireland should emulate,

Why are you proud of Irish taxpayers being taken advantage of? If the rest of the EU allowed automatic citizenship solely on basis of being born there then maybe the current system would be justified, but they DONT. Ireland's citizenship laws encourage bogus asylum-seekers in other EU states to turn up here practically in labour to get citizenship for their children, and it is getting worse in terms of pressure on the hospitals. Irish taxpayers' money is being wasted on these chancers. We need to close the loophole. Just as it would be unsustainable for one US state to have different citizenship laws in one state from the others, it is equally unsustainable for the disparity between Ireland and the rest of the EU to do so.

we should be glad that times have changed so much that instead of being a country that droves of young people had to leave on finishing their education, Ireland has become a place where people can come to live peacefully, earn a decent wage, develop their talents and raise their families in security.

We have the work-permit for that and that will not change after a "Yes" vote. What has this got to do with citizenship?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Depends what "evidence" you choose to ignore and what evidence you choose to take note of.

Err, what? Pot? Kettle?

Don't be running down your country. We are NOT racists. Nor are we xenophobic.

Really? Why would you say that exactly? Oh yeah, we give them all free cars and houses right? So we can't be!

sceptre

Originally posted by MadsL
I always thought those campaigning for a change in the law should also provide a case for change.

Normally you'd be right. Ah, screw it, you're right. However, in this case, and because I've never been a fan of the "this is the way we've always done it" answer to anything, a clear and honest case (without hyperbole) would be nice from both sides, especially as I like reading that kind of thing. You can talk to ishmael - he's sane, you're sane, most of us are sane.

Fact of the matter is, we're in a pretty unusual position given that Northern Ireland is esentially a shared territory with regard to citizenship. And before the nornies arrive in, I'm not pedding the notion that Northern Ireland should belong to either the Republic or the United Kingdom because frankly I don't really care as long as they stop killing each other. I'm only mentioning Northern Ireland because of the Chen case and the idea of getting citizenship of another country without crossing a border at all (which I suppose third-generation Irish -Americans are also well-capable of doing). As I said above, the Chen decision is pretty irrelevant as far as I'm concerned and is certainly irrelevant from the point of view of anything that happens in this 26-county country as I've demonstrated so let's move on.

So, what have we got? Lots of unsubstantiated rubbish on the yes side with some potential for flying the nationalist flag (and lots of coherency from a few posters), some (a lot less but that's because of the poster to post ratio as you well know) unsubstantiated rubbish on the no side with some potential for heart string-plucking. All of this is useless. Seriously. Most of the people on both sides aren't indulging in this kind of twaddle. As for those who are, no-one is taking them in any way seriously. Substantial time is being wasted on the no side refuting this kind of rubbish and substantial time is being wasted on the yes side disassociating themselves frmo this rubbish. Sure, the no side aren't being racist on this forum but neither are the vast majority of people on the yes side. As for those who are (or probably are), they've got a platform that they're using to completely discredit the side they're actually on. Happens here, happens in real life because McDowell is doing it too. And make no bones about it, McDowell is an idiot. I'm well-aware of people whose first thoughts on this matter were that at a prima facie look, it's probably a bad thing because McDowell is so into it. And on a historical basis, that's usually the case. So what. Whether you agree with the presentation of the referendum in the first place, whether you think it should be held off till later (most people apparently do), the referendum is on Friday.

Getting vaguely technical on a personal basis, I've got my own problems with the proposed supporting legislation. I've outlined them in the past here. Changeable and all as this legislation will be, the legislation (we've had a link so I trust you've all read it:)) is unlikely to be changed significantly in the near or far future unless there's a specific and great need for it to be changed. The supporting legislation is a deciding factor for my vote. Those who know me as a liberal bloke (certainly by conservative standards) may be surprised to learn that I voted no in the divorce referendum (the 1995 one, I'd have voted for the 1986 one). Substantially for technical reasons based on the actual proposed referendum wording. Blame my slight legal background and an interest in pernickidiness. That doesn't make a damn of a difference to the rest of you (as it shouldn't). Leaving aside the precise problems I have with the vagueness of some of the current proposals and the problems I have with some of the precisely-defined proposals, and assuming other people aren't two steps away from OCD in legal matters, there's really only one relevant question that you need to ask yourself and answer for yourself, and I ask it below. I've bolded it twice in this post (including the following post) so you won't miss it. Every other question is either irrelevant or only comes about as a result of asking this question.

