Irish referendum on right to citizenship

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically, immigration is OK as long as the immigrants are sufficiently similar to the existing population. Once they start to look, sound and act differently, immigration becomes a problem.

Am I allowed to use the x-word yet? Because that's pretty much a textbook definition of it.

Since when did you bother ask for permission?

samsham

johnathan woss wrote: »

The Irish and Brits are poles apart ?

Really? How?

I've been in many places in England and never really felt like I was in another country.

We essentially have the same culture and way of life.

Well I am kind of stunned at the notion you somehow think if I
married a girl from Britian it would be more acceptable to you
than an Asian woman, who actually lived in a former British colony.
Speaks English is Catholic and has a similar history to ours. As for
your notion were are the same country, Some guys in the BNP and
in Scotland dont share your opinion. Ireland has a great culture as
has the Uk. But in fairness the uk has more cultures that white,
catholic and European.

A Primal Nut

samsham wrote: »

A lot of people taught the same as you. Children born in Ireland will always have citizenship. regarding my child. If anything was to happen to me my child has the right to live in Ireland, but her mother does not. You hardly think the mother would leave her here alone. The mother can be deported. which means the child goes too. I don't think thats fair. Do you

Your situation has nothing to do with the referendum.

1) The referendum was whether or not children with no Irish parents become citizens. Children with no Irish parents would henceforth not be citizens.

2) Your child has one Irish parent therefore he/she is a citizen.

Therefore, the referendum has nothing to do with your situation. Your child becomes a citizen either way. The question of whether the mother becomes a citizen or whether she can be deported has nothing to do with the referendum which only concerned the child.

The implications of the referendum were that if the child was a citizen the mother has a legal right to stay.

Regardless of referendum outcome being yes or no, it doesn't effect you. Your child is a citizen therefore the mother has a legal right to stay. The referendum only concerns children whose parents are both non-Irish.

devereaux17

johnathan woss wrote: »

It's clearly different.

We were essentially the same country for hundreds of years.
Same language.
Same culture.
Same values.
Same or similar religions.
Shared history.

Moron.

West-Brit idiot.

Go to Northern Ireland and see how your analogy is completely debunked you mong.

devereaux17

johnathan woss wrote: »

The Irish have made a great contribution to Britain over the years and have integrated there thoroughly.
You will meet many English people who have Irish parents or grand-parents but who are TOTALLY English.

I think your personal position is making you bitter towards Irish people in general. That is regrettable but it certainly won't encourage anyone to look at your situation differently.
Bad cases make for bad laws.

How about giving immigrant groups in Ireland a 100 years and come back to me you ****ing gimp.

but ah sure i'll be banned now won't i :rolleyes:

fast forward 50 years

The Nigerians have made a great contribution to Ireland over the years and have integrated there thoroughly.
You will meet many Irish people who have Nigerian parents or grand-parents but who are TOTALLY Irish.

For the record many Irish people would never identify themselves as English despite being born in England yet this is admirable and praised by people in this country but for any other other group to do this is frowned upon.

samsham

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Your situation has nothing to do with the referendum.

1) The referendum was whether or not children with no Irish parents become citizens. Children with no Irish parents would henceforth not be citizens.

2) Your child has one Irish parent therefore he/she is a citizen.

Therefore, the referendum has nothing to do with your situation. Your child becomes a citizen either way. The question of whether the mother becomes a citizen or whether she can be deported has nothing to do with the referendum which only concerned the child.

The implications of the referendum were that if the child was a citizen the mother has a legal right to stay.

Regardless of referendum outcome being yes or no, it doesn't effect you. Your child is a citizen therefore the mother has a legal right to stay. The referendum only concerns children whose parents are both non-Irish.

wrong if the Irish parent no longer exists trough death or divorce, there in the same circumstance the mother can be deported.

opo

samsham wrote: »

Still you just send an Irish citizen packing back to the slums of god knows where.

OK.

So now we know you don't have the brains to sort out some life insurance that would probably translate into an opulent lifestyle in whatever slum ridden cesspit you imagine your wife lived in - in the highly unlikly event she were expelled there with her Irish citizen child.

johnathan woss

devereaux17 wrote: »

Moron.

West-Brit idiot.

Go to Northern Ireland and see how your analogy is completely debunked you mong.

I'm a West Brit why ?
Because I don't hate Britain ?

samsham

opo wrote: »

OK.

