End automatic citizenship for Irish Born children

Hogzy

TheJournal.ie seems to be a bunch of social justice warriors self declaring themselves as journalists trying to stir up outrage over the most minor things. The amount of "articles" that are published using sources based off of what people have said on twitter is staggering. Its a glorified blog. The Daily Edge is even worse which touts itself as an entertainment news site but is essentially pushing extreme feminist content and expecting such ideology to be the norm.

Yurt2

speedboatchase wrote: »

It would take under current EU laws, at a minimum, five years for my non-EAA wife to become an Irish citizen. Yet 80% of people believe that those who aren't even legally in the state can create a legal Irish citizen?

Not quite. Naturalisation and citizenship remains the competency of member states, and should remain so. In effect, if an individual has been in Ireland for 5 years (5 years of reckonable residency; legal residency) then the Minister will consider naturalisation. Even then, they are not entitled to naturalisation, it's strictly at the discretion of the Minister of Justice. So, if you have a criminal record, have been working in the black economy or otherwise are not of good character, the Minister can refuse naturalisation.

EDIT: I believe the time frame for non-EEA spouses is 3 years as opposed to 5 for those who aren't married to an Irish citizen

topper75

Yurt! wrote: »

It has become something of an article of faith for those on the political left that all immigration, no matter what its character,is 'good'. This despite the fact that mass low-skilled labour results in downward pressure on wages for those in the lower social economic strata. No economist would seriously dispute this. Yes, headline GDP may go up a per cent or so, but there are serious ramifications for wages, social services, access to housing, pressure on the health system, education system etc.

The 'gain' in GDP with this type of immigration is overwhelmingly eaten up by subway franchise owners, cleaning companies, multinational retail outlets, landlords and so on. The ordinary worker doesn't see the benefits for the most part, and in many ways, they lose out.

There was a rather curious report from IBEC from I think last year, where they made the argument that the 30k salary requirement for non-EEA nationals to get a work permit was 'too high'. I nearly spat out my cornflakes when I read it. Fact is, business interests, want to import an underclass and pay them undignified wages to prop up ailing and unproductive businesses. The state and middle earning taxpayers can mop up any problems that ensue. And strangely, the political left is doing the agitating and lobbying for them. Go figure.

The refusal of the modern left to look the working classes and the coping classes in the eye over the past couple of decades has been their major failing. And they wonder why populists are on the rise across the developed world.

Superb analysis.

Irish politics is in the most shambolic state since 1921.

You have a fractious left that seeks to serve all interests other than that of workers.

You have two large mé féin centrists who shadow box on talk radio but really conspire to prevent anyone breaking their stranglehold. Just lately we have FF failing to move against FG regarding the new hospital cost to taxpayers... because Brexit apparently. The hospital is to cost 4 London Shards for Christ's sake. Politics has failed the Irish worker big time in 2019.

Arghus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You earn nothing by virtue of where you are born, it's nothing to do with you. If you're born on a plane should that put you top of the list for a pilot job 20 years later?

That's the most nonsensical analogy I've read in a long time. You would have been better off using "a seat on the plane" instead. At least that would have made a bit more sense in the context.

I understand the whole anchor babies argument - and I'm not naive enough to think it isn't a real thing; Of course it is. I can even see why people feel it's right. I respect the argument, but I don't personally believe in it.

But the way I look at it is - I was automatically a citizen when I was born. Even though how and where I was born had nothing to do with me. What was good enough for me should be good enough for others too. I feel it's morally right.

Yurt2

Arghus wrote: »

That's the most nonsensical analogy I've read in a long time. You would have been better off using "a seat on the plane" instead. At least that would have made a bit more sense in the context.

I understand the whole anchor babies argument - and I'm not naive enough to think it isn't a real thing; Of course it is. I can even see why people feel it's right. I respect the argument, but I don't personally believe in it.

But the way I look at it is - I was automatically a citizen when I was born. Even though how and where I was born had nothing to do with me. What was good enough for me should be good enough for others too. I feel it's morally right.

I have a question for you, and this isn't a 'gotcha' question, just trying to understand your stance: Under what circumstances do you deem deportation orders appropriate?


-overstayers?
- those working in the black economy for years?
- criminals (from fraud to assault, take your pick)?
- none or all of the above?

And if the state doesn't enforce its own policies, what do you think the outcome would be? What's the appropriate level of immigration to your mind?

For the record, I'm in favour of an Australian points style system. Honest immigrants know what's required of them, it protects the local labour market and it's transparent enough for the wider public to have confidence in it - which eliminates much (though not all) anti-immigrant sentiment. The Aussies are also adept at weeding out pisstakers.

Our system has none of the above, it's too hard and cumbersome for genuine talented immigrants and it rewards pisstakers and overstayers - and if we're honest, Irish people probably have little confidence in our system.

The difficulty with reinstating jus soli is that it would make the Irish immigration system a pisstakers charter.

mcmoustache

Arghus wrote: »

But the way I look at it is - I was automatically a citizen when I was born. Even though how and where I was born had nothing to do with me. What was good enough for me should be good enough for others too. I feel it's morally right.

That's a fair point. Neither you nor a child born of foreign parents did anything different when you were born here. Neither of you earned made some decision that makes either of you more deserving of Irish citizenship than the other.

But the rights of a child can't easily be separated from the rights of its parents. If I was born to different parents in a different country, I would inherit the rights and privileges that my parents had arranged for me. They could be a rich middle-class couple in Switzerland or a poor couple in Sudan. Despite being born out of the same sort of orifice, both of those options would bestow upon me a completely different set of rights and privileges depending on which set of parents made me.