So, what would I as a normal poster like? A reasoned discussion free of idiocy. I've asked (as a normal and usually coherent poster) for that before as this is a rather significant potential recasting of our citizenship laws and hence is an important question. We're not going to get that. So how about a reasoned discussion with the reasoned discussors? Discussing the core part of the debate: do you think being born on Irish soil should be a good enough basis for Irish citizenship? Ignore Northern Ireland if you can (Mark Durkan's still a little understandably worried that a new constitutional article to qualify Article 2 might actually qualify Article 2 but Mark Durkan doesn't have a vote on Friday) - we could pass an amendment next week distinguishing Northern Ireland from the Republic (call it the de facto republic if you're that way minded) for citizenship if we wanted to (as it could be the same as this referendum but just affecting the North) (if we're still terrified of Chen) and if people voted for it. This is the key issue: do you think being born on Irish soil should be a good enough basis for Irish citizenship? Regardless of numbers, regardless of whinges about gurnies, regardless of anything else. Grandchildren of emigrants getting passports is in some way relevant, dodgy statistics about "non-nationals" are not. Do you think being born on Irish soil should be a good enough basis for Irish citizenship? If so, why?, if not, why not?

sceptre

(I've split this post in two as it ran 613 characters over the limit)


Gene Kerrigan (I wouldn't normally quote the guy as I don't like his stuff or his politics but this is relevant enough) had a piece in the Sindo on Sunday (oddly enough) that I found while looking for Royston "Hey Boyz" Brady's interview which, while tending to one-sidedness as all his stuff does, sums up pretty much everything on both sides except for the question I posed above (and will ask again at the end of the page):

Sindotainment, Sunday June 6
We're choosy about which constitutional loophole we plug

YOU MAY have noticed that most politicians aren't saying a word about the citizenship referendum.

They're too busy with more important things, such as trying to get themselves, or their cronies, elected.

So, as a public service, let's outline the Top Eight Reasons for Voting For the Government's Proposal. And the Top Eight Reasons for Voting Against.

Should babies born in Ireland be deprived of citizenship unless at least one parent has lived here for three years?

You might vote Yes because...

You're afraid the maternity hospitals will be filled to bursting with non-nationals, including women rushing here at the last minute to have babies.

You might vote No because...

The vast majority of non-nationals giving birth in Irish maternity hospitals are legitimate migrants, many of whom we actively sought to attract, and without whom the economy would falter.

You might vote Yes because...

"Citizenship tourists", arriving without previous contact with a maternity hospital, endanger themselves and their babies.

You might vote No because...

Analysis of one hospital's figures show that half the women arriving without previous contact are Irish. "Citizenship tourism" is greatly exaggerated, and doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

You might vote Yes because...

There's a "loophole" in our citizenship law that allows babies with no connection with Ireland, other than being born here, to potentially claim Irish citizenship - and thus become citizens of the EU. And, while we can throw the parents out, and the babies along with them, the babies can come back when they grow up.

And, as Mr McDowell says, they can confer that citizenship "on a second and third generation with even less connection with Ireland".

You might vote No because...

This is a tiny "loophole" and the EU seems unconcerned. Countless hundreds of thousands who have never even seen Ireland can potentially claim Irish citizenship because their grandparents were born here. And thus become EU citizens. And in turn can pass the citizenship on down the generations.

We're choosy about which "loophole" we plug.

You might vote Yes because...

We must protect the "integrity" of our citizenship. As Mr McDowell says, "Citizens must show loyalty and fidelity to the nation". There "should be a greater connection with the country before an entitlement to citizenship, and all that it entails, arises".

You might vote No because...

Citizenship is denied no one on the basis of disloyalty, not even politicians and others whose tax-evasion closed hospital wards and seriously damaged this country. Should we whip citizenship away from the child, born in Ireland, of a Filipino nurse whose loyal hard work is keeping that hospital from collapsing?

You might vote Yes because...

By eliminating "loopholes", we preserve the integrity of the immigration system, all the better to protect "genuine" migrants.

You might vote No because...

