Question about the referendum

fragile

I'm sorry if im bringing up something that has already been discussed at lenght, but I dont read the politics forum very often, and I would appreciate some advice.

I am very unclear about something in the upcoming referendum, and I hope somebody can help me clarify it before I cast my vote.

If a non-national, pregnant woman, arrives in Ireland and dies during or after child birth, the child would not be entitled to Irish citizenship (with a YES vote) .

So what happens? does the Government ship the baby back to whatever country the non-national mother came from? what if she came from a country with a history of human rights abuses (Burma, North Korea..), what happens then?

Mary Harney made a speech last week in relation to this, but my problem is that it is just a speech, it is not part of the wording of the proposed amendment to the constitution.

So, am I right in thinking that a YES vote would give the Oireachtas (in theory) the right to do whatever it wants with these babies, by passing laws to that effect..

I know I sound very cynical, but I think that the wording of the proposed amendment to the constitution is just too general (lets take it out of the constitution, and let the Government do whatever the hell they want)

I would appreciate any feedback on this, as it a major concern on my part on which way I will vote on Friday..

sceptre

I'm not going to try to convince you to vote either yes or no. Life's too short and it's an issue that seems to attract lots of troll posturing, which if you've been reading the long threads on the issue I've no patience for.

To answer your questions:

So what happens? does the Government ship the baby back to whatever country the non-national mother came from? what if she came from a country with a history of human rights abuses (Burma, North Korea..), what happens then?

It's highly likely that the child would be sent to the country of the mother, especially if the child has surviving family there. The US even did that with that little Cuban kid (can't remember his name, Elian Gonzales or something) despite their policy of "make it to the shore and you're ours". Obviously this was in the US and not in Ireland but any foreign lawyer with half a working brain would use the entries in our constitution about the family unit to succeed in such a case. A surviving relative would have locus standi which an agency of any kind would be unlikely to have. However it's likely that this would be the case regardless of whether the child was an Irish citizen or not. As for a more complicated case where the child has family both here and there, there's EU precedent for a dependent relative being allowed to stay regardless of the citizenship of that dependent relative. I can find the case name and reference if anyone thinks I'm making it up. In that more complicated case it would depend on the comparative proximity of the relationship. If the child was a citizen it would have the right of return on attaining the age of majority (currently 18 here), if the child was not a citizen it would not have this right.

If the child had no surviving family the case wouldn't be as clear-cut but you'll be looking at the answer below then (in this case the citizenship of the child might (and I stress might) be a deciding factor where assumption of the intention of the dead mother could well come into play with a possible duty on the part of the State).

So, am I right in thinking that a YES vote would give the Oireachtas (in theory) the right to do whatever it wants with these babies, by passing laws to that effect..

Basically yes. Obviously not "whatever it wants" (can't pass a law saying that we can turn them into Soylent Green or use them for shooting practice) but in the way you meant, yes.

I'd ignore any speech Mata Harney might make on the issue. It may (or may not) be a statement of current government or PD policy but policies change as do governments. Legislation changes as well but not as often as a breeze does. The only legal interpreter of legislation with any power is the court system.

I'm not sure if the above answers will help you in any way but they are almost certainly the answers an Irish court would give and that an EU court wouldn't override. Hopefully the nutters won't arrive with the unsolicited preaching now but even if that happens you're (I hope) some way clearer now towards making a decision about your vote.

I know I sound very cynical

Cynicism is fine (so is skepticism). You're obviously thinking very hard about what your vote should be. Which makes you likely to be a "good voter" in my book regardless of whatever way you vote on any issue.

bonkey

Originally posted by fragile
So what happens?
...
So, am I right in thinking that a YES vote would give the Oireachtas (in theory) the right to do whatever it wants with these babies, by passing laws to that effect..

Short answer - what happens is exactly what you think will happen - the Government's job - should a yes vote pass - is to pass legislation on the issue of citizenship etc. which will then be applied as and when relevant.

Will it cover the case you describe? Who knows. Apparently our government isn't too bright when it comes to spotting loopholes in legislation. I haven't read the proposed legislation, either, so I can't say whether or not said proposal would cover such a case were it to be implemented.

I was going to read it, and then decided not to bother, when I read the following line in the booklet the Referendum Comission is sending around :

While the Government has proposed new legislation to regulate citizenship if the referendum is passed you are not being asked to vote on this issue. Neither the Government nor the Oireachtas is bound by this proposed legislation which could be changed in any way

So, that brings us full circle. The answer is - as you suspected - that the Government will have a free hand in passing, changing, and actually trying to enforce whatever legislation it deems appropriate.

The only comeback you will have on the issue is that if you disagree with the legislation they bring in, you can vote against them come the next elections, and hope they get beaten by a party who is willing to change the legislation.


jc

arcadegame2004

Fragile, the Dail already had that power from 1921 to 1998 and no oppressive measures were introduced. An advantage of returning this power to Dail Eireann is to help those who are currently stateless, such as that daughter of a Romanian who now lives in Romania reported on a few weeks ago. If "stateless" children are in this situation, the Dail, which can do nothing about that now, could resolve it. All the rest of the EU legislates for citizenship. Why should we be any different? This is not Nazi Germany you know!

