"Yes" landslide

arcadegame2004

Well I am an "outsider" with respect to the US, Canada etc. but I don't mind.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And that was an INCORRECT caricature of my opinions. Also, you are stigmatising the entire "Yes" vote and therefore me, and as such I am entitled to respond.

I suspect that, if anything, he's doing it the other way around. It's deserved in the particular case.

Tuars

Let me get this straight:

Before the referendum: Who is an Irish Citizen is decided by birth.

After the referendum: Who is an Irish Citizen is decided by the FF/PD government.

Leave aside the immigration issue for a moment (ah go on ).

Isn't anyone a little concerned that we 'native Irish' have just weakened our own entitlements to citizenship by giving the government of the day the right to decide if we are citizens or not?

Trebor

Originally posted by Tuars
Isn't anyone a little concerned that we 'native Irish' have just weakened our own entitlements to citizenship by giving the government of the day the right to decide if we are citizens or not?

they can't bring in any law that effects you or anyone else already a citizen. they only have the power to effect how people not born to irish parents.

out of curiosity, if i adopted a child from another country does it become an irish citizen?

Tuars

Originally posted by Trebor
they can't bring in any law that effects you or anyone else already a citizen. they only have the power to effect how people not born to irish parents.

out of curiosity, if i adopted a child from another country does it become an irish citizen?

I understand that the law cannot be applied retrospectively but it does apply to ALL potential Irish citizens from now on whether they are 'native' or the offspring of a 'citizenship tourist'. Their citizenship is now in the gift of the government rather than guaranteed by the constitution.

I think we may have overdone it in our bid to close a tiny loophole and I'm worried that it will have wider implications than intended. Your adoption example is one case in point. I'm sure there are others. There may be cases when paternity has to be proven (using DNA?) in order to prove rights to citizenship. I can see an abortion-referendum-style court case looming with all the acompanying fallout.

seamus

Originally posted by Tuars
I think we may have overdone it in our bid to close a tiny loophole and I'm worried that it will have wider implications than intended. Your adoption example is one case in point. I'm sure there are others.

The adoption example is moot. What's the current legislation on children adopted from abroad? That will work exactly the same as it always has.

There may be cases when paternity has to be proven (using DNA?) in order to prove rights to citizenship.

There may be. In fact, there probably already has been. What about the case, pre-referendum, if a non-citizen is giving birth to the alleged child of a citizen, but fathership is in dispute with another non-citizen male? It's far from unlikely, so it's probably occured already.

I don't think the nature of obtaining citizenship will change dramatically. It's just one more verification step to get citizenship. It will also require two births certs - one for nationals, and one for non-nationals. It's not exactly a logistical nightmare, and it's not going to bring up any disputes over citizenship which haven't arisen before.

pete

Good to see john o'donoghue on questions and answers still completely misrepresenting the facts. Apparently "even professional nigerian women" travel to ireland to have their babies, then go home again - just in case they ever need a way out of nigeria.

Funny that, considering that having an Irish child does not confer any residence rights on the parent.

Trebor

Originally posted by seamus
What about the case, pre-referendum, if a non-citizen is giving birth to the alleged child of a citizen, but fathership is in dispute with another non-citizen male? It's far from unlikely, so it's probably occured already.

pre-referendum it would not have mattered if the there was a dispute if the child was born in ireland. the only time there would be is if the child was born outside of ireland to a national and non-national then a paternity test would be required.

chewy

100% of irish are selfish and 80% slightly more then the others

seamus

Originally posted by Trebor
pre-referendum it would not have mattered if the there was a dispute if the child was born in ireland. the only time there would be is if the child was born outside of ireland to a national and non-national then a paternity test would be required.

Sorry, I thought that was inferred.

ArthurDent

So does mean we are looking at a situation in the future where the baby of every non-national mother needs to be DNA tested to ensure that there's at least some pure Irish blood flowing through its veins? Jaysus I'm old enough to remember the abortion referendum in the 80's where people were talking of making girls/women take pregnancy tests if they were leaving for London. I dispair of this country sometimes


I can't for the life of me see how they plan to legislate for the outcome of the referendum (hmmm funny - don't remember hearing too many discussions/explanations on that from MacDowell)


Cynical old me - think I'm gonna buy me shares in a DNA testing company.......:rolleyes:

Jivin Turkey

Originally posted by pete

Funny that, considering that having an Irish child does not confer any residence rights on the parent.

But it would prevent them being deported would it not?

I voted yes because I dont feel that just being born here should entitle you to Irish citizenship if you have absolutely no other link or connection to Ireland. I also think the size of the majority vote means that it was perfectly necessary to put this referendum to the people.

sceptre

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
But it would prevent them being deported would it not?

Nope.

@ArthurDent

If you've the money you could do a lot worse than do a broad spread on 5 or so DNA testing (or preferably biometric research) companies. Relatively cheap time to get in and it'll possibly be the next bubble market. And yes, I knew you were being sarcastic. I'd still plump a few grand in there if I had it though.

ArthurDent

Originally posted by sceptre


@ArthurDent

If you've the money you could do a lot worse than do a broad spread on 5 or so DNA testing (or preferably biometric research) companies. Relatively cheap time to get in and it'll possibly be the next bubble market. And yes, I knew you were being sarcastic. I'd still plump a few grand in there if I had it though. [/B]

work in an related area so was only being mainly sarcastic. And there are quite a few Irish co's very active in this area - so i'm sure they're looking forward to the legislation......

broken arm

I haven't read all this thread but...

Q. to those that voted yes on grounds of percieved 'abuse' of the welfare system and the unfounded notion of excessive benefits etc etc. :

Should anyone who 'abuses' the welfare system, corrupts any legislative function of the state etc. have their citizenship revoked?

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by broken arm
I haven't read all this thread but...

Q. to those that voted yes on grounds of percieved 'abuse' of the welfare system and the unfounded notion of excessive benefits etc etc. :

Should anyone who 'abuses' the welfare system, corrupts any legislative function of the state etc. have their citizenship revoked?

Not a bad idea if there is evidence of criminality it should be punished

therecklessone

Originally posted by broken arm
I haven't read all this thread but...

Q. to those that voted yes on grounds of percieved 'abuse' of the welfare system and the unfounded notion of excessive benefits etc etc. :

Should anyone who 'abuses' the welfare system, corrupts any legislative function of the state etc. have their citizenship revoked?

Call it a wild stab in the dark here, but you're not just talking about non-nationals who have subsequently been awarded citizenship, sure you're not?

Michael Lowry
Ray Burke
Liam Lawlor

Difficult to remove their citizenship wouldn't you think. What would they become? Stateless?

Tuars

Originally posted by seamus
The adoption example is moot. What's the current legislation on children adopted from abroad? That will work exactly the same as it always has.

The adoption example is probably moot but I'm not sure. I need to look into it more.

What about the case, pre-referendum, if a non-citizen is giving birth to the alleged child of a citizen, but fathership is in dispute with another non-citizen male? It's far from unlikely, so it's probably occured already.

This is the situation that has changed as Trebor noted. It's quite plausible for a non-citizen to be resident in Ireland for less than the time the government decides (3 years? 5 years? who knows?), to have a child with a citizen, and to have the citizen deny any responsibility. Will we be able to issue warrants to enforce DNA testing to uncomliant citizens?

My original point of concern was not the details of the legislation but rather the fact that we voted to let the government decide what citizenship will be rather than voting on a specific definition of citizenship. We're leaving ourselves wide open to an incompetent implementation of our citizenship laws.

Do you have confidence in this government's ability to legislate properly to close this loophole without creating another one, or worse?

(edited for formatting)

Zombrex

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
But it would prevent them being deported would it not?

I voted yes because I dont feel that just being born here should entitle you to Irish citizenship if you have absolutely no other link or connection to Ireland. I also think the size of the majority vote means that it was perfectly necessary to put this referendum to the people.

No it would not prevent them from being deported

Look people really need to get the facts straight on this issue and look at what is really happening.

1 - The law was changed (interpreted differently) a little while ago when it was decided that parents of children born here did not have the right to stay in the country with the child even if the child was an Irish citizen.

Miss-informed people, including the government, believed that this would solve the “asylum abuse” problem of people coming over to have their babies just so they themselves could live in Ireland.

What they didn’t factor on was the fact that the majorities were not coming over so they themselves could stay in Ireland! (Shock horror!) The numbers of pregnant women coming over stayed that same, even though they left (had to leave) afterward the birth.

What is really happening is that the women are coming over not for themselves, but to give their children the opportunity to claim an EU passport which, when they are older, will give them greater opportunity to find work in other parts of the world (not just the EU).

2 – These pregnant women are not abusing our asylum program or taking benefits away from hard working unemployed Irish people (say what?) as many claim. They don’t even come over as asylum seekers. They come over on legal visas, have their babies legally in Ireland, and then leave before their legal visas expire. They have not broken any laws and do not abuse any social well fare system. For the people who claim they have no problem with people legally coming over to Ireland then they should have another look at why they voted YES then.


3 – This is a terribly flawed constitutional change that opens a whole load of loopholes – For example –

• What happens if the mother dies before birth?
• What happens if an non-national mother and Irish father have child together in Ireland but out of wedlock and the mother dies or refuses to acknowledge the father. The child is not Irish? Yeah that makes sense :rolleyes:

As has been mentioned before the issue of citizenship has been made a matter of legislation which scares the sh*t out of me.

We are slowly but surely going to start getting case after case where children (those considered “really Irish” by even the most foaming of Yes campaigners) are denied Irish citizenship because of this change. Is that worth it, just to stop a handful of “not really Irish” children getting Irish citizenship that will probably never even effect the social welfare system or your taxes?

The whole phenomena reminds me of parents in England and American that move house so that their children can go to a better school. It is not really fair on the parents that have lived near the school for 20 years, but you can understand why a mother would do something that would improve their childs prospects in the future. And you certainly don't need a consitutional change to deal with it!

Also ... it might not even be that big a deal! Even the government have no idea how many foreign nationals are having babies in Ireland. The number could be tiny. People keep making up figures or saying the Ireland is "awash" with foreign pregnant women. Anyone got any figures at all?

The whole affair had been reactionary scaremongering c**p. A constitutional change was rushed through with no real consideration or long term planning for a problem that people don't even know is actually that bad (or bad at all).

The fall out from this is going to effect us for years ... can we please get someone who knows what they are doing into government fast because this is getting silly.

broken arm

Originally posted by therecklessone
Call it a wild stab in the dark here, but you're not just talking about non-nationals who have subsequently been awarded citizenship, sure you're not?

Michael Lowry
Ray Burke
Liam Lawlor

Difficult to remove their citizenship wouldn't you think. What would they become? Stateless?

good stabbage. I'm just pointing out the shallowness of the excuses presented by the racists on this board and elsewhere.

This would warrant far deeper discussion but I'm late for a meeting :rolleyes:

pete

Originally posted by pete
Good to see john o'donoghue on questions and answers still completely misrepresenting the facts. Apparently "even professional nigerian women" travel to ireland to have their babies, then go home again - just in case they ever need a way out of nigeria.

Funny that, considering that having an Irish child does not confer any residence rights on the parent.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0614/qanda/qanda56_5.smil

2min 55 seconds in

Why nobody pulled him up on it is beyond me.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
What is really happening is that the women are coming over not for themselves, but to give their children the opportunity to claim an EU passport which, when they are older, will give them greater opportunity to find work in other parts of the world (not just the EU).

Your citizenship may not matter much to you, but I personally do not think that it is appropriate to accept that it can be so easily achieved for what is essentially a scam, as you have described it.

What happens if the mother dies before birth?

The kid’s probably pretty screwed regardless, unless it can survive outside the womb.

Should the child survive, it would not change the identity of nationality of the mother, regardless of her being deceased.

What happens if an non-national mother and Irish father have child together in Ireland but out of wedlock and the mother dies or refuses to acknowledge the father. The child is not Irish? Yeah that makes sense :rolleyes:

The same could happen if the mother had given birth to the child outside Ireland to an Irish father. And it did prior to the referendum. **** happens.

As has been mentioned before the issue of citizenship has been made a matter of legislation which scares the sh*t out of me.

Why - outside of your paranoia?

We are slowly but surely going to start getting case after case where children (those considered “really Irish” by even the most foaming of Yes campaigners) are denied Irish citizenship because of this change. Is that worth it, just to stop a handful of “not really Irish” children getting Irish citizenship that will probably never even effect the social welfare system or your taxes?

Cue rivers of blood speech :rolleyes:

The whole phenomena reminds me of parents in England and American that move house so that their children can go to a better school. It is not really fair on the parents that have lived near the school for 20 years, but you can understand why a mother would do something that would improve their childs prospects in the future. And you certainly don't need a consitutional change to deal with it!

Nationality and citizenship is not a consumer good. You appear to view it as nothing more than a random occurrence, ignoring ethnic and historical factors.

It would appear that you are in a minority in this regard.

The whole affair had been reactionary scaremongering c**p.

That’s what I would have said of your paranoid theories.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Jivin Turkey
But it would prevent them being deported would it not?

No it does not protect them from being deported. That particular rule was closed up well over a year or so ago.

I've had connection problems for the week or so. So I missed a lot.

I stand by what I said. The vote has no effect on immigration/asylum seekers. Anyone who thinks this is totally clueless as to what the vote meant.

Also it has no effect on hospitals in any way. It will be the same. Irish law protects the unborn child, anyone pregnant arriving in Ireland is given free medical to help their child to be born. I know this for a fact.

arcadegame2004

Also it has no effect on hospitals in any way. It will be the same. Irish law protects the unborn child, anyone pregnant arriving in Ireland is given free medical to help their child to be born. I know this for a fact.

They may have that obligation but there will be fewer of them coming thanks to this "Yes" vote.

Have you been watching the news recently? Heard about the Nigerian family with their Irish-born child who were deported and are now back in Ireland seeking to overturn their deportation order due to their Irish-born child? Is this not an example of citizenship-tourism?

Trebor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
They may have that obligation but there will be fewer of them coming thanks to this "Yes" vote.

Have you been watching the news recently? Heard about the Nigerian family with their Irish-born child who were deported and are now back in Ireland seeking to overturn their deportation order due to their Irish-born child? Is this not an example of citizenship-tourism?

do you mean this family who were deported illegally by the govnt? they had got an injunction to stay so they could have a review of their case. we will have to wait and see if the court will abide by the 2003 case.

also they might not be the only onse coming back

arcadegame2004

Trebor, it has NOT been established yet that their deportation was illegal, in spite of the fact that you claim they "were deported illegally". Wait for the outcome of the case please before making that judgement.

But we don't need to wait for the judgement in this case to realise that this family is at least TRYING citizenship-tourism. They are TRYING to get to stay in Ireland on the basis of their Irish-born child.

Unfortunately, the period of time before the Dail ratifies the peoples' recently expressed democratic will in the Citizenship referendum gives a last-minute window of opportunity for other citizenship-tourists to turn up in Ireland pregnant. I urge McDowell to get his skates on.

If the Supreme Court finds that they can stay on the basis of their Irish-citizen child, then it will confirm my suspicions that the January 2003 judgement was not as clear cut as the "No" side claimed, and that the Chen ruling's scope goes far beyond rich people.

Trebor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Trebor, it has NOT been established yet that their deportation was illegal, in spire of the fact that you claim they "were deported illegally". Wait for the outcome of the case please before making that judgement.

But we don't need to wait for the judgement in this case to realise that this family is at least TRYING citizenship-tourism. They are TRYING to get to stay in Ireland on the basis of their Irish-born child.

Unfortunately, the period of time before the Dail ratifies the peoples' recently expressed democratic will in the Citizenship referendum gives a last-minute window of opportunity for other citizenship-tourists to turn up in Ireland pregnant. I urge McDowell to get his skates on.

If the Supreme Courts find that they can stay on the basis of their Irish-citizen child, then it will confirm my suspicions that the January 2003 judgement was not as clear cut as the "No" side claimed, and that the Chen ruling's scope goes far beyond rich people.

it has been established that it was illegal. they had a court injunction which ment that they are legally allowed stay until the case has been decided.

the dail ratifying the referendum will have no effect on this case as it can not act retroactively.

well then it's up to this govnt to bring in clear legislation to make sure that they can be deported. this could have been done before/with out the need for the referendum.

Jivin Turkey

Going back to the issue, the yes vote was passed on a 4 to 1 majority. Despite the "no" votes supporters arrogance, not all "yes" voters were "misinformed", and at least 1 in 4 of the people I know I would consider intelligent enough to make capable decisions for themselves. It was the right result in the end.

I hate the way the "no" campaigners moan and try to preach to everyone that they are wrong, this is why I would hate to see a left wing government. I dont want to be told what to think, I can do that for myself thanks. But almost all left wing campaigners seem to want to tell everyone who doesnt conform what to do and think. No thanks.

arcadegame2004

Jivin Turkey, unfortunately it looks like the next Government will contain lefties as their junior partners. If opinion-polls indicate this at the time of the 2007 General Election, then I urge fellow "Yes" voters to vote FG to shift the centre-of-gravity of such a Government to the centre, in the hope of making an excessively liberal policy on immigration less likely.

Trebor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
in the hope of making an excessively liberal policy on immigration less likely.

i would actually surport a strict immigration policy as long as it is enforced. so would most of my "lefty" friends. i just want an end to the existing drip drip immigration were people are given one month contracts and employers can abuse their work permit employees. i don't want to open our borders and i would like to see the deportion rate of illegal's be at 100% and not 5%. nothing in the referendum has changed this. and if you say it will discourage them again i will slap you