If we cared about "genuine" migrants, we'd free them from the infamous work permit scandal. Permits belong not to migrants but to their employers, with predictable results.

You might vote Yes because...

It's a matter of "urgency", as Brian Cowan says, that we plug this unfortunate "loophole" in our law.

You might vote No because...

The referendum is rushed, the reasons given don't stand up. It's a gimmick designed to deflect an electoral hammering for the Government because of its general election deceit.

You might vote Yes because...

This is a technical issue about allowing the Oireachtas to decide citizenship criteria.

You might vote No because...

It asks us to be intolerant of people who need our generosity.

For some, the final compelling reason for voting for the proposal is, of course, that Michael McDowell wants us to vote for it.

And for some, the final compelling reason for voting against the proposal is, of course, that Michael McDowell wants us to vote for it.

Right, that's that all done. One-sided as it is, it knocks in all the little arguments on both sides. All the subservient questions, all the padding. No disrespect intended to anyone sane but all the other questions are less important.

Which leaves me with the question I posed above:
Do you think being born on Irish soil should be a good enough basis for Irish citizenship? If so, why?, if not, why not?

It's the only real question anyone needs to answer. Yes or no and why.

arcadegame2004

Do you think being born on Irish soil should be a good enough basis for Irish citizenship? If so, why?, if not, why not?

No it shouldn't. I believe that allowing that debases Irish citizenship by making it a mere souvenir to be claimed for any child of a woman who flies in here to give birth for that purpose of gaining citizenship for her child. It puts undue pressure on hospitals. Gene Kerrigan is clearly a biased contributor to this debate. Like the No side in general, he is choosy about which sources he takes note of.

arcadegame2004

The fact that there are other loopholes does not mean we should ignore this one. To do so would set a precedent that if we voted in future on closing other loopholes the argument "But there are others" could be used.

MadsL

debases Irish citizenship by making it a mere souvenir

So you will be campaigning for a change in the law on American descendants of emigrees then will you...??

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No it shouldn't. I believe that allowing that debases Irish citizenship by making it a mere souvenir to be claimed for any child of a woman who flies in here to give birth for that purpose of gaining citizenship for her child.

So you're not saying anymore that they use it to claim asylum, presumably as you can offer no evidence to back that up?
Can you provide some links to examples of women giving birth for souvenir reasons?

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Gene Kerrigan is clearly a biased contributor to this debate. Like the No side in general, he is choosy about which sources he takes note of.

Gene Kerrigan hasn't contributed to this debate. I've contributed Gene Kerrigan to this debate. I'd question whether you've actually contributed to this debate but I'm that relatively unusual 5000+posts poster who's never been banned from any board and I'm damned if Politics will be my first.

Oddly enough, on his "8 reasons for yes" he's made all the points you've made (and an extra two including the Mikey says yes) and missed two (the Dublin Convention and Chen) that have proved to be inapplicable and irrelevant for us. His yes side is saying the same as you. Ishmael (who I'm highlighting (sorry ishmael!) as a rational poster on your side of the discussion has run with precisely one and a half of those. The relevant one and a half of those. I might disagree with him (though I've not offered an opinion one way or the other) but frankly his posts are premier league and yours are conference. Yer fooling no-one but yourself.

Imposter

Originally posted by sceptre
Which leaves me with the question I posed above:
Do you think being born on Irish soil should be a good enough basis for Irish citizenship? If so, why?, if not, why not?

It's the only real question anyone needs to answer. Yes or no and why. [/B]

Excellent post.

I agree with you in that most of what you've said about most of the issues being raised as being irrelavent but I would have phrased your one question slightly differently. I would have asked Should Irish citizenship be determined in the main by place of birth OR by the citizenship of the child's parents (and possibly grandparents)?

While I don't particularly have a problem with acquiring citizenship because of place of birth the second option for me prevents the possible abuses of the first option. With proper legislation to supplement the second option I feel it is a better solution. People might say that with proper legislation that the first option can be almost or just as effective and that is fair point too but I still favour the second option.

MadsL

Well MadsL, according to Dr.Mick Gerry of the Rotunda Hospital, 30% of births in the Rotunda Hospital are to late-booking non-EU nationals. He told this to the Sun. Are you calling him a liar? He says they go straight from the ports to the hospital practically in labour.

