How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
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.

Article 9.1.2 surely already gives our government the ability to revoke the citizenship of these people through legislation?

Here's teh text, taken from that nice Referendum Comission booklet (well, the pdf of it, anyway)

The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be
determined in accordance with law.

Under 9.1.2, there would appear to be no problem saying that if certain conditions are met (e.g. non-national parents, and the child spends x% of its first y years outside the nation) then citizenship can be revoked.

Indeed, bearing article 9.2 in mind, it would seem that this is exactly what we should be doing :

Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of
all citizens.

So...we have an article that says your duty is to show loyalty to the state, and another article which says that citizenship can be revoked in accordance with law as formed by the government.

So, putting those together, surely a law could be drafted which solves the problem of people who show no clear loyalty to the state (cause their parents only came here briefly to have the child, then left with citizenship in tow - as Ishmael keeps saying is the problem) by revoking their citizenship.

So why do we need a referendum, when our existing constitution would appear to allow the government to legislate in order to fix the so-called problem / loophole?

The only reasons I can see are :

1) There is some prior case setting precedent which stops the government from using 9.1.2 in the manner in which it is clearly meant to be used

or

2) The referendum must be dealing with something other than those who come here for a short time to "citizenship-shop", as legislation can already solve this problem.

So - anyone up on the law who wants to tackle this one? Anyone want to tell me why revoking citizenship from the "unworthy" isn't a satisfactory solution?

jc

slack

If the government really wanted to change the Constitution for the better, they would have at least consulted the All Party Committee on the Constitution first. That's the way it's done. What we're seeing here is little more than a cynical ploy to direct the public's legitimate anger about the state of Ireland's health service at immigrants. I don't think that they government are being intentionally racist, much like they probably hoped that the explosives and troops passing through Shannon Airport to Iraq wouldn't hurt anyone on arrival.
Asylum seekers and undocumented workers (as we call friends and relatives living illegally in the U.S.) are not to blame for the downgrading and under-resourcing of Irish hospitals. And yet the FF-PD coalition are hoping voters will divert their anger over government health policy to the referendum on citizenship, scapegoating immigrants instead of blaming the policymakers. It's a ploy, that's common sense.
Authorities have always blamed others for the harm that their policies cause: Immigrants, women and poor people generally are the usual suspects. The Citizenship Scapegoat Referendum is just a ploy to lay blame for government failures and deliberate policies (should we call them successes?) at the feet of poor, immigrant women.

Imposter

Originally posted by MadsL
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.

I think it is an either/or question in terms of what this referendum is about.

As for me whether it is the first or the second option that is enshrined in the constitution, they are both useless without appropriate legislation to tie up the loose ends while still giving the government some power to change things should the need arise.

Whether you'd trust this or any other government to make whatever changes they see fit is another matter but I don't see how that would apply to either side more than the other.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by sceptre
[BDo you think being born on Irish soil should be a good enough basis for Irish citizenship? If so, why?, if not, why not?[/B]

No, there is a need to qualify the right to citizenship by place of birth. It’s not the purpose of our citizenship laws to solve residency problems for people living in the UK or elsewhere, and it being used for that purpose undermines the idea that place of birth is an unquestionable criterion for citizenship. But it is right that our citizenship laws provide for the children of people who actually live here. The best practical way of resolving this issue is to introduce a residency requirement. The only alternative solution seems to be draconian immigration controls.

One side point to consider, I have to admit started by a comment by McDowell about non-nationals’ entitlements to basic rights. If a family moves to Ireland, any children born abroad will not have Irish citizenship. But they will clearly attend Irish schools, generally participate in Irish society and ultimately may apply for citizenship by naturalisation. The ‘cherishing’ value that we want to see has more to do with our openness to this than with an unqualified right to citizenship by place of birth.

MadsL

The best practical way of resolving this issue is to introduce a residency requirement.

Couldn't agree more, but clearly this referendum will not result in this requrement.

Jimi-Spandex

I will be voting yes. Mostly because I approach Referenda as legal matters and not political, I am a member of the Labour party and will be tailoring my local and EP ballots to screw FF, PD and SF as hard as I can. In this referendum I am looking at it in as logical and legal manner.

I feel that we, as citizens of Europe, owe it to the rest of the EU to close the loophole as highlighted by the Chen case. We are giving citizenship to people who should have no right to it when in many cases spoken of by the "No" campaign mere residency rights would suffice.

