Revocation of citizenship acquired through naturalisation

sdanseo

Head Cutter wrote: »

You seem very keen on protecting foreign criminals.

That's unfair. He's pointing out the practicalities.

Most of us would agree if you commit serious crime, expect a harsh punishment.
I'd go a step further: our justice system is so lenient as to be a totally inadequate deterrent. (google Martin Nolan)

But there's a reason sending people off to Tasmania á la Fields of Athenry stopped too.

Overheal

Bob24 wrote: »

All citizens should be equally treated by the law

That’s a fundamental issue I have with this idea, creating literal secondary classes of citizen.

Overheal

This topic is far broader than a single case, and any policy would apply to all cases, and deportation to any number of countries that Ireland expects to enjoy good relations with.

“Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.”

Overheal

Bob24 wrote: »

Why should the same not be applied to a native citizen who committed the same crime, if it is what the State believes is the proper treatment for such behaviour?

(part of the answer is that we don’t want to create stateless persons, but it also applies to many naturalised citizens)

Again, I really think the proper approach I s to keep in mind that once this country designates someone as a citizen, that is a very serious commitment. And thus to be very selective about who is granted citizenship, and then treat a naturalised citizen like any other.

Bingo. Being granted citizenship includes many rights and privileges - including equal treatment under the criminal justice system, either end of it.

suicide_circus

Bob24 wrote: »

Why should the same not be applied to a native citizen who committed the same crime, if it is what the State believes is the proper treatment for such behaviour?

Again, I really think the proper approach I s to keep in mind that once this country designates someone as a citizen, that is a very serious commitment. And thus to be very selective about who is granted citizenship, and then treat a naturalised citizen like any other.

Agreed. I get the objection. If this man has citizenship which can be revoked while mine can't, then you have a two tier situation. He's a citizen so long as he's a good boy. I can murder the president and still be a citizen. It's a tough one. However, if he commits terrorism against the state it can already be revoked...so dont we already have a two tier system?

Bob24

suicide_circus wrote: »

However, if he commits terrorism against the state it can already be revoked...so dont we already have a two tier system?

Fair point and tricky one.

Overheal

suicide_circus wrote: »

Agreed. I get the objection. If this man has citizenship which can be revoked while mine can't, then you have a two tier situation. He's a citizen so long as he's a good boy. I can murder the president and still be a citizen. It's a tough one. However, if he commits terrorism against the state it can already be revoked...so dont we already have a two tier system?

Only in clear exceptions, and those are crimes against the state itself. Terrorism against the state is one of the few ways you can normally be denaturalized.

Put another way like: say you can’t deport them anywhere it creates a 2nd class of prisoner, like the Guantanamo bay situation, where you see fit to treat them worse than normal prisoners, torture them, dehumanize them, etc. which would be a moral degeneration of the Irish state just as Gitmo is a moral degeneration of the US.

There’s nothing to morally gain from deportation, really: unless you really believe the recipient country will punish ‘their own’ for the crime in your country, to ‘your people,’ then you’re letting them off easier. That just leads to the likelihood that they will reoffend again, and even if they reoffend somewhere else you’re accepting the fact you facilitate it, and victims in the other country of that perpetrator may come to seek retribution against Ireland for that.

Globally the headlines would read of Ireland eschewing responsibility to detain and correct convicts or heinous crimes; sending murderers etc. off elsewhere to re-offend. Some innocent family gets slaughtered in Indonesia etc by madman that Ireland didn’t want to claim responsibility for after making them a citizen. Etc etc. - Irish world standing would be ruined. I presume of course you’d never really convince many another country to carry out your sentence for a crime on your soil, to be fair. Someone mentioned the €75k/yr price tag for incarceration, what country is going to accept having that bucked passed onto them? Not even the United States is in the business of accepting other country’s prisoners and we run our prisons for a profit (well, a profit for the prison industry, definitely not the taxpayer).

suicide_circus

^^^ I was with you until the international shame fear, something about that dynamic i dont quite like.