Yeah, I'll call Mick Gerry a liar - whoever he is...the master of the Rotunda is Dr. M. Geary (as I pointed out before) and I am yet to see any figures by him published. Are you sure the Sun isn't trying to save a lawsuit by using the wrong name?

I'm also calling you a liar as is bonkey, remember. Free house? Any news?

Actually Irish law states that before a non-EU national work-permit can be issued, first the employer must demonstrate that there is no Irish or EU citizen available to do the job. I believe in putting Irish people first. This IS Irish law..

Yes it is Irish law. I'm glad you are learning as I had to pointthe law out to you when you advocated a very different form of discrimination - Irish first, EEU second, Non-EEU feck off.

I'm sorry but the Irish Government has to protect Irish workers from cheap labour competing for jobs, where Irish people would be the loser. If a skills-shortage is no longer present in a particular sector of the economy, then I fully endorse a decision to expire the work-permit. The Government has to see the bigger picture of the effect on the economy.

And do you not find it selfish and hypocritical to tell those people who worked hard to pay for YOUR education and pension, who pay more in tax than you will probably earn in the next ten years, who have friends, lovers and possibly own property here that they are no longer welcome and they should leave or be deported.

I support a coherent immigration policy but the last thing that Mary Harney is, is coherant.

MadsL

Like the No side in general, he is choosy about which sources he takes note of.

Oh, the delicious irony.

[inside AG's head]
UNCHR - no, biased
CSO - nah
ICCL - nah
Amnesty - nah
ORAC - nah

Irish Sun ... yeah! Has to be true.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The fact that there are other loopholes does not mean we should ignore this one.

If you believe its a loophole, then yes, you're right. You shouldn't ignore it.

To do so would set a precedent that if we voted in future on closing other loopholes the argument "But there are others" could be used.

And again we fall into the binary-argument falacy.

Your logic says there are two options : vote yes, or ignore the loophole. What about the other options?

1) Vote no because you think more discussion is needed before you can make up your mind in terms of supporting any change.
2) Vote no because you think that there are better options to resolve the issue
3) Vote no because you don't believe what others protray as a loophole is actually a problem.
4) Vote no because you feel that Article 9.1.2 in the Constitution, coupled with existant "right of residency" policy should already give the government everything it needs to resolve the problems it says it needs this referendum to solve.
5) Vote no, because until the government actually implements and enforces its existant policies there is no way of knowing whether or not the loophole you see is actually related to the issue of citizenship at all.
6) Vote no, because you believe citizenship should be determined by where you are born.
7) Vote no because you don' t trust the government to implement the correct legislation once power over teh issue is put in its hands were the referendum to pass.
8) Do I really need to continue to show that this is most certainly not a binary issue like AG2004 is portraying.

jc

Ronika

In what circumstances exactly? Being born here? I would find that a positive enough reason to give someone citizenship here.

Frank grimes

This is exactly it. The government needs to bring in laws that better control the flow of people into the country. I personally dont see why anyone would choose to vote Yes. This whole referendum is a joke. I do not feel you can say that a child, born to non-Irish parents in Ireland, is not an Irish citizenship.

We even let footballers that are English (with some Irish blood) play for our national side yet if this referendum is passed a child that is born in Ireland will not be given the same privilege just cause their parents are from a different country!! This is only an example of the stupidity of Irish law.

sceptre

Originally posted by Imposter
I agree with you in that most of what you've said about most of the issues being raised as being irrelavent but I would have phrased your one question slightly differently. I would have asked Should Irish citizenship be determined in the main by place of birth OR by the citizenship of the child's parents (and possibly grandparents)?

Far better phrased than my question:) (and a more important issue and closer to the question I've asked myself while examining the proposed supporting legislation) but 'tain't quite what we're being asked to vote on Friday in the actual proposed amendment and have control over as citizens in that vote, hence my phraseology.

MadsL

Should Irish citizenship be determined in the main by place of birth OR by the citizenship of the child's parents (and possibly grandparents)?

I wonder is this an either/or question? Everyone bangs on about Ireland being the only country in the EU etc. France operates on a duel citizenship criteria, Under 18 if your parents are citizens, over 18 - automatic right of French citizenship to those born in France regardless of citizenship of parents.