So now we know you don't have the brains to sort out some life insurance that would probably translate into an opulent lifestyle in whatever slum ridden cesspit you imagine your wife lived in - in the highly unlikly event she were expelled there with her Irish citizen child.

Hang on a moment, even if my circumstance allows my wife a good future.
I am not simply blinded to people in similar circumstances who might be less
fortunate. My point here was this policy was aimed at Africans which is racist.
When you lose a debate you resort to insults. Am I not entitled to raise concerns?

devereaux17

Yes liking Britian would make you a west-brit, good one there. fool.

I like UK, especially London its a real cool diverse place, immigrants contributed to make it that cool and diverse place we see today.

PaulieD

devereaux17 wrote: »

Yes liking Britian would make you a west-brit, good one there. fool.

I like UK, especially London its a real cool diverse place, immigrants contributed to make it that cool and diverse place we see today.

I dont think London is a good advertisement for the multicult. London is suffering a crime epidemic. Knife crime is through the roof. Many parts of London are ghettos. White flight is rife.

It maybe a "cool" place to visit once every so often, but I would not live there for love nor money.

opo

samsham wrote: »

Hang on a moment, even if my circumstance allows my wife a good future.
I am not simply blinded to people in similar circumstances who might be less
fortunate. My point here was this policy was aimed at Africans which is racist.
When you lose a debate you resort to insults. Am I not entitled to raise concerns?

Really?

Please quote the relevant african-specific text.

You are entitled to raise concerns, however, your are not entitled to conclude you have won any debate based on an observation that you are fundamentally derelict in not providing for your child - given your overplayed concerns.

I provide for my childern even if I die - at a cost. I don't throw bouquets at myself for doing it nor do I post on internet forums - idiotic concerns that others are not doing it for me because they are "racists" or otherwise not unusually compelled to do so.

devereaux17

Well many Irish would disagree, despite UK being in a recession I have heard of many Irish who have moved there in the last while. Its a city of great opportunity, hence it will always receive immigrants. If Dublin ever has the same pull as London then I'll know the city has developed well(because lets be real Dublin is the only multicultural place in Ireland and even then its predominently native)

What about the many parts of Dublin that are 99% 'native' which suffer from terrible crime, is that a bad advertisement of the 'native' irish?

samsham

PaulieD wrote: »

I dont think London is a good advertisement for the multicult. London is suffering a crime epidemic. Knife crime is through the roof. Many parts of London are ghettos. White flight is rife.

It maybe a "cool" place to visit once every so often, but I would not live there for love nor money.

Well I managed to live in Harlesden for a good few years. Never attacked.
Made pension contributions there too. just for that other post.

PaulieD

samsham wrote: »

Hang on a moment, even if my circumstance allows my wife a good future.
I am not simply blinded to people in similar circumstances who might be less
fortunate. My point here was this policy was aimed at Africans which is racist.
When you lose a debate you resort to insults. Am I not entitled to raise concerns?

Immigration controls and the closing of loopholes is racist now is it? Please stop throwing the race card around, it is not doing you any favours. If you came onto this thread, asked for help and listened to others I would be the first to help you lobby the relevant minister to make an exception to the rule for your case.

Australia is like fort knox for immigrants, everybody is screened, any serious previous convictions and you wont get in, any contagious diseases and you wont get in, no means to support yourself and you wont get in, if they suspect you will work there illegally you wont get in, if you previously overstayed a visa by a day you wont get in.

Is that a racist immigration policy or just common sense? I would go with the latter. As an island we could learn a lot from them.

PaulieD

devereaux17 wrote: »

Well many Irish would disagree, despite UK being in a recession I have heard of many Irish who have moved there in the last while. Its a city of great opportunity, hence it will always receive immigrants. If Dublin ever has the same pull as London then I'll know the city has developed well(because lets be real Dublin is the only multicultural place in Ireland and even then its predominently native)

What about the many parts of Dublin that are 99% 'native' which suffer from terrible crime, is that a bad advertisement of the 'native' irish?

Hang on, whats wrong with Dublin being "predominently native"? Do you want fair immigration controls or the Irish to become a minority in their own country?

"I like Nigeria, great country and all, but its too predominently native."

See my point?

It seems to me you just dont want mass immigration, you want to change Irish society by importing anyone and everyone. Prey tell, where will they all work?

devereaux17

Ireland does have a strict immigration policy.

Obviously in reality 100,000 Polish people is a lot and would really change the country but the reality is we are in the EU and thus are not technically immigrants, more migrants, yes we could have closed our borders to accession states but sooner or later they would have been opened anyway. One of the main principles of EU is 'free movement' so without that its pretty pointless.

samsham

opo wrote: »

Really?

Please quote the relevant african-specific text.

You are entitled to raise concerns, however, your are not entitled to conclude you have won any debate based on an observation that you are fundamentally derelict in not providing for your child - given your overplayed concerns.

I provide for my childern even if I die - at a cost. I don't throw bouquets at myself for doing it nor do I post on internet forums - idiotic concerns that others are not doing it for me because they are "racists" or otherwise not unusually compelled to do so.

A massive number of Nigerians have immigrated to Ireland. The previous Minister for Justice stated that no amnesty was to be granted to these people, yet a scheme was designed to allow them remain in Ireland called the IBC/05 scheme.


This scheme granted the right of full welfare benefits to these immigrants.

Whats wrong with you, you not reading the posts. If you think you can
proved for your kids even if the worse happens, you alone or very naive.

devereaux17

PaulieD wrote: »

Hang on, whats wrong with Dublin being "predominently native"? Do you want fair immigration controls or the Irish to become a minority in their own country?

"I like Nigeria, great country and all, but its too predominently native."

See my point?

It seems to me you just dont want mass immigration, you want to change Irish society by importing anyone and everyone. Prey tell, where will they all work?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

thats all that post deserves, there is nothing wrong(or right) about dublin being predominently 'native'(of course native referring to anyone with a gael surname, norse surname, english surname, scottish surname. french anglicised surname)

Oh and any succesful country(or city) will receive immigrants, London has far more prestige than Dublin, its a world city, a cultural melting pot and if Dublin is doing well it will need immigrants.

opo

samsham wrote: »

A massive number of Nigerians have immigrated to Ireland. The previous Minister for Justice stated that no amnesty was to be granted to these people, yet a scheme was designed to allow them remain in Ireland called the IBC/05 scheme.


This scheme granted the right of full welfare benefits to these immigrants.

Whats wrong with you, you not reading the posts. If you think you can
proved for your kids even if the worse happens, you alone or very naive.

I have provided for my childern as a responsible adult.

Do NOT try suggest otherwise.

Be a man for God's sake and do the same and stop acting like the troll I suspect you are.

PaulieD

samsham wrote: »

A massive number of Nigerians have immigrated to Ireland. The previous Minister for Justice stated that no amnesty was to be granted to these people, yet a scheme was designed to allow them remain in Ireland called the IBC/05 scheme.


This scheme granted the right of full welfare benefits to these immigrants.

Whats wrong with you, you not reading the posts. If you think you can
proved for your kids even if the worse happens, you alone or very naive.

Thanks for copying and pasting one of my previous posts.;)

samsham

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Your situation has nothing to do with the referendum.

1) The referendum was whether or not children with no Irish parents become citizens. Children with no Irish parents would henceforth not be citizens.

2) Your child has one Irish parent therefore he/she is a citizen.

Therefore, the referendum has nothing to do with your situation. Your child becomes a citizen either way. The question of whether the mother becomes a citizen or whether she can be deported has nothing to do with the referendum which only concerned the child.

The implications of the referendum were that if the child was a citizen the mother has a legal right to stay.

Regardless of referendum outcome being yes or no, it doesn't effect you. Your child is a citizen therefore the mother has a legal right to stay. The referendum only concerns children whose parents are both non-Irish.

Why don't you believe me? my wife gets an annual visa. If I am
not present she gets no visa. Very simple. WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME?

herya

samsham wrote: »

Why don't you believe me? my wife gets an annual visa. If I am
not present she gets no visa. Very simple. WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME?

I suppose there is a difference between you not being present because you can't be bothered and because you're dead.

samsham

herya wrote: »

I suppose there is a difference between you not being present because you can't be bothered and because you're dead.

no difference in emigration law. I am viewed as a sponsor of an emigrant spouse
If I no longer exist there is no sponsor. Not a happy situation for me.

johnathan woss

devereaux17 wrote: »

How about giving immigrant groups in Ireland a 100 years and come back to me you ****ing gimp.

but ah sure i'll be banned now won't i :rolleyes:

I see you got banned from After Hours for calling someone else who disagreed with you "an absolute idiot". :pac:

Are all supporters of mass third world immigration into Ireland as tolerant as you ?

opo

samsham wrote: »

Why don't you believe me? my wife gets an annual visa. If I am
not present she gets no visa. Very simple. WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME?