Overheal

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^ I was with you until the international shame fear, something about that dynamic i dont quite like.

I mean it would happen. You think if the Mexican Government was actually tossing rapists and murderers across the fence like Trump has imagined, that the US would take it sitting down?? If the US just started sending back 100s of criminal Irish expats and make you either find room to imprison them all, or put them up in council houses etc to roam free - would you take it sitting down? Would you still be buddy buddy with the US?

MrMusician18

This wouldn't be legal under international law (generally) as it could potentially leave someone stateless. Plenty of states do not allow dual citizenship.

Non-runner I'm afraid.

suicide_circus

i genuinely would hold no ill will for a country that sent back originally irish people that did terrible things to their society - ultimately they are our "children"

suicide_circus

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This wouldn't be legal under international law (generally) as it could potentially leave someone stateless. Plenty of states do not allow dual citizenship.

Non-runner I'm afraid.

obviously if it left someone stateless its a non runner

osarusan

I guess terrorism is an act against the state rather than against an inidividual.

Maybe there is room there for a list of crimes, or a wording which would encompass such crimes, that would allow revocation of citizenship. I wouldn't have a problem with such an idea in principle, but the devil is in the detail.

As others have said, it would be limited by statelessness, but also could be limited by whether they were parent to an Irish citizen minor or not - there may be issues there with separation in such cases (or not, I don't know).

Overheal

suicide_circus wrote: »

i genuinely would hold no ill will for a country that sent back originally irish people that did terrible things to their society - ultimately they are our "children"

How would that work practically though: do you accept whatever sentencing came from the other country? Do you just accept the added burden of expense to imprison? Do you hold a new trial? Do you let them go?

suicide_circus

Overheal wrote: »

How would that work practically though: do you accept whatever sentencing came from the other country? Do you just accept the added burden of expense to imprison? Do you hold a new trial? Do you let them go?

I was working from the assumption that the deportation (and citizenship stripping) happened after the prison sentence...i may have had a cupla whiskies.

1874

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect you may need a constitutional change?


Personally i wouldnt vote for such a change,as it gives too much power to the dail


But i think a type of permenant visa should be awarded,as a step below citizenship though

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

To be honest I’d rather safe the money also but it was mentioned on the other thread that there was no guarantee that the sentence would be served in the foreign country.

This way the criminal serves their time here so we know they get their punishment.

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

No, once you're a citizen, you're a citizen. There are plenty of Irish born and bred walking around who have done more and worse.

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn't really answer my question, and rather it dodges addressing the problem here: when this man would have (we assume) applied for naturalization, why would you have blocked him, having no notion that years from now he might commit an egregious crime? All he is, during the naturalization process, is a Nigerian national who's lived in Ireland long enough to apply, and has bonafides as a healthcare assistant.

sdanseo wrote: »

Morally, no one. But it is illegal under international law to revoke a citizenship if it would leave the person with no citizenship.

(for example, some citizenships require that you denounce them when you take Irish citizenship)

They have to be locked up somewhere.

Overheal wrote: »

There’s also the issue that the country on the receiving end has to accept the deportee. Other countries are not obliged to accept them, or extensibly to grant visas to Irish or honor extradition requests. Start just unilaterally dropping off convicts on some country’s border and you will quickly see diplomacy and trade with that country, and other countries, fall apart.

Bob24 wrote: »

All citizens should be equally treated by the law so I would be against this idea (what is suggested in the OP would effectively create second class citizens).

If there are issues with too many naturalised citizens causing trouble, to me the solution would rather be to be more selective with who’s getting citizenship (as a matter of fact, I happen to think the current naturalisation process is indeed too lenient).

Also, not every naturalised citizen will have a second citizenship (some countries don’t allow it, so they would lose their other citizenship once they become Irish).

I don’t think creating stateless individuals is something Ireland would consider; so for those types of naturalised citizens the idea is a non-starter anyway. And you allow if for others, they you are even creating two classes of naturalised citizens and aren’t even sure you can take citizenship away from all the ones you’re want to go after.

TLDR: let’s be more serious about what granting citizenship means and more demanding with applicants; keeping in mind that once someone becomes Irish they are joining the nation and we will stick with them like with any other citizen.

Overheal wrote: »

That’s a fundamental issue I have with this idea, creating literal secondary classes of citizen.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This wouldn't be legal under international law (generally) as it could potentially leave someone stateless. Plenty of states do not allow dual citizenship.

Non-runner I'm afraid.

The simple answer here seems to be not throw Citizenship around freely and treat it so lightly, permanent residency options for working, renewed every 5 years, there isnt a second class or tier of citizens as they wont be citizens, otherwise there is limited deterrent to someone intent on manipulating things in their favour if they have commited a serious crime.
The full range of benefits for permanent visa holders for law abiding citizens, Yes we have scum as bad, unfortunately we cant get rid of them, well yes we could, thee just isnt the will, Open Spike island.
Id consider Citizenship an option if someone has made a valuable contribution to the state (in terms of effort) but while I consider care workers undervalued, important and necessary in general, I dont think someone coming from another country and filling that role sufficient to Guarantee Citizenship as if its some right or entitlement


As for the Irish state not being happy with a returned Citizen who commited a crime aboad, well if they werent a Citizen or were in that place illegally, then thats tough for the person, the only thing I could add to that is we should expect anyone serve the time for the crime where it occurred.
Im inclined to think serving time here could be easier than living in some countries, why wouldnt a criminal in such a scenario want to spend as much time here as possible! The other thing is Id hope he'd get early release if for deportation, otherwise excuses of age and health will be thrown about.
This animal should be released as soon as practical (that seems to occur all the time, no doubt to free up spaces in a creaking prison system).

This animal does not deserve to be in prison here, let alone out roaming around freely.
There are simple means to do it and any excuse to the contrary can only be to prop up strongly held viewpoints that people cant back out of.
Very easy to say, this cant work and why, it can work, think of the victim and the family, thats not emotional, its practical, reasonable and sensible.

MrMusician18

1874 wrote: »

The simple answer here seems to be not throw Citizenship around freely and treat it so lightly, permanent residency options for working, renewed every 5 years, there isnt a second class or tier of citizens as they wont be citizens, otherwise there is limited deterrent to someone intent on manipulating things in their favour if they have commited a serious crime.
The full range of benefits for permanent visa holders for law abiding citizens, Yes we have scum as bad, unfortunately we cant get rid of them, well yes we could, thee just isnt the will, Open Spike island.
Id consider Citizenship an option if someone has made a valuable contribution to the state (in terms of effort) but while I consider care workers undervalued, important and necessary in general, I dont think someone coming from another country and filling that role sufficient to Guarantee Citizenship as if its some right or entitlement


As for the Irish state not being happy with a returned Citizen who commited a crime aboad, well if they werent a Citizen or were in that place illegally, then thats tough for the person, the only thing I could add to that is we should expect anyone serve the time for the crime where it occurred.
Im inclined to think serving time here could be easier than living in some countries, why wouldnt a criminal in such a scenario want to spend as much time here as possible! The other thing is Id hope he'd get early release if for deportation, otherwise excuses of age and health will be thrown about.
This animal should be released as soon as practical (that seems to occur all the time, no doubt to free up spaces in a creaking prison system).

This animal does not deserve to be in prison here, let alone out roaming around freely.
There are simple means to do it and any excuse to the contrary can only be to prop up strongly held viewpoints that people cant back out of.
Very easy to say, this cant work and why, it can work, think of the victim and the family, thats not emotional, its practical, reasonable and sensible.

Basically what you're saying is that no foreigner should be offered Irish citizenship.

That doesn't even create a second class citizen because you're not even offering them a path to citizenship.

1874

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is that no foreigner should be offered Irish citizenship.

That doesn't even create a second class citizen because you're not even offering them a path to citizenship.

Except for this excerpt which was in your quote from me,


"Id consider Citizenship an option if someone has made a valuable contribution to the state (in terms of effort) but while I consider care workers undervalued, important and necessary in general, I dont think someone coming from another country and filling that role sufficient to Guarantee Citizenship as if its some right or entitlement"


Not that I see why it should be an entitlement, but you are significantly misquoting me by saying I said no foreigner should get Citizenship, thats your objective though, isnt it.

A nice, " so what your saying is" moment for you, nonsense

Overheal

suicide_circus wrote: »

I was working from the assumption that the deportation (and citizenship stripping) happened after the prison sentence...i may have had a cupla whiskies.

Haha got ya. It’s a fine thought exercise all around

Overheal

1874 wrote: »

The simple answer here seems to be not throw Citizenship around freely and treat it so lightly, permanent residency options for working, renewed every 5 years, there isnt a second class or tier of citizens as they wont be citizens, otherwise there is limited deterrent to someone intent on manipulating things in their favour if they have commited a serious crime.
The full range of benefits for permanent visa holders for law abiding citizens, Yes we have scum as bad, unfortunately we cant get rid of them, well yes we could, thee just isnt the will, Open Spike island.
Id consider Citizenship an option if someone has made a valuable contribution to the state (in terms of effort) but while I consider care workers undervalued, important and necessary in general, I dont think someone coming from another country and filling that role sufficient to Guarantee Citizenship as if its some right or entitlement

Fine position to take. Aren’t some Nordic countries far more discriminating (I mean ‘reserved,’ ‘conservative,’ ‘hesitant,’ not racially or religiously discriminating) with their naturalization and visa requirements?

Edit: discerning is the word I am probably looking for there

As for the Irish state not being happy with a returned Citizen who commited a crime aboad, well if they werent a Citizen or were in that place illegally, then thats tough for the person, the only thing I could add to that is we should expect anyone serve the time for the crime where it occurred.

contradicts with what you’re gonna say here:

Im inclined to think serving time here could be easier than living in some countries, why wouldnt a criminal in such a scenario want to spend as much time here as possible! The other thing is Id hope he'd get early release if for deportation, otherwise excuses of age and health will be thrown about.
This animal should be released as soon as practical (that seems to occur all the time, no doubt to free up spaces in a creaking prison system).

This animal does not deserve to be in prison here, let alone out roaming around freely.
There are simple means to do it and any excuse to the contrary can only be to prop up strongly held viewpoints that people cant back out of.
Very easy to say, this cant work and why, it can work, think of the victim and the family, thats not emotional, its practical, reasonable and sensible.

From the shoes of a compatriot: I’d have dire reservations about releasing a rapist, serial killer, child molester, etc. not only in my own country, but someone else’s country, whether or not I held a dim view of the other country, it seems like the perfect way to ensure there are more victims, even if those victims are thousands of miles away in another nation and culture. An American child molested, for example, would sit as uneasily with me as a Saudi Arabian or North Korean child molested, regardless of the country’s politics and culture which involve a religious hatred of mine it’s still a child, or a brainwashed adult or their family, etc. and I wouldn’t feel my hands washed of the situation if we collectively decided to throw our problem back over a sovereign boundary. I would still feel a share responsible if that person went on to re-offend in Nigeria or anywhere else. If you don’t want him roaming freely here but don’t mind him roaming freely elsewhere - I don’t find that to be a morally correct.

To me it would be the most moral and patriotic thing to place stock in the efficacy of my own criminal justice system to contain or correct a heinous criminal. I would think we have the moral compunction to do so. So I think the core issue here is a lack of faith in the Irish criminal justice system, which I must say is a common theme on these boards and always has been.

Gatling

I'd hazard a guess raping a elderly person in Nigeria would likely get you stung up or face some other mob justice .

Wonder if Mr o Leary can organise a flight to Lagos on the cheap

Overheal

Gatling wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess raping a elderly person in Nigeria would likely get you stung up or face some other mob justice .

Wonder if Mr o Leary can organise a flight to Lagos on the cheap

Would such ‘Mob Justice’ be applicable to any other citizen of Ireland? The few degrees of separation don’t change it from being Ireland exacting arbitrary, capricious and cruel justice on someone through their legal processes if that was the desired outcome.

Tell me how

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Bigger question is why asylum seekers would be given permanent citizenship.

Should be only limited, reviewed every 5 years for criminal convictions or no intention of finding a job.

Yeah, that would definitely help people integrate, the weight of potential deportation hanging over them every 5 years.

Actually, lets go further, why give anyone citizenship, I know some weren't happy to see it given to even those born in a country? So, lets remove it from everyone and just have everyone apply for it and than have it renewed as you suggest every 5 years.

It would be extremely stressful for everyone involved and could make some people feel like some form of captive who don't want to risk leaving a difficult work place because of the potential impact, but, we want to treat everyone fairly, don't we.

Bob24

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, that would definitely help people integrate, the weight of potential deportation hanging over them every 5 years.

Probably for another thread: but I think there is a public debate (and a vote?) to be had one whether refugees are meant to be in a country on a temporary basis while they require protection, or to stay forever and become citizens.

If you broadly go for the second option, IMO you are destroying the international asylum system in the long term, as both due that choice and the fact that asylum seeker numbers are growing fast (both due to geopolitics and to the fact that criteria for asylum have been getting less restrictive), the whole thing will end up becoming politically unmanageable and unacceptable (and as the asylum system increasingly becomes an immigration tool rather than the protection tool it should be, it also increasingly does a disservice to people who need protection the most, the same way illegal immigration makes things harder for law abiding immigrants who face lower quotas, longer waits, and more verifications/bureaucracy because of it).

TomTomTim

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, that would definitely help people integrate, the weight of potential deportation hanging over them every 5 years.

Why would that stop them from integrating? I'd argue that it's a massive incentive to actually integrate. If you want to be a contributing member of society you should have no worries, if you don't then you do. It sounds like a fair system to me, you either prove your worth or you go back to where you came from.

MrMusician18

1874 wrote: »

Except for this excerpt which was in your quote from me,


"Id consider Citizenship an option if someone has made a valuable contribution to the state (in terms of effort) but while I consider care workers undervalued, important and necessary in general, I dont think someone coming from another country and filling that role sufficient to Guarantee Citizenship as if its some right or entitlement"


Not that I see why it should be an entitlement, but you are significantly misquoting me by saying I said no foreigner should get Citizenship, thats your objective though, isnt it.

A nice, " so what your saying is" moment for you, nonsense

I saw that, but setting the barrier to entry to citizenship so high (by excluding work as a positive contribution to the state), you are effectively saying no foreigner should get it.

What would your sufficient contribution be? Winning a Nobel prize?

Timberrrrrrrr

TomTomTim wrote: »

Why would that stop them from integrating? I'd argue that it's a massive incentive to actually integrate. If you want to be a contributing member of society you should have no worries, if you don't then you do. It sounds like a fair system to me, you either prove your worth or you go back to where you came from.

what happens if someone is here years, gets married, has kids and then commits a crime?

Do you just strip them of citizenship and deport them?

Bobblehats

Gatling wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess raping a elderly person in Nigeria would likely get you stung up or face some other mob justice .

Wonder if Mr o Leary can organise a flight to Lagos on the cheap

Hanging seems a little refined you become a subject as to what damage a rock can do to a a person’s head. Also fire, is an element of fascination. Sure to draw the crowds

Gatling

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

what happens if someone is here years, gets married, has kids and then commits a crime?

Do you just strip them of citizenship and deport them?

Yes if you can't live within our laws then feck off back to where ever they came from ,

It's simple ,it's the one thing America gets right get arrested and charged and your illegal or a foreign national you get handed over to immigration for deportation .

Why shouldn't every other country do the same

DelaneyIn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

what happens if someone is here years, gets married, has kids and then commits a crime?

Do you just strip them of citizenship and deport them?

Yes.