As for the nationless child scenario, the child is entitled to citizenship of their parents country. In the unlikely event that this is not possible, then there are rules of international law which govern this situation and if the parent(s) of the child have attempted to secure citizenship in their home nation then, in that unlikely scenario, be awarded irish citizenship.

Bonkey, the problem with your plan would seem to me that by the time a fair period has passed to judge "fidelity to the nation" the iron would long have cooled off, as it were. If we re-examine the facts of the Chen case and apply this hypothetical rule of law we're effectively left with the same result. For example, if there was a requirement of residence of two out of the following three years after birth, this means that the deportation would take anything up to four or five years to take place. Also, is it fair to convict a three year old for an infidelity that was forced upon it? The children in such a case obviously don't decide to leave the country or participate in citizenship fraud. The legal problems with Mens Rea could technically be circumvented by making this a strict or absolute liability offence but then such measures would also severely or completely remove any defences available to those in a genuine situation fighting this removal of citizenship.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by MadsL
quote:

---

The best practical way of resolving this issue is to introduce a residency requirement.

---

Couldn't agree more, but clearly this referendum will not result in this requrement.

If you agree to a residency requirement, then a referendum seems an inevitable consequence. The only issue that would seem to remain is the extent to which the Oireachtas should be allowed to legislate for citizenship by place of birth, bearing in mind that this was only taken out of the hands of the Oireachtas in the context of the GFA. But you seem to be accepting the main issue – that we should support a constitutional amendment to allow place of birth to be qualified by residency in some way.

RainyDay

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Women are using our citizenship laws to fly into Ireland in time to give birth here

Bloody non-nationals. There's the rest of us stuck with boring oul planes when we want to fly, and those non-nationals get to use the citizenship laws to fly in on. How do they do it - fold up the laws into paper planes & sit on top? I bet they get the bloody health boards to pay for them too.

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

Actually they don't in the case of babies born to non nationals here.
Those kids have the right to come back here at 18 and do as they please workwise subject only to the same restrictions as the rest of us.
So thats exactly what it has to do with this referendum.

And thats the question, should that loophole be allowed?
In my opinion , certainly NOT.

Let asylum seekers be judged on their merits, if their case of persecution or whatever stands when examined, alls well and good they stay.
If it doesn't and it's clear that they are economic migrants, then off home they should go in my humble opinion.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
Those kids have the right to come back here at 18 and do as they please workwise subject only to the same restrictions as the rest of us.

So what's the difference between "those" kids and some kid who has two Irish parents, (besides the skin colour more than likely)?
Actually "those" kids will have been less of a burden on this state, free education etc.
And, *shock horror* the child is Irish, like me and you! So if they want to come to this charming little island with it's welcoming population and work - fair play to them.

arcadegame2004

So if they want to come to this charming little island with it's welcoming population and work - fair play to them.

I'm sure the 80% of thw world's population that lives in the Third World would love to live here. However, that is clearly not sufficient reason to let them in.

I do not consider babies of asylum-seekers with no Irish parent to be "children of the nation".

If youe wife or girlfriend gave birth to a child in China would you consider it Irish or Chinese?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I'm sure the 80% of thw world's population that lives in the Third World would love to live here. However, that is clearly not sufficient reason to let them in.

Yeah ok, another magic number? But I guess with all the free houses and cars they'd put up with the bigots here.

I do not consider babies of asylum-seekers with no Irish parent to be "children of the nation".

You seem to have forgotten that all foreign people aren't asylum seekers.

If youe wife or girlfriend gave birth to a child in China would you consider it Irish or Chinese?

I fail to see how this is relevant.
Do you mean if she was an Aryian, sorry, an Irish Citizen or foreign/Chinese?

arcadegame2004

Your reference to "Aryan" I find offensive because of the terms associations with fascism. I have repeated said I abhore racism. However, without the argument that the Yeses are supposedly racists, they No side wouldnt have that many good arguments so I am not that surprised.

What I mean is this:

Irish law, contrary to the No sides claims, is NOT 100% "jus-soli". They argue it is in order to imply that some sort of cataclysmic change is taking place.

An element of jus-sanguine exists in the fact that an Irish parent who fathers a child abroad has the right under Irish law to confer Irish citizenship upon that child.