I am still waiting for you to prove your assertion that the laws are anti-African.

Are you thinking of doing that?

samsham

opo wrote: »

I am still waiting for you to prove your assertion that the laws are anti-African.

Are you thinking of doing that?

A massive number of Nigerians have immigrated to Ireland. The previous Minister for Justice stated that no amnesty was to be granted to these people, yet a scheme was designed to allow them remain in Ireland called the IBC/05 scheme.


This scheme granted the right of full welfare benefits to these immigrants.

I tought I did. you don't remember the Master of the Comb during this debate
saying the Government were talking crap

A Primal Nut

samsham wrote: »

Why don't you believe me? my wife gets an annual visa. If I am
not present she gets no visa. Very simple. WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME?

YES, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM THAT TOOK PLACE!!!! WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME!! If you want your wife to get a permanent visa or citizenship that would require a very different referendum which has nothing to do with the one you are talking about. The one you are talking about concerned the child, not your wife!!

Unpossible

samsham wrote: »

no difference in emigration law. I am viewed as a sponsor of an emigrant spouse
If I no longer exist there is no sponsor. Not a happy situation for me.

Pardon my ignorance, but why do you need to renew it every year? My wife is chinese, last year* she was given a visa & GNIB card for one year. The garda said he would have given 4 except her passport was going to be up after one year. This year she got her new chinese passport and was given a 4 year multi-entry visa & GNIB card, when it is up she can apply for permanent residency or citizenship. Have you tried talking to the citizen advice people on getting longer visa's?
Personally if I were in the country at the time I would have voted for the change, the change didn't affect my daughter becomming an irish citizen.

*edit: we only moved back to Ireland last year so appart from a tourist visa a few years earlier that was her first visa.

samsham

A Primal Nut wrote: »

YES, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM THAT TOOK PLACE!!!! WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE ME!! If you want your wife to get a permanent visa or citizenship that would require a very different referendum which has nothing to do with the one you are talking about. The one you are talking about concerned the child, not your wife!!

The child rights mean nothing, if one parent can be deported. This referendum insured no foreign national
parent has the right to stay in Ireland because there child was born here. How do you not see how it effects us.

opo

samsham wrote: »

A massive number of Nigerians have immigrated to Ireland. The previous Minister for Justice stated that no amnesty was to be granted to these people, yet a scheme was designed to allow them remain in Ireland called the IBC/05 scheme.


This scheme granted the right of full welfare benefits to these immigrants.

I tought I did. you don't remember the Master of the Comb during this debate
saying the Government were talking crap

I am convinced you are a troll.

Have you provided for your child in the event of your death or not?

samsham

Unpossible wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance, but why do you need to renew it every year? My wife is chinese, last year* she was given a visa & GNIB card for one year. The garda said he would have given 4 except her passport was going to be up after one year. This year she got her new chinese passport and was given a 4 year multi-entry visa & GNIB card, when it is up she can apply for permanent residency or citizenship. Have you tried talking to the citizen advice people on getting longer visa's?
Personally if I were in the country at the time I would have voted for the change, the change didn't affect my daughter becomming an irish citizen.

*edit: we only moved back to Ireland last year so appart from a tourist visa a few years earlier that was her first visa.

I wish I could say I was a liar. But we are on our second year here, we have been stamped for one year. My daughter is a citizen. But my wife is
not. She is here on condition she is a spouse of Irish. If that position changes so does her residency. I wish I was jokeing, but I am not. You wife is a sponsored by you. if those circumstances change, so does her residency.

samsham

opo wrote: »

I am convinced you are a troll.

Have you provided for your child in the event of your death or not?

That is not even an argument. What parent could provide for their child of 7 months. She has a life ahead of her. No I am not a millionaire. I have a pension but like most pensions of a 39 year old, worthless. I am a troll, Right great argument...

A Primal Nut

I'm sorry, but I really don't believe you - ok, your wife has to sign once a year with you present, but I refuse to believe the foreign mother of an Irish citizen can be deported because the Irish father died.

The whole point of that referendum is the very fact that if you are the parent of an Irish citizen you can stay, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Hence, a foreign mother who came over here during her pregnancy (with an Irish father) had automatic rights to stay because her child was born here and became a citizen. Now, if the child is no longer a citizen,she has no right to stay. So the referendum changed the constitution to state how a child could become an Irish citizen. This had only previously changed in the aftermath of the Good Friday agreement. The current situation existed before the Good Friday Agreement.

Now, if you are telling me, that in addition to changing the rights to citizenship of a child born here, the referendum also changed the rights of the mother of an Irish citizen to stay here (a very different issue) then I would be shocked (I certainly wasn't made aware of it at the time of the referendum) and you would definitely need a source to back that up!! I would like a third party legal opinion if anyone wishes to provide one?

Unpossible

samsham wrote: »

I wish I could say I was a liar. But we are on our second year here, we have been stamped for one year. My daughter is a citizen. But my wife is
not. She is here on condition she is a spouse of Irish. If that position changes so does her residency. I wish I was jokeing, but I am not.

Ok to start with, I'm not calling you a liar I'm just trying to figure out the reason for the differences. My wife is also here because of me but we had lived together in Finland before comming here, but I doubt that is the reason as we were students and only living together for a year before moving. I'm just saying it might be worth it for you to pop into one of the citizen advice places if you have not already done so or visit http://citizen.ie/ . I trust your wife has at least been given a stamp 4 on her GNIB card?

samsham

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I really don't believe you - ok, your wife has to sign once a year with you present, but I refuse to believe the foreign mother of an Irish citizen can be deported because the Irish father died.

The whole point of that referendum is the very fact that if you are the parent of an Irish citizen you can stay, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Hence, a foreign mother who came over here during her pregnancy (with an Irish father) had automatic rights to stay because her child was born here and became a citizen. Now, if the child is no longer a citizen,she has no right to stay. So the referendum changed the constitution to state how a child could become an Irish citizen. This had only previously changed in the aftermath of the Good Friday agreement. The current situation existed before the Good Friday Agreement.

Now, if you are telling me, that in addition to changing the rights to citizenship of a child born here, the referendum also changed the rights of the mother of an Irish citizen to stay here (a very different issue) then I would be shocked (I certainly wasn't made aware of it at the time of the referendum) and you would definitely need a source to back that up!! I would like a third party legal opinion if anyone wishes to provide one?

Thats what I am telling you.

samsham

Unpossible wrote: »

Ok to start with, I'm not calling you a liar I'm just trying to figure out the reason for the differences. My wife is also here because of me but we had lived together in Finland before comming here, but I doubt that is the reason as we were students and only living together for a year before moving. I'm just saying it might be worth it for you to pop into one of the citizen advice places if you have not already done so or visit http://citizen.ie/ . I trust your wife has at least been given a stamp 4 on her GNIB card?

Well there is a difference if your spouse lived in the EU more that three years before coming to Ireland.

Unpossible

Even if she was not a permanent resident there?
meh, to be honest I would see the renewing it every year part as being a minor inconvienence we've been through worse at the hands of finnish and irish bureaucrats and my wife doesn't really have any problem with going back home if she had to.
Good luck with your situation, hopefully you will be fine and your family won't have to go through all of those things in your OP

civildefence

samsham wrote: »

WOW! That's a whole new debate. Essentially the UK and Ireland were the same country. Same religion, values and culture. Now that's some statement. Can't believe you really believe that. The British Empire crossed the globe. The UK is a land of many cultures values and languages. What ever about our shared history, as a people we are poles apart.

The Irish are VERY like the British whether that suits you or not, we are influenced by them. We watch their TV channels, read their newspapers, we play sport with them collectively. We are by no means poles apart.

Sorry for going off topic, just replying to this one post.

opo

samsham wrote: »

That is not even an argument. What parent could provide for their child of 7 months. She has a life ahead of her. No I am not a millionaire. I have a pension but like most pensions of a 39 year old, worthless. I am a troll, Right great argument...

So now we have established you cannot distinguish the difference between a pension and life insurance, nor do you understand the difference between retiring or dying with either.