Swarfboy

If the objective is to have fewer non-Irish national births, why not issue fewer work permits? Why express surprise at a significant rise in the number of children born to non-Irish national parents when it arises as an entirely predictable outcome of Government policy, i.e., a nearly eight-fold increase in the issuance of work permits since 1999, with nearly 48,000 being issued in 2003 alone?

If the desire is to have fewer citizens of non-Irish national parents, why not introduce legislation to end the grandparent entitlement under which children whose parents have never even visited Ireland can automatically claim Irish citizenship for their children?

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Fragile, the Dail already had that power from 1921 to 1998 and no oppressive measures were introduced.

Correct.

However, tehy didn't seek to deny people born on the island citizenship, either, so should we conclude that they don't want to change this either?

The simple fact is that they want control to make changes. We have a proposed set of legislation which may or may not be what is enacted should the referendum passes, and there is nothing to prevent the govt. from changing it should they wish to.

An advantage of returning this power to Dail Eireann is to help those who are currently stateless, such as that daughter of a Romanian who now lives in Romania reported on a few weeks ago.

Bull****.

Article 9.1.2 already gives them the ability to legislate for this.

jc

arcadegame2004

However, tehy didn't seek to deny people born on the island citizenship, either, so should we conclude that they don't want to change this either?

They didn't do that because the issue of strong economic migration to Ireland was not present until the late 1990's economic boom. No-one wanted to come when we were poor. As circumstances change, our legislation should adapt to reflect that, rather than realities in 1998.

Article 9.1.2 already gives them the ability to legislate for this.

I disagree. That article is open to interpretation. The reference to "shall be decided by law" could include the subsequent 1998 changes to Articles 2 and 3.

arcadegame2004

If the objective is to have fewer non-Irish national births, why not issue fewer work permits? Why express surprise at a significant rise in the number of children born to non-Irish national parents when it arises as an entirely predictable outcome of Government policy, i.e., a nearly eight-fold increase in the issuance of work permits since 1999, with nearly 48,000 being issued in 2003 alone?

Only 258 births last year were of Filipino nurses. Dr.Paul Byrne of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin has already said that the majority of these non-national births (about 12,500 last year) were NOT to people elgally working here but to people using Ireland's citizenship laws as a backdoor to the EU. Read this link on what he said:

http://212.2.162.45/news/iestory.asp?j=243177304304&p=z43y773x4678&n=243177304775

Swarfboy

In the United States, if such a constitutional "loophole" had ever been corrected, many millions of children born in the United States to Irish parents would not have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, if ever. (During the 1990s alone, closing such a loophole would have denied U.S. citizenship to 6.9 million children born in the United States to non-U.S. national parents. In Ireland,> after adjusting for the difference in population size, that would equate to roughly 10,000 children per year born to non-Irish national parents, well above the level currently experienced here.)

Had this "loophole" been closed in the United States, Eamon de Valera would not have been saved from execution on the grounds of being a U.S. citizen.

Villain

If the child remains in Ireland for 3 years he/she will be entitled to Irish Citizenship, and given that the system is so slow here thats entirely possible.

Also I believe if the child will not be a citizen of another country then they will receive Irish Citizenship

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Swarfboy
Had this "loophole" been closed in the United States, Eamon de Valera would not have been saved from execution on the grounds of being a U.S. citizen.

Are you supplying this statement in support of the 'yes' case or 'no' case, or are you simply suggesting a plotline for a speculative historical novel.

Swarfboy

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Only 258 births last year were of Filipino nurses. Dr.Paul Byrne of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin has already said that the majority of these non-national births (about 12,500 last year) were NOT to people elgally working here but to people using Ireland's citizenship laws as a backdoor to the EU.

Of the unbooked, late arriving pregnant women presenting at the Coombe last year, at least half were Irish. The rest might have had Irish husbands, boyfriends or partners, and/or have been living in the country for years. No one knows because the hospital doesn't ask. Even assuming that none of the non-Irish national women who presented late or unbooked at Dublin's maternity hospitals were citizens of other EU countries, or about to give birth to Irish citizen children because the father was Irish (or, for that matter, a grandparent was Irish), the maximum number of children being born and obtaining Irish citizenship under such circumstances last year in Dublin's maternity hospitals was 548, or 0.024 of all births in those hospitals.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
They didn't do that because

I don't care why they didn't do it arcade. Your argument was that because they didn't impose opressive laws between 21 and 98, they won't do it now. That logic also says that because they didn't deny citizenship to people on the island for those 77 years, they won't do it now either...which is clearly not the case.

That logic is so full of holes, it makes a block of emmental look like a solid.

If you want to change your logic, then feel free, but don't assume that my answer to some new explanation will be the same.

I disagree. That article is open to interpretation. The reference to "shall be decided by law" could include the subsequent 1998 changes to Articles 2 and 3.

You can disagree all you want, but its not open to interpretation in that sense.

Article 9.1.2 is what gives the Irish government the ability to legislate that descendants of Irish people - up to two generations - who are born outside the island are entitled to citizenship.

It is what gave the Irish government, prior to 1998, the ability to legislate that everyone born on the island gained automatic citizenship.

It is what gave the Irish government - while they persued the policy - the ability to legislate the selling of passports.

I believe there was also legislation in the 2001 refugees act, also covering citizenship, which was - again - possible becauise of article 9.1.2.

So, it is clearly what gave and still gives the irish government the ability to legislate who additionally can gain citizenship over and above those who have a constitutional right to it.

So its not open to interpretation in the sense that you mean, at all, at all.

And given that you're talking about the abillity to legislate to grant citizenship to a nationless person.......I refer you back to my original statement : Bull**** .

(Aside : What may be open to interpretation is whether or not it gives the government the right to revoke nationality and/or citizenship from someone who has had that status conferred on them by constitutional - rather than legislative - means.

Note : I said May be. If you're going to deal with this point, please show that it is open to interpretation in this respect.

Personally, I can't see that this would be the case, but ti would appear that it would have to be, or else the reason for the current referendum would be entirely null and void, as the government could legislate to remove the citizenship from these so-called citizenship-tourists.

All you're doing, arcade, is demonstrating further that you don't actually know how the current system works in any detail, which makes a mockery of your extolling reasons why it needs change.

Well - I'll assume that its the case that you don't know this in detail, rather than that you know exactly how it works, but are seeking to misrepresent that reality.

jc

arcadegame2004

In the United States, if such a constitutional "loophole" had ever been corrected, many millions of children born in the United States to Irish parents would not have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, if ever. (During the 1990s alone, closing such a loophole would have denied U.S. citizenship to 6.9 million children born in the United States to non-U.S. national parents. In Ireland,> after adjusting for the difference in population size, that would equate to roughly 10,000 children per year born to non-Irish national parents, well above the level currently experienced here.)

Swarf boy, it is less of a loophole in the US because US states have the same rules on US citizenship. As such, illegal immigrants can't use a more liberal system in one US state to gain citizenship in all other states.

Ireland though, can be used in this way with respect o gaining Irish and therefore EU citizenship in all 25 EU states.

Of the unbooked, late arriving pregnant women presenting at the Coombe last year, at least half were Irish. The rest might have had Irish husbands, boyfriends or partners, and/or have been living in the country for years. No one knows because the hospital doesn't ask. Even assuming that none of the non-Irish national women who presented late or unbooked at Dublin's maternity hospitals were citizens of other EU countries, or about to give birth to Irish citizen children because the father was Irish (or, for that matter, a grandparent was Irish), the maximum number of children being born and obtaining Irish citizenship under such circumstances last year in Dublin's maternity hospitals was 548, or 0.024 of all births in those hospitals.

Why do you assume that only late-booking non-nationals are citizenship-tourists? What about early bookers? AN asylum seeker could claim asylum in early pregnancy and still be a citizenship tourist, since only 5% of asylum seekers that came here in 2003 were deported. Chances are overwhelmingly that they will get to stay here in time to give birth, especially as it takes YEARS for asylum-applications to be assessed and appealed.

You are speculating about the origin of the other 50%. You cannot prove they are not non-EU nationals that are not legally resident here. Dr.Michael Geary of the Rotunda recently told the Irish Sun that 30% of births in Dublin were to non-EU nationals who book late, who go straight fro mthe ferry to the hospital practically in labour. All those beds taken up in such a cynical cause. A waste too of taxpayers' money.

I see no logical reason to continue to even allow the potential for this problem to continue. Vote Yes.

BTW, Eamon de Valera HAD an Irish parent, and as such would still have gotten Irish citizenship under this referendum. Here is a link to prove it:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/eamonn_de_valera.htm

And anyway, if he hadn't been a US citizen, he could have gotten off execution because his father was Spanish, and thus he was also a Spanish citizenship under the jus-sanguine (law of blood ) regime there.

sceptre

Glad I got in (and bonkey as well) with something that was in some way answering fragile's actual question before you lot started descending like piranhas. Any opportunity eh? None of you are coming to my forthcoming dinner party. Couldn't trust you not to hijack a conversation about baby trees, sick puffins or the Turkish lira exchange rate with a rant about something you weren't asked.

Victor

Isn't there a clause somewhere in the constitution that any minor (under 18) is presumed to be Irish if it isn't otherwise known? This would give the child rights in the short term, but I suspect family rights would be stronger.

What about children who don't quite make the 3 years out of 4 rules and are orphaned here? :mad:

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Dr.Michael Geary of the Rotunda recently told the Irish Sun that 30% of births in Dublin were to non-EU nationals who book late, who go straight fro mthe ferry to the hospital practically in labour.

I think we all know this isn't true. If it was they would have extended the ferry bus to Busáras as far as Parnell Square.