A discussion on citizenship

Sleepy

How can your kids be Irish if they were born in Glasgow, raised in Glasgow and I assume schooled in Glasgow? They can claim to be of Irish descent but that's hardly the same as being Irish.

cdebru

MT wrote:

Actually, it’s entirely factual. UK law states that they have every right to consider themselves British.


What you’ve written there is entirely incorrect. Again, UK law states that they have just as much right to British citizenship as anyone else in the UK. Equally, they are just as entitled to refer to themselves as British.

The UK refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.The term British applies to all those living in the UK .

so some one born on the island of Ireland in your view should not have an automatic right to be an Irish citizen if they are in the 6 counties but even though not born in britain are automatically British

the right under UK law to british citizenship or any of the other types of britishness does not actually mean a person is british
ie from britain
it could actually mean they are from kenya or some other current or former colony

MT wrote:

The term British applies to all those living in the UK .

no it does not

MT wrote:

Hang on there, it was you who first used the 40% figure to suit your argument. Indeed, the figures I quote are much more accurate as the 87% and 20% actually state their preference for continued union. 40% of NI’s population being Catholic does not equate to 40% having a shared ‘loyalty’ to the Irish state. Furthermore, it is you that has used the last set of figures to suit your argument, I merely stated them as they were. For your information of the 13% of protestants that prefer differently only 3-4% would like to see Irish unity. Of the 80% of Catholics, 65% would like to see unity. So there is a clear majority in favour of the status quo. That’s all I was highlighting against your dubious claims of ‘loyalty’ with regard to a figure of 40%.

you choose to accept the ESRI poll rather than how people actually vote
ie over 42% of the people who voted in the european election voted for the SDLP and SF both parties whose proclaim to want a united Ireland

but i suppose you and the ESRI know more about it

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

How can your kids be Irish if they were born in Glasgow, raised in Glasgow and I assume schooled in Glasgow? They can claim to be of Irish descent but that's hardly the same as being Irish.

do you really believe that
can i ask how you voted in the citizenship referendum last year

MT

From reading his last post, I think A Dub in Glasgo may be an ethnic nationalist. This sort of thinking deems Irishness as something of the blood. It's in stark contrast to civic nationalism whereby citizenship involves civic responsibility and support for the nation's institutions. It’s something that carryies no racial qualifications.

Ethnic nationalism also poses severe problems when attempting to integrate immigrants. Just look at the contrast between the integration of immigrants into the US - a nation based upon the ideals of civic nationalism - and the German experience - a nation leaning much more in the direction of ethnic nationalism. Emigrants from the likes of Italy can feel fully American as there is no ethnic bar placed upon Americaness. Compare this to the Turkish experience in Germany were they have been continually denied citizenship, granted the now derogatory description 'guest worker' instead. Germans have long been reluctant to relinquish their beliefs of racial purity.

With this clash of nationalisms in mind there are questions I'd pose to someone like A Dub in Glasgo. How does he feel about bringing his children up in Scotland with an Irish identity? Will they always be Irish as far as he's concerned or can they ever become Scottish? Is a person's nationality always determined by the birth place of their ancestors?

Clearly, if ethnic nationalism prevails the future for Ireland is bleak. Immigrants - not being Irish of the blood - will under such thinking never be seen as true citizens. Will the descendants of Polish immigrants always be viewed as Poles, and not properly Irish? I hope for Ireland's sake the civic nationalism found in countries such as the US and Canada becomes the dominant ideology.

Certainly, if I moved to another country any children I’d have would be brought up as citizens of it, not as some foreigners abroad viewing home as a place I’d left behind. I mean, talk about giving your kids an identity crisis.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

cdebru

MT wrote:

From reading his last post, I think A Dub in Glasgo may be an ethnic nationalist. This sort of thinking deems Irishness as something of the blood. It's in stark contrast to civic nationalism whereby citizenship involves civic responsibility and support for the nation's institutions. It’s something that carryies no racial qualifications.