Have it your way. If you die - the first thing the government will do, as a matter of national urgency; is charter a plane and fly your destitute wife and child into a foreign slum and burn their passports. Your pension will be worthless and any life insurance will be confiscated by the taxpayer under secret special provisions reserved for Africans.

Happy now?

asdasd

samsham is right about the potential for deportation.

n January 2003 the Supreme Court distinguished the earlier decision and ruled that it was constitutional for the Government to deport the parents of children who were Irish citizens.[49] This latter decision would have been thought to put the matter to rest but concerns remained about the propriety of the (albeit indirect) deportation of Irish citizens and what was perceived as the overly generous provisions of Irish nationality law.

not related to the referendum, though, since his child is Irish anyway.

oscarBravo

deveraux17 in particular, but everyone take note: calm down. I strongly suggest everyone re-read the forum charter before posting again.

samsham, please stop posting in bold text.

HollyB

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Now, if you are telling me, that in addition to changing the rights to citizenship of a child born here, the referendum also changed the rights of the mother of an Irish citizen to stay here (a very different issue) then I would be shocked (I certainly wasn't made aware of it at the time of the referendum) and you would definitely need a source to back that up!! I would like a third party legal opinion if anyone wishes to provide one?

That's incorrect. In 2003, more than a year before the referendum took place, the Supreme Court ruled that being the parent of an Irish citizen child was not a barrier to deportation. The citizenship referendum ended a situation where every child born in Ireland was automatically an Irish citizen but it had already been determined that being the parent of an Irish citizen child did not give a foreign national an automatic right to stay here.

walrusgumble

samsham wrote: »

We had a referendum a few years ago on the rights of people with Irish born kids to live in Ireland. Shamefully we vote as our Government wanted. We ended the right of people with Irish Born kids to live in Ireland. My wife is Asian I am Irish, My child is Irish. Recently I had a health scare and this vote came back to haunt me. Obviously I voted for the rights of parents to stay in Ireland. But because the majority in Ireland voted with the Government, this means if I died my wife and kid can legally be kicked out of Ireland. I was married in 2007 so my wife is not a citizen yet. But were my health to fade and I died, my wife and child who obviously would stay with its mother can be kicked out of Ireland. I just wondered if Irish people knew this when voting. Because to me this referendum was nothing but pure racism. The government acknowledges in order to pay for our growing senior citizens pension we need population growth. So would someone who voted for this please explain what the hell they were thinking of?

sir

it HIGHELY HIGHELY HIGHELY UNLIKELY that your wife and/or child would be kicked out of ireland if you either died or seperated from your wife.

why? well first off, go to courts.ie and read macguiness j ruling in dimbo and okegunkwe may 2008 supreme court. the minister would have to look strongly at the following

a - age of child and mother,
b - connection with this state - husband/father is irish
c- the big one - how long has the non national (mother/wife) resided in this State.
d - there must be good and sufficent reasons for the non national's departure and child's best interests would need to be considered; the minister, in your case may have huge difficulties there
e - case law of european court of human rights have dealt on many occassions with this matter even where the parents are divored / seperated - you would still be required to maintain the child finacially.

you should have little difficulty sir. your wife should apply for citizens within 3 years of marriage (including at least one year continously residing in the country)

your case is hugely distinctive from the big case of loebe which helped to bring about this amendment.

in 2004 there were genuine reasons to change the laws. i do not believe for one minute that i need to comment on why this amendment was brought. i would simply saw read the loebe 2003 case and what evidence the department had given and the hugely potential abuse that our laws opened compare the amount of asylum applications and stories of persuction and compare them to the amount of cases that were withdrawn no later than 6 months after the child was born.

how many other eu countries still have automatic citizenship for all children born in their respective states? what about america?

i would respectively say your emotions are running away from the practical reasons for this change. there was nothing racist about this change. sure after a 2003 european court case of chen v uk, many eu states protested to the department of justice (a minister who was senior council in the famous fajujonu case in 1990) that ireland was a back door to potentially illegal immigration / abuse throughout europe because of its lacked citizenship rules.



i would suggest seeking legal advice on this area if you are concerned. the above is my humble opinion.

samsham

.[/quote]i would respectively say your emotions are running away from the practical reasons for this change. there was nothing racist about this change. sure after a 2003 european court case of chen v uk, many eu states protested to the department of justice (a minister who was senior council in the famous fajujonu case in 1990) that ireland was a back door to potentially illegal immigration / abuse throughout europe because of its lacked citizenship rules.