I am sure that most Irish people in that situation would prefer to give their child Irish rather than Chinese etc. citizenship.

This strengthens my argument that the children of non-nationals born here are not necessarily Irish. As the Duke of Wellington said "Not everything born in a stable is a horse".

pete

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

Hmm... which would be more at home on Stormfront?

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I am sure that most Irish people in that situation would prefer to give their child Irish rather than Chinese etc. citizenship.

You seem to have completely missed the point that the referendum isn't about the parents.

arcadegame2004

Hmm... which would be more at home on Stormfront?

So Pete, do you consider all the other European countries (none of which allow citizenship solely on grounds of being born there) to be fascist states?

The referendum IS about the abuse of our citizenship laws by the parents from non-EU states using our citizenship laws to claim citizenship for their babies to strengthen their right to stay here.

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
So Pete, do you consider all the other European countries (none of which allow citizenship solely on grounds of being born there) to be fascist states?

No, but not so long ago when "other european countries" were carting people off to gas chambers, should we have just fallen in line then?

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The referendum IS about the abuse of our citizenship laws by the parents from non-EU states using our citizenship laws to claim citizenship for their babies to strengthen their right to stay here.

No, it's not. That might be how it's sold to the ignorant by people who should know better, but even if such abuse occurs people like you are advocating that the child should be punished for "the sins" of the parents. And that's just not right.

Can we have a referendum to stop the abuse of our social welfare laws by the terminally unemployable?

Can we have a referendum to stop the abuse of our tax laws by those that can get away with it?

Can we get racist idiots with no capacity to engage in rational debate banned from the politics board?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The referendum IS about the abuse of our citizenship laws by the parents from non-EU states using our citizenship laws to claim citizenship for their babies to strengthen their right to stay here.

For the 100th time, it does not strengthen their claims at all. The Supreme Court issued a deportation order against the last people who tried that, what does that tell you?
And wrt. the "other European countries" argument, we are Irish (a notion you seem to understand). As a nation, we a different to other nations. Part of that difference, and only a small part, is that people born here are Irish citizens by birth. As it is in other countries, another fact you ignore.
Also, abortion is legal in a lot of countries, should it be legal here too on those grounds? Homosexuality is still illegal in some countries still, should we ban it here again? And so on.

arcadegame2004

nd wrt. the "other European countries" argument, we are Irish (a notion you seem to understand). As a nation, we a different to other nations. Part of that difference, and only a small part, is that people born here are Irish citizens by birth. As it is in other countries, another fact you ignore.

You forget that we have a mutual EU citizenship with citizens of all other 24 EU states. As such there is an interdependence of consequences resultant fro mthe fact that our system is more liberal than theres, in 2 ways:

A:It causes Ireland to bear a disproportionate amount of the asylum-seeker burden compared to other EU states.

AND

B:Like Chen, it allows illegal immigrants to use Irish hospitals to get EU residency, thererby circumventing the immigration controls of 24 other EU states.

It harms us AND them.

Seapoint

what exactly is the constitution for?


the courts are for legislation......... don't mess with the constitution


ok?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
B:Like Chen, it allows illegal immigrants to use Irish hospitals to get EU residency, thererby circumventing the immigration controls of 24 other EU states.

You still haven't read sceptre's post have you?

arcadegame2004

what exactly is the constitution for?

Seapoint where have you been? We have changed the constitution 28 times since 1937. It clearly is NOT a sacred tradition that we rarely change the Constitution.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
So what's the difference between "those" kids and some kid who has two Irish parents, (besides the skin colour more than likely)?
Actually "those" kids will have been less of a burden on this state, free education etc.
And, *shock horror* the child is Irish, like me and you!

The difference is, we don't necessarally get automatic citizenship in their country where-ever it may be.
We won't be giving it to American or canadian babies born here either automatically.

So if they want to come to this charming little island with it's welcoming population and work - fair play to them.

Why limit it to just the babies then, lets have unlimited immigration, if thats what you want...
While this particullar referendum will probably pass by a fair majority, I would say one to allow unlimited immigration ie citizenship to all who come here with no limits even with a willingness to work would fail by a massive majority...

A child born here from a heavily pregnant asylum seeker should not be Irish as of right unless the asylum is needed and ajudged as needed in my view.

MadsL

I'm sure the 80% of thw world's population that lives in the Third World would love to live here.

More Urban legends from AG...musta read it in the Irish Sun...
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm

You forget that we have a mutual EU citizenship with citizens of all other 24 EU states. As such there is an interdependence of consequences resultant fro mthe fact that our system is more liberal than theres, in 2 ways:

A:It causes Ireland to bear a disproportionate amount of the asylum-seeker burden compared to other EU states.
AND

B:Like Chen, it allows illegal immigrants to use Irish hospitals to get EU residency, thererby circumventing the immigration controls of 24 other EU states.

It harms us AND them.

By the same logic we should prevent Irish women from travelling to the EU for abortions as this "harms us AND them"

A:It causes Ireland to bear a disproportionate amount of the asylum-seeker burden compared to other EU states.

A: And that's why the number of asylum seekers are falling then, or wouldyou like to post evidence of this?

B: Chen case. Read it. Or are you waiting for the colour by numbers version?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
The difference is, we don't necessarally get automatic citizenship in their country where-ever it may be.
We won't be giving it to American or canadian babies born here either automatically.

I'm not talking about us having kids in their country, I'm comparing that child to a child born to Irish parents.

Why limit it to just the babies then, lets have unlimited immigration, if thats what you want...

Where did I say I wanted that exactly? People born here are Irish, and have the same rights as you or I.
I personally don't care what colour they are, which seems to be the main objection from people.

A child born here from a heavily pregnant asylum seeker should not be Irish as of right unless the asylum is needed and ajudged as needed in my view.

How many times does it have to be said? This referendum is not about the parents or asylum seekers.

pete

Earlier, the League of Filipino Nurses called for a No vote in the referendum.

The league is one of 45 organisations that jointly urged voters to reject the Government's proposal to change the constitutional right to citizenship of anyone born on this island.

Last year, 235 children were born to Filipino women in Ireland, most of them nurses.

A spokesperson for the league, Dale Belino, said the referendum was about a blanket denial of rights to children of families like theirs, and that their children had done nothing to deserve this.

The durty scrounging foreigners, wha?

Sure who'd have them.

Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0608/citizenship.html

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Seapoint where have you been? We have changed the constitution 28 times since 1937. It clearly is NOT a sacred tradition that we rarely change the Constitution.

22 rather than 28 (20 really as the first two didn't have to be put to a referendum)

(this is the 27th amendment so we've had the 26th but we've no 12th, 22nd, 24th or 25th because of multiple referendums held on the same day, some of which were rejected)

All approved ones listed in the current constitution. Either way, we've changed it a lot since 1972 (when we had the first referendum for the third amendment (to allow us to join the EEC))

arcadegame2004

Earlier, the League of Filipino Nurses called for a No vote in the referendum.

Pete, they completely have the WRONG end of the stick.

Their children will still get Irish citizenship provided they have worked here for years before the birth.

And how many of the Filipino nurses do they represent?

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I'm not talking about us having kids in their country, I'm comparing that child to a child born to Irish parents.

Well you see, thats where we disagree,which is fair enough.
I don't want a loophole in our constitution allowing non nationals to come here and automatically get citizenship regardless of their circumstances.
I too don't care what colour/race/religion they are, thats immaterial.
I'll vote yes, you'll vote no.
Thats simple,If theres a majority no vote I won't have a problem with that, this is after all a democracy.

Where did I say I wanted that exactly? People born here are Irish, and have the same rights as you or I.

Same reply,I disagree,people do.
regarding unlimited immigration, I didn't suggest, you wanted that, I merely suggested it as an option if you wanted no regulation on citizenship at all but apparently by your clarification, you are not in favour of that and I think you are being sensible there.
But you would by your kindness in relation to the babies of non nationals born here allow them the benefits of that , which may or may not arise out of the non national taking advantage of our liberal regime with respect to the citizenship of non nationals babies born here.
In my view the rules are too slack, and open to abuse.
It doesn't matter to me how prevalent that abuse is, and neither should it to a genuine asylum seeker.

How many times does it have to be said? This referendum is not about the parents or asylum seekers.

It is, if the constitution as it stands allows their mothers come here to gift their children with Irish citizenship.
The unborn child cannot get here without it's parent as you know...
But then as you have clearly stated, you don't mind this as the status quo.
The referendum for me anyway is clearly about what you say it is not about as it if passed would end what I disagree with.
It would end the happening of what you say it is not about...
So again I disagree with you.