Ethnic nationalism also poses severe problems when attempting to integrate immigrants. Just look at the contrast between the integration of immigrants into the US - a nation based upon the ideals of civic nationalism - and the German experience - a nation leaning much more in the direction of ethnic nationalism. Emigrants from the likes of Italy can feel fully American as there is no ethnic bar placed upon Americaness. Compare this to the Turkish experience in Germany were they have been continually denied citizenship, granted the now derogatory description 'guest worker' instead. Germans have long been reluctant to relinquish their beliefs of racial purity.

With this clash of nationalisms in mind there are questions I'd pose to someone like A Dub in Glasgo. How does he feel about bringing his children up in Scotland with an Irish identity? Will they always be Irish as far as he's concerned or can they ever become Scottish? Is a person's nationality always determined by the birth place of their ancestors?

Clearly, if ethnic nationalism prevails the future for Ireland is bleak. Immigrants - not being Irish of the blood - will under such thinking never be seen as true citizens. Will the descendants of Polish immigrants always be viewed as Poles, and not properly Irish? I hope for Ireland's sake the civic nationalism found in countries such as the US and Canada becomes the dominant ideology.

Certainly, if I moved to another country any children I’d have would be brought up as citizens of it, not as some foreigners abroad viewing home as a place I’d left behind. I mean, talk about giving your kids an identity crisis.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

the only difference is the USA and canada have a longer history of immigration



also US citizens can and do travel and work around the world ( often uninvited) without any suggestion that they are less american in fact they even maintain the right to vote even though not directly contributing anything to the US in taxes etc also children born to US citizens abroad automatically become US citizens if anything the situation is worse from your point of view in the US as foreign domained citizens can decide on a government of a country they no longer live in or pay taxes in nevermind claim citizenship

all nationalities are based on blood they also allow for the naturalisation of people who are not entitled to nationality as a birthright once they become citizens they have the exact same rights and entitlements as any other citizen that situation is the same here as it is in the US or Canada


and of course you completely gloss over the US treatment of mexican and latin american immigrants which is very similar to that of turks in germany

of course if you moved abroad not all countries would allow you to raise your children as citizens depends on the country you went to

paulcr

cdebru wrote:

and of course you completely gloss over the US treatment of mexican and latin american immigrants which is very similar to that of turks in germany

It may be similar and yet they are different.

Yes its true the people that have been disenfranchised by NAFTA's policy of shipping jobs to other countries and allowing day workers to cross the border are deeply resentful of Mexican workers.

But honestly we are talking about menial labor jobs. The jobs most people wouldn't do themselves.

So much like Hilter's germany they have to find someone to blame.

The difference is that much of the US was once Mexico. And even many of the states names are spanish as are many of the cities. LA has the largerest mexican population next to Mexico City. There are many towns in Texas where you needn't speak english at all.

Europeans came and conquered/stole US from Natives which include Mexicans. So there is a difference.

Maybe its a constant reminder of how our country works. Case in point Iraq.

IN THE US WE LOVE EVERYTHING MEXICAN...EXCEPT OUR NEIGHBORS!

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

How can your kids be Irish if they were born in Glasgow, raised in Glasgow and I assume schooled in Glasgow? They can claim to be of Irish descent but that's hardly the same as being Irish.

Irish parents, raised in Glasgow (75%) and Dublin (25%). If I go back to Ireland next week to live, I cannot call my children Irish according to you. That is good to know :rolleyes:

cdebru

i meant it is similar in regards that they are let in long enough to do the menial jobs tha US citizens are not interested in doing they are used as a cheap source of labour they are not offered citizen ship and are forced to return or deported when the work is done especially in the agriculture industry

they are not offered the american civic nationalism that MT believes exists

paulcr

Its definitely hard for an American to point to any ethnic roots. We are after all mongrels...alot of race mixing etc.

Jews and Catholics, Catholics and Protestants, Blacks and Whites, Cat and Dogs.

The only thing we can point to now a days is color of skin or accent of speach.

We do (US) let a large number of immigrants become citizens (we need to keep our menial labor force intact). However, it doesn't mean they will experience the same America that those being born and raise americans will.

But in time...the largest minority group in the US is hispanic.

God only knows what our US will be in another 20 - 40 years. We'll all have a year round tan.

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

From reading his last post, I think A Dub in Glasgo may be an ethnic nationalist.

I will obviously have to read into the mechanics of the difference but if that is the term applied to the Irishness in the Irish constitution, I suppose I am.

It's in stark contrast to civic nationalism whereby citizenship involves civic responsibility and support for the nation's institutions. It’s something that carryies no racial qualifications.

What if I agree with this as well, surely I can be both?

With this clash of nationalisms in mind there are questions I'd pose to someone like A Dub in Glasgo. How does he feel about bringing his children up in Scotland with an Irish identity?

Apart from the current overtones to everything Irish in Scotland, I have absolutely no problem.

Will they always be Irish as far as he's concerned or can they ever become Scottish?

Once they hit 16, it is their choice and I will respect that

Is a person's nationality always determined by the birth place of their ancestors?

Of course not, it is then choice.

Clearly, if ethnic nationalism prevails the future for Ireland is bleak. Immigrants - not being Irish of the blood - will under such thinking never be seen as true citizens.

I will view them as Irish (if that is their wish) and I have no hangups with Ireland becoming multi-cultural.

Will the descendants of Polish immigrants always be viewed as Poles, and not properly Irish? I hope for Ireland's sake the civic nationalism found in countries such as the US and Canada becomes the dominant ideology.

Again, if that is their choice, I will view them as Irish. No problems for me.

Certainly, if I moved to another country any children I’d have would be brought up as citizens of it, not as some foreigners abroad viewing home as a place I’d left behind. I mean, talk about giving your kids an identity crisis.

That will be your choice, my choice differs. Yet I am the one being told that my children are not Irish.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

If that is how you view SFs view on nationality so be it. I certainly do not view their policies as exclusively that type.

cdebru

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Irish parents, raised in Glasgow (75%) and Dublin (25%). If I go back to Ireland next week to live, I cannot call my children Irish according to you. That is good to know :rolleyes:

i wouldn't worry about it according to sleepy mary mcaleese is not irish so your kids are in good company

everyone born in the six counties
everyone who had to emigrate or chose to emigrate
including i would presume the entire republic of ireland soccer squad
perhaps even the gardai and army on UN duty abroad maybe even Irish diplomatic staff
and of course for two weeks of the year those people who leave to go on holidays

all leave their irishness at the departures lounge

so has this changed your views now that according to sleepy you are in fact british along with your children have you started humming god save the queen or rule brittania yet

MT

MT wrote:

So your saying that anyone born outside the 26 counties of the Irish Republic should be entitled to Irish citizenship. So, in your view Ireland has a potential population of roughly 6 billion. Furthermore, you believe it would amount to ethnic cleansing if the people of China, Africa, Brazil etc. were denied this right. I’m sorry, but who’s views are the more ridiculous?

In this case, yours I'd say for suggesting that Cdebru wasn't only talking about people born outside of this island but with family connections to it, as well as the other existing qualifications.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

Well if you want to pick the entire Irish soccer team from Bray wanderers, you go right ahead, but I think your views on this are out of step with reality.
Many countries if not a majority of countries factor some lineage into the qualifications for nationality outside of their own country, we are not alone in that.

By the Way leave SF out of this thanks, this is a discussion about citizenship.

MT

cdebru wrote:

so some one born on the island of Ireland in your view should not have an automatic right to be an Irish citizen if they are in the 6 counties but even though not born in britain are automatically British

Citizenship should be an honour that requires commitment to certain responsibilities. In a way it should be earned. Conditions such as living in the state and contributing to its society through the payment of taxes, etc. are essential duties in exchange for such a right. Otherwise, if you grant automatic citizenship to those beyond the state, who need not obey its laws, uphold its values, fund its government and so on, the covenant that it should represent becomes next to worthless. