Is Islam right for Ireland?

Brae100

bubblypop wrote: »

He is an Irish citizen according to the press. Also holds an English passport.
Not everybody needs to apply for citizenship, it's automatic sometimes

He was born in the UK to a Turkish father and an Irish/English mother. They moved here when he was 12. The normal practice with these inter-marriages is that it is a Muslim male who marries a western woman who will convert to Islam. The children are then brought up as Hardline. There are no incidents of a conservative Muslim male marrying a western woman who doesn't convert. Go figure.

fritzelly

bubblypop wrote: »

He is an Irish citizen according to the press. Also holds an English passport.
Not everybody needs to apply for citizenship, it's automatic sometimes

Yep because we believe what the press tells us, he has no automatic citizenship unless applied for

old_aussie

fritzelly wrote: »

Good to know he's seen the errors of his ways even tho he wanted to go out there fighting for them.
Irish laws need some updating, once indoctrinated it's not a case of saying I was wrong, sorry judge and won't do it again. Your whole life mentality has been revolving around this - not an easy thing to change. Just look at how cults operate.

A leopard never changes his spots.

fritzelly

fritzelly wrote: »

Yep because we believe what the press tells us, he has no automatic citizenship unless applied for

Yes he does.
His mother, according to brae 100 is English/Irish.
He is an Irish citizen.

Captain Obvious

Brae100 wrote: »

There are no incidents of a conservative Muslim male marrying a western woman who doesn't convert.

On what information have you based this?

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

On what information have you based this?

Read it again C.O
It's an obvious tautology

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I would treat them the same as every other criminal in this country.

we had special criminal courts and laws for dealing with the IRA. This latest crap also needs to be dealt with in its own way.

Personally I`d strip someone like that of citizenship, pay a country like Iraq to put them on trial where they could swing from a noose. The massacre happened in Iraq. Instead Finland let them go on a technicality. Both twins were with ISIS, both are suspected of massacring the Iraqi prisoners. Only one was on video and because they couldnt prove which one because they are identical twins we now have two ISIS fighters free with asylum.

Now the fella sending money to ISIS should be sent to be dealt with by the laws of whatever country suffers from ISIS funding e.g Iraq or Syria.

Laws in Europe are too liberal for this kind of thing and seems nobody wants a Guantanamo Bay option, they would all rather A) let them walk among us or let someone else do the nasty work like the French having the Iraqis take a 'kill em all' approach to French citizens found there.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

we had special criminal courts and laws for dealing with the IRA. This latest crap also needs to be dealt with in its own way.

Personally I`d strip someone like that of citizenship, pay a country like Iraq to put them on trial where they could swing from a noose. The massacre happened in Iraq. Instead Finland let them go on a technicality. Both twins were with ISIS, both are suspected of massacring the Iraqi prisoners. Only one was on video and because they couldnt prove which one because they are identical twins we now have two ISIS fighters free with asylum.

Now the fella sending money to ISIS should be sent to be dealt with by the laws of whatever country suffers from ISIS funding e.g Iraq or Syria.

Laws in Europe are too liberal for this kind of thing and seems nobody wants a Guantanamo Bay option, they would all rather A) let them walk among us or let someone else do the nasty work like the French having the Iraqis take a 'kill em all' approach to French citizens found there.

Would you strip someone convicted of being in the IRA of their citizenship?

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Would you strip someone convicted of being in the IRA of their citizenship?

It's a bit different, no?

Irish person agitating for the removal of what he perceives as an occupying force from his country

V.

Person granted Irish citizen ship after some bu115hit application process fundraising for arguably the most dispicable regime bent on wholesale slaughter of anyone disagreeing with them or having a different belief.

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

It's a bit different, no?

Irish person agitating for the removal of what he perceives as an occupying force from his country

V.

Person granted Irish citizen ship after some bu115hit application process fundraising for arguably the most dispicable regime bent on wholesale slaughter of anyone disagreeing with them or having a different belief.

So you are in favour of a different kind of citizenship for naturalised citizens?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you are in favour of a different kind of citizenship for naturalised citizens?