Think you are missing my point, We invite EU members here, in some cases
we have no choice. If emigration is a problem, why are we not applying the
same rules to all countries. Our emmigration policy seem to be aimed at African
nationals.
That is simply my point.

LostinKildare

walrusgumble wrote: »

how many other eu countries still have automatic citizenship for all children born in their respective states? what about america?

Romania is the only EU country that grants citizenship by birth. Most North American and South American countries do, including the U.S. and Canada.

It's not likely to change in the U.S. because it's so difficult to change the constitution.

esharknz

Interestingly enough, the following http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/WP07000024 states that there is no retention in rights of residence in the event of (only) separation/divorce.

I'm not sure if you've contacted the INIS (the details of the section you'd want to contact are contained in that link), but you could always see. Sometimes they don't respond to emails, so you may think about sending them a (registered) letter, as I believe they have to respond to a written letter.

Otherwise, I'd say some senior members of the GNIB would know the answer to your question. Depends on where you register really. I don't live in Dublin/Cork so deal with the one person.

Anyway, all the best.

asdasd

Our emmigration policy seem to be aimed at African
nationals.
That is simply my point.

That is idiotic. Firstly the Rest of the World is clearly not Africa.

Secondly the fact that we have a very Open Borders policy within Europe is a good reason to not open the borders outside Europe. There are 100 million Easter Europeans, who tend to immigrate, why would expand the net?

walrusgumble

samsham wrote: »

.

i would respectively say your emotions are running away from the practical reasons for this change. there was nothing racist about this change. sure after a 2003 european court case of chen v uk, many eu states protested to the department of justice (a minister who was senior council in the famous fajujonu case in 1990) that ireland was a back door to potentially illegal immigration / abuse throughout europe because of its lacked citizenship rules.

Think you are missing my point, We invite EU members here, in some cases
we have no choice. If emigration is a problem, why are we not applying the
same rules to all countries. Our emmigration policy seem to be aimed at African
nationals.
That is simply my point.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are correct, in that our immigration policy is primarily aimed at non eu and non irish people. Eu law itself in relation to free movement is going that way too (as it needs too) non eu citizens don't have the same rights of freemovement, establishment etc as the EU citizens coming to ireland. Non eu citizens (africans) get their status similar to EU when they marry or give birth to EU citizen ( of course non eu may have status on their own account such as work permit etc) the eu dont really have jurisdiction over how a member state deals with non eu citizens, ireland , like uk and denmark have opted out of a number of regulations/directives/protocols dealing with nin eu citizens.

Sir you are missing the point of the last paragraph in my previous post and the nature of Chen.

The matter was the concern of immigration of non eu nationals throughout the union. When freedom of movement principles were first established, it was mainly to cater for eu citizens only. of course times have greatly changed and more non eu citizens have come into the union for whatever reason.

Cases like Chen dealt with situations non nationals came into the country either illegally or legally but overstayed, or applied for asylum and once refused either side tracked the relevant states immigration policy whether it was via marriage or birth. Once the state recongised it, then the whole EU recongised it, thus allowing a family to travel any where with the Eu citizen. - under no circumstances am i trying to put the op's position anywhere near the category of people in this post.

if non eu people are granted status on the basis of citizenship, what is to say that they would be prevented from "joining" and or accompaning their EU country

cases like chen got some of the big boys in europe angry as ireland was the only eu state at that time to give automatic citizenship by birth, thus in addition, EU citizenship which meant the child and their parent could live in other eu states. The european courts did not entertain arguments / allegations from both ireland and the uk that the parent crossed over to belfast illegally/to side tracked the uk immigration laws to obtain irish citizenship for the child. The court was only interested about whether or not the laws allowed citizenship for the child, thus EU citizenship.

cases like chen and lobe helped the state to reconsider its laws on citizenship in ireland so that in the future no citizenshop would be conferred to a child unless the parent met a number of criterias.

walrusgumble

LostinKildare wrote: »

Romania is the only EU country that grants citizenship by birth. Most North American and South American countries do, including the U.S. and Canada.

It's not likely to change in the U.S. because it's so difficult to change the constitution.

As you know romanians still require work permits to work in IReland if they had not legally resided in Ireland prior to their entry to the union. It would be interesting to see for how long romania keep its citizenship laws in the future if more non eu people locate there.