It's not fair, certainly but parents have a right to raise a child to the best of their ability and pass on whatever rights and privileges they have. Among those is their citizenship. I can't pass on Swiss citizenship to my kids because anymore than I can pass on a billion euro trust fund. I have neither.

Now, back to rights and wrongs of anchor babies. The rights and privileges of a child and their parents are absolutely linked. in these cases, the parents don't have any right to make an Irish baby any more than they can make a billionaire baby. I can make an Irish baby with my partner but I can't make a Swiss one.

It's not particularly fair on the baby but babies are ultimately at the mercy of the situation that their parents find themselves in.

donegal_man

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

If you are born in a stable, it doesnt make you a horse.

Good news for Jesus

topper75

donegal_man wrote: »

Good news for Jesus

In fairness, they weren't pisstakers. Back to Mary's place in Nazareth was where he was raised.

Little detour in Egypt alright, genuine asylum from the brutal Herod regime. Again, no buggies left at bus stops, they went back home when they could.

Straight up honest decent types.

Stephen15

bubblypop wrote: »

What problem so we have exactly?

Anchor babies. Trust me immigration will be a major issue ten to twenty years.

Arghus

Yurt! wrote: »

I have a question for you, and this isn't a 'gotcha' question, just trying to understand your stance: Under what circumstances do you deem deportation orders appropriate?


-overstayers?
- those working in the black economy for years?
- criminals (from fraud to assault, take your pick)?


And if the state doesn't enforce its own policies, what do you think the outcome would be? What's the appropriate level of immigration to your mind?

For the record, I'm in favour of an Australian points style system. Honest immigrants know what's required of them, it protects the local labour market and it's transparent enough for the wider public to have confidence in it - which eliminates much (though not all) anti-immigrant sentiment. The Aussies are also adept at weeding out pisstakers.

Our system has none of the above, it's too hard and cumbersome for genuine talented immigrants and it rewards pisstakers and overstayers - and if we're honest, Irish people probably have little confidence in our system.

The difficulty with reinstating jus soli is that it would make the Irish immigration system a pisstakers charter.

There's loads of circumstances where I would deem deportation orders to be valid/appropriate - you've mentioned a few examples there which I couldn't quibble with in most circumstances.

The difficulty in talking about this subject is that when you say one thing or hold one position, everyone on the other side of the argument fills in the blanks for themselves and starts assuming that you hold all the positions that they expect you to have, because you disagree. Of course, there's plenty of nuance on their side of the argument....

For instance I'd imagine that most of the names that I've been arguing with here - at the risk of playing the part that I'm complaining about - probably think that I'm in favour of mass immigration, which I'm not, and view deportations and such to be always morally unjustifiable - not at all, as I've already stated.

I also can understand the anchor baby argument. I'm also aware that automatic citizenship by birth - which is still awarded if you don't qualify for citizenship elsewhere - would make us unusual amongst most countries. But, I think that's their business - and they are wrong too, if you're asking me.

I just feel that if I was deemed Irish at birth, then that right should be afforded to others - and there shouldn't be asterisks of acceptability beside some other innocent newborns over others.

It's a very basic and fundamental thing, but it means a lot - and it was good enough for the state for most of its existence up until relatively recently. Of course I know in practice that raises numerous questions about the reality of the situation regarding the residency of parents and what's going to happen regarding all those potential problems - a circle to be squared I guess.

I won't pretend to have all the answers. I know that's against the rules of the internet - where everyone has it all figured out and only enters arguments to tell the other side how wrong they are. But, we as a nation are fond of "claiming" people when it means absolutely nothing, but, in this circumstance, show ourselves to be hypocritical fckers.

Arghus

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's not particularly fair on the baby but babies are ultimately at the mercy of the situation that their parents find themselves in.

If that's the case does that not make the moral argument for the state to afford citizenship rights even stronger?

Guy:Incognito

Arghus wrote: »

If you were born here, you've "earned" it. You've got to be a citizen of somewhere and I'd rather live in a state that treated every newborn born here equally and with fairness and at least aspired to that basic level of equality for all.

Why would you be a citizen of nowhere if you weren't given Irish citizenship after your parents arrived her 10 minutes before you were born? Youd be a citizen of wherever they're from.

mvl

I'd favor Ius Sanguinis at birth.

and tbh I'd be stricter about the naturalization process too; for example adherence to irish culture should be added to the hard requirements (as I don't think fidelity to the Irish nation and loyalty to the State suffice)

Arghus

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why would you be a citizen of nowhere if you weren't given Irish citizenship after your parents arrived her 10 minutes before you were born? Youd be a citizen of wherever they're from.

Not necessarily in all cases.

There's a provision in the law that automatically entitles you to citizenship if you're not entitled to be the citizen of anywhere else at the time of your birth - I'm sure it exists because it's technically possible for that to occur.

It happens, though I'm sure it's rare. As we all know, citizenship rights do vary from country to country, so I'm sure there's instances of countries who don't recognise foreign born children of their own citizens. Also I'm sure there's people who have children here from unrecognized or stateless jurisdictions, where there own entitlement to be citizenship of somewhere is far from clear.

AbdulAbhaile

mvl wrote: »

I'd favor Ius Sanguinis at birth.

and tbh I'd be stricter about the naturalization process too; for example adherence to irish culture should be added to the hard requirements (as I don't think fidelity to the Irish nation and loyalty to the State suffice)

We Could have an oul Sean-nós dance off to see who deserves nationality, or what particular part of Irish culture would you deem important?

mvl

AbdulAbhaile wrote: »

We Could have an oul Sean-nós dance off to see who deserves nationality, or what particular part of Irish culture would you deem important?

guess depends: some only need to learn irish fluently, others may need more effort in order to be re-wired irish !