Dual citizens should be stripped of it and deported without a doubt.
For citizens with only Irish citizenship if the crime is related to things occuring in the middle east or inspired by terrorists in the middle east then yes send them there to be dealt with.

Our own home grown terrorists were dealt with here and both are fitting.

Wibbs

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Read it again C.O
It's an obvious tautology

Funny enough it's not RH. It's allowed that a Muslim man can marry a non Muslim woman so long as she is "of the book", IE Jewish or Christian. Naturally it's encouraged to convert, but not mandatory. IIRC one of Mohammed's wives stayed Christian/Jewish. Many years ago I knew an Egyptian Muslim guy who married an Egyptian Christian woman and both were pretty devout(she wore a headscarf which is traditional in them neck of the woods). The kids have to be brought up Muslim. The reverse is not the case. A non Muslim man, Christian or Jew, can't marry a Muslim woman.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

Dual citizens should be stripped of it and deported without a doubt.
For citizens with only Irish citizenship if the crime is related to things occuring in the middle east or inspired by terrorists in the middle east then yes send them there to be dealt with.

Our own home grown terrorists were dealt with here and both are fitting.

So if a guy has UK and British citizenship and commits a terrorist offence he should be deported to the UK?



And if a guy has only Irish citizenship and commits a terrorist offence he should be deported to the middle east? Any country in particular?


No Irish people serving sentences in NI or UK for terrorist offences?

Giraffe Box

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough it's not RH. It's allowed that a Muslim man can marry a non Muslim woman so long as she is "of the book", IE Jewish or Christian. Naturally it's encouraged to convert, but not mandatory. IIRC one of Mohammed's wives stayed Christian/Jewish. Many years ago I knew an Egyptian Muslim guy who married an Egyptian Christian woman and both were pretty devout(she wore a headscarf which is traditional in them neck of the woods). The kids have to be brought up Muslim. The reverse is not the case. A non Muslim man, Christian or Jew, can't marry a Muslim woman.

It's allowed in Tunisia.
I can't post an attachment because I'm a new user, but you'll find it below.
Tunisian women free to marry non-Muslims - BBC News - BBC.com

Wibbs

Giraffe Box wrote: »

It's allowed in Tunisia.

Oh it happens and is allowed by law in a few places alright GB, but I think the original point was along the lines of a devout Muslim couldn't.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

It's a bit different, no?

Irish person agitating for the removal of what he perceives as an occupying force from his country

V.

Person granted Irish citizen ship after some bu115hit application process fundraising for arguably the most dispicable regime bent on wholesale slaughter of anyone disagreeing with them or having a different belief.

TBH, I wouldn't consider them different. The IRA are not a legitimate force representing the interests of the Republic, and the Republic is at peace with Britain anyway. It's a case of double standards. In my eyes, a proven member of the IRA is just as bad as any terrorist, and should be treated exactly the same.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, I wouldn't consider them different. The IRA are not a legitimate force representing the interests of the Republic, and the Republic is at peace with Britain anyway. It's a case of double standards. In my eyes, a proven member of the IRA is just as bad as any terrorist, and should be treated exactly the same.

The question seemed to be regarding past pre-GFA IRA, not current.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The question seemed to be regarding past pre-GFA IRA, not current.

And my answer would be the same.

The only exception would be regarding the actions of the IRB/IRA prior to the formation of the Republic. We are not living in the North of Ireland. We are citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and have no just cause against Britain since our nations are at peace. I do not, and never have, supported the methods of the provisional IRA in their "war" against Britain, and TBH, based on their behavior I question the claims for unification with Ireland. They're terrorists in the modern sense of the word, and they should be treated exactly the same as any terrorist. I would say the same for any of the terrorist organisations (or "freedom fighter" groups) in the North. As a criminal and tried harshly for their crimes.

Any suggestion of finding excuses for their behavior justifies the behavior of Islamic terrorists in Europe. Terrorism should be deemed unacceptable in all cases, and no allowances made... otherwise it is simply encouraging a case of double standards...

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

TBH, I wouldn't consider them different. The IRA are not a legitimate force representing the interests of the Republic, and the Republic is at peace with Britain anyway. It's a case of double standards. In my eyes, a proven member of the IRA is just as bad as any terrorist, and should be treated exactly the same.

TBH I'd consider them completely different.

Notwithstanding the old adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", the IRA activist/sympathizer believes his country is occupied by a foreign country. His end game is the removal of that force. Thereafter his activity ceases.

This ISIS sympathiser uses a country of convenience that granted citizenship, to raise funds for an organization, in a different state, hell bent on the destruction of anyone that doesn't share their ideology. Their end game is annihilation of all others.

There is no comparison.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And my answer would be the same.

The only exception would be regarding the actions of the IRB/IRA prior to the formation of the Republic. We are not living in the North of Ireland. We are citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and have no just cause against Britain since our nations are at peace. I do not, and never have, supported the methods of the provisional IRA in their "war" against Britain, and TBH, based on their behavior I question the claims for unification with Ireland. They're terrorists in the modern sense of the word, and they should be treated exactly the same as any terrorist. I would say the same for any of the terrorist organisations (or "freedom fighter" groups) in the North. As a criminal and tried harshly for their crimes.

Any suggestion of finding excuses for their behavior justifies the behavior of Islamic terrorists in Europe. Terrorism should be deemed unacceptable in all cases, and no allowances made... otherwise it is simply encouraging a case of double standards...

And therein you just contradict yourself, double standards indeed you hypocrite.
One "terrorist" is acceptable to you.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

And therein you just contradict yourself, double standards indeed you hypocrite.
One "terrorist" is acceptable to you.

Yup. Deleted two posts.

Ignored.

2 Scoops

4,500 new cases of Female Genital Mutilation were recorded in England over the last year, more than one every two hours, official data shows.

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/female-genital-mutilation/female-genital-mutilation-fgm---annual-report-2017-18/content

4068ac1elhodqr

In Bradford, around 70 per cent of young people with Pakistani heritage are thought to marry their first cousins.
This is despite medical evidence, suggesting the practice leads to genetic problems for their offspring.

Consanguineous marriage, was accounted to be the source for nearly a third of abnormalities in a study.
Bradford is also double the national average for these incidents.

Whilst not illegal as such (not sure why it isn't), it certainly is something that should be discouraged, anywhere really.
It carries an estimated 6% risk of abnormalties to the unborn. why even create that level of risk, when it can easily be avoided.

fritzelly

Liana Scruffy Jell-o wrote: »

It carries an estimated 6% risk of abnormalties to the unborn. why even create that level of risk, when it can easily be avoided.

That's only slightly higher (about 2%) more than the average.
Problem is more to do with children of these marriages then marrying within the "family"

biko

Bringing Islam to Ireland is the worst idea imaginable in a very long list of bad ideas.

There is no single good thing about Islam, not one.

4068ac1elhodqr

fritzelly wrote: »

That's only slightly higher (about 2%) more than the average.
Problem is more to do with children of these marriages then marrying within the "family"

6/2=x3. But that excludes pre-existing health conditions, age and so forth that make that 2%.

Imagine it dates back to medieval times when it was deemed a good idea to keep any wealth within the family as such.

You used to hear about 3rd cousins out in the boglands way back in the olden days. But imagine it has since ceased thanks to dancehall/discos and of course tinder app.

Literally can't see the attraction.

fritzelly

fritzelly wrote: »

That's only slightly higher (about 2%) more than the average.

It's double.

Problem is more to do with children of these marriages then marrying within the "family"

What?

Pero_Bueno

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Just in case all the hysterical "racist screamers" start demanding links ...

Brae100

Brae100 wrote: »

You've certainly helped narrow down your demographic. Shorthand Tinder lingo. Must be widowed pensioner in Offaly.

Banned.

I don't post here a lot, but I shall not be posting anymore. I got a 24 hour ban from all of After Hours for the above post. I questioned it and received no reply.

When you take time to engage and invest in a constructive debate, it is extremely annoying when some prick with no sense of humour, or limited understanding of satire or sarcasm decide that a forum is their personal fiefdom and starts banning people with no warning or proper explanation.

Although this ban was only for 24 hours, it covered a other couple of threadsin AH that I had also contributed to. Fortime constrained adult, it is difiicult enough to keep up with fast moving threads. Getting banned for a day by some arsehole who is looking for something to be offended about doesn't help.

This is not school. This is adults trying to debate serious topics. Banning adults for jokes they don't understand! Gob****e. Pretty soon you will be left with just the people who agree with you. Enjoy the groupthink.

For whatever ban I receive for this, you can shove that up your hole too.

2 Scoops

Jokes are over the line, calling someone a white supremacist Nazi is fine though. Dem's the rules.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you are in favour of a different kind of citizenship for naturalised citizens?

you've sort of answered your own question.

If citizenship can be granted by ministerial order it should be revocable by ministerial order, for certain offences; crimes against humanity, genocide, or the fundraising or logistical support to one of the most evil organisations ever, hell bent on the destruction of anyone and everyone that does not share their ideology, or the raping of kids because Allah told them it's ok.

If this revocation leaves our friend without the protection of his citizenship so be it. might make others consider their actions.

some people might prefer to stand at airports with Welcome Home Jihadis - You're a grand lot all the same- pull those green jerseys on again"

but we dont all have to be mugs

fritzelly

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes he does.
His mother, according to brae 100 is English/Irish.
He is an Irish citizen.

Mother of Irish descent not Irish

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you've sort of answered your own question.

If citizenship can be granted by ministerial order it should be revocable by ministerial order, for certain offences; crimes against humanity, genocide, or the fundraising or logistical support to one of the most evil organisations ever, hell bent on the destruction of anyone and everyone that does not share their ideology, or the raping of kids because Allah told them it's ok.

If this revocation leaves our friend without the protection of his citizenship so be it. might make others consider their actions.

some people might prefer to stand at airports with Welcome Home Jihadis - You're a grand lot all the same- pull those green jerseys on again"

but we dont all have to be mugs

What about second generation immigrants who go off to fight for ISIS. Should their citizenship be removed also?

bluewizard

No. Next?

bluewizard

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What about second generation immigrants who go off to fight for ISIS. Should their citizenship be removed also?

Yes.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you've sort of answered your own question.

If citizenship can be granted by ministerial order it should be revocable by ministerial order, for certain offences; crimes against humanity, genocide, or the fundraising or logistical support to one of the most evil organisations ever, hell bent on the destruction of anyone and everyone that does not share their ideology, or the raping of kids because Allah told them it's ok.

If this revocation leaves our friend without the protection of his citizenship so be it. might make others consider their actions.

some people might prefer to stand at airports with Welcome Home Jihadis - You're a grand lot all the same- pull those green jerseys on again"

but we dont all have to be mugs

What about second generation immigrants who go off to fight for ISIS. Should their citizenship be removed also?

What's a second generation imigrant?
Are they not Irish?

Back to our first chap. How dear do you hold your citizenship ? Cheaply I imagine . Something to be given easily?

ninja 12

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you are in favour of a different kind of citizenship for naturalised citizens?

Citizenship given to naturalized citizens should be seen as a privilege , something to be cherished and not abused .

If in immigrant applies for and is given citizenship , is that not on the understanding that they will respect the laws and culture of their new home ?

If they cannot or will not abide by these principles , then I would have absolutely no problem with citizenship being revoked .

The same applies for all cases where citizenship is granted ( not just here in Ireland )

Doesn't the Minister for Foreign Affairs not have the power to revoke such citizenship ?

Have a read here -
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/citizenship-revocation

Below is from the first page -

You will be contacted by the Minister for Justice and Equality if your citizenship is to be revoked. Irish citizenship can only be revoked in you obtained it by naturalisation.
Citizenship may be revoked if:
It was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or by concealing relevant facts
You have failed in your duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state
Read other circumstances in which citizenship can be revoked

I'm sure this chap from Waterford would easily fall into this category

Sending money to a terrorist organization and traveling to fight for them would indicate to me that he has no loyalty to the State of Ireland .

Captain Obvious

bluewizard wrote: »

No. Next?

bluewizard wrote: »

Yes.

I'm not sure what is more amusing. I like that you hedged your bets and gave completely different answers in two different posts but I also like that people thanked your second one and ignored your first.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What's a second generation imigrant?
Are they not Irish?

I'm referring to the child of a naturalised citizen. People have been very quick to point out that second and third generations are the ones that engage in fanatacism so I'm wondering what your plan is for them.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Back to our first chap. How dear do you hold your citizenship ? Cheaply I imagine . Something to be given easily?

I don't hold my citizenship to be more important than someone who was not born here and I don't see citizenship as having multiple tiers. What's the point in granting citizenship if you can just remove it again?

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

bluewizard wrote: »

No. Next?

bluewizard wrote: »

Yes.

I'm not sure what is more amusing. I like that you hedged your bets and gave completely different answers in two different posts but I also like that people thanked your second one and ignored your first.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What's a second generation imigrant?
Are they not Irish?

I'm referring to the child of a naturalised citizen. People have been very quick to point out that second and third generations are the ones that engage in fanatacism so I'm wondering what your plan is for them.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Back to our first chap. How dear do you hold your citizenship ? Cheaply I imagine . Something to be given easily?

I don't hold my citizenship to be more important than someone who was not born here and I don't see citizenship as having multiple tiers. What's the point in granting citizenship if you can just remove it again?

No need for "multiple tiers".

If something is given or bestowed, unless its a gift, it should be conditional. And revocable for failure to abide by those conditions.
It's quite simple.

Looks like you regard citizenship similar to martime flags - flags of convenience?

CruelCoin

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What about second generation immigrants who go off to fight for ISIS. Should their citizenship be removed also?

No.

I'm a second-generation immigrant.
But I was born here, raised here, went to school here, paid my taxes here, voted here at every single vote I was eligible for.
Apart from the blood, I am as Irish as anyone else.

If I were to go fight for Isis, should I be removed to Holland?
No, why should I? On what grounds would it be fair to boot me out to a (relatively) foreign land/culture.

Imprison me, kill me, but forced exile is the stuff of monarchies/nobility and the dark ages, and really rather welchy and weak punishment.

Rory28

CruelCoin wrote: »

No.

I'm a second-generation immigrant.
But I was born here, raised here, went to school here, paid my taxes here, voted here at every single vote I was eligible for.
Apart from the blood, I am as Irish as anyone else.

If I were to go fight for Isis, should I be removed to Holland?
No, why should I? On what grounds would it be fair to boot me out to a (relatively) foreign land/culture.

Imprison me, kill me, but forced exile is the stuff of monarchies/nobility and the dark ages, and really rather welchy and weak punishment.

If you hypothetically did go to fight for isis and attacked holland i would have no issue sending you back there to face punishment. if any 2nd 3rd generation immigrant declares for isis then they have already renounced whatever citizenship they had anyway.

CruelCoin

Rory28 wrote: »

If you hypothetically did go to fight for isis and attacked holland i would have no issue sending you back there to face punishment. if any 2nd 3rd generation immigrant declares for isis then they have already renounced whatever citizenship they had anyway.

I'd have no problem with being told to stay in whatever sandbucket you went fighting in, regardless of generation 1/2/3/4

kubjones

I recall reading a paper recently enough (excuse me for not remember the author right now, I'm sure a quick google search might bring it up) but it shows that large-scale migration decreases the levels of integration almost completely. IE. the immigration of say, 10 people from a different culture in the same area will integrate within first generation offspring, whereas 100+ people moving into a similar area, integration is greatly extended, sometimes indefinitely.

I think immigration is great, the problem is that its not as easy as just bringing as many people over as we can all at once and we'll be best friends and buy each other lollypops and tell each other ghost stories on the beach. There are complexities to everything. When you think about the societal differences between Western and Middle-Eastern countries, these kind of differences are not disregardable. To some that follow the Muslim faith quite closely (And some would be in the 10s of millions), Westerners are to be regarded with the same contempt as criminals, on the same level as dogs, a kind of "with us or against us" mentality.

Now I'm not sure about you, but I think dogs are class and anybody that thinks comparing people to dogs being a bad thing are obviously just wrong.

Irish people were just as bad with their extremist views influenced by religion, even as recently as the 90's, but I'm proud as punch to see my home abandoning ancient doctrine in lieu of more modern, acceptable ethics. I don't want anybody to be a victim of ideology. I don't like the idea of people thinking its not only acceptable, but godly to attack a person based on their sexuality. We need to consider that we might be able to avoid putting people in danger by taking a more measured approach.

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

No need for "multiple tiers".

If something is given or bestowed, unless its a gift, it should be conditional. And revocable for failure to abide by those conditions.
It's quite simple.

But that is a two tier citizenship. One type for people born here and one type for people naturalised. One which can be revoked and the other which cannot.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Looks like you regard citizenship similar to martime flags - flags of convenience?

I've no idea what you are getting at there.

CruelCoin wrote: »

No.

I'm a second-generation immigrant.
But I was born here, raised here, went to school here, paid my taxes here, voted here at every single vote I was eligible for.
Apart from the blood, I am as Irish as anyone else.

If I were to go fight for Isis, should I be removed to Holland?
No, why should I? On what grounds would it be fair to boot me out to a (relatively) foreign land/culture.

Imprison me, kill me, but forced exile is the stuff of monarchies/nobility and the dark ages, and really rather welchy and weak punishment.

Exactly. Citizenship is citizenship. It shouldn't be removed because you do something bad. Fundamental rights for citizens are pointless if you can simply remove citizenship from someone if you don't want to grant them their rights. If a person commits a terrorist offence they should be dealt with under our laws.

inforfun

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'd have no problem with being told to stay in whatever sandbucket you went fighting in, regardless of generation 1/2/3/4

Unfortunately, Holland doesnt as last week made clear when they accepted Reda Nidalha and Oussama Achraf Akhlafa back from their trip to Syria.

Also the 6 "Dutch" women still over there after joining ISIS begging to be welcomed back in The Netherlands.

I am sure all of them will turn into law abiding, productive members of the Dutch society.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But that is a two tier citizenship. One type for people born here and one type for people naturalised. One which can be revoked and the other which cannot.

you say this (Denaturalization) like its a bad thing? ...
whats wrong with revoking something as important as citizenship to a country from someone you gave it to, from someone that doesn't respect it, have regard to it, who disregards the norms and laws of the land which gave them the gift?
we're not talking unpaid TV licence here...

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Exactly. Citizenship is citizenship.

except its not

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It shouldn't be removed because you do something bad. Fundamental rights for citizens are pointless if you can simply remove citizenship from someone if you don't want to grant them their rights. If a person commits a terrorist offence they should be dealt with under our laws.

Yes it should, and it can.
US do it
Australia do it
Canada does it
Ireland does it

I could go on and on...


Ironic post from someone defending human rights for a supporter or ISIS.
I suppose you'll have that though

fritzelly

fritzelly wrote: »

Mother of Irish descent not Irish

If his mother is an Irish citizen, I am not aware of her history, then he is an Irish citizen

Roger Hassenforder

bubblypop wrote: »

If his mother is an Irish citizen, I am not aware of her history, then he is an Irish citizen

Not necessarily
Only if she was born (pre 2004) (or a grandparent) in Ireland, not naturalized AFAIK
it wouldn't be automatic

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not necessarily
Only if she was born (pre 2004) (or a grandparent) in Ireland, not naturalized AFAIK
it wouldn't be automatic

Well he is 26 or something, so fair bets she was born before then!

Roger Hassenforder

bubblypop wrote: »

Well he is 26 or something, so fair bets she was born before then!

Born in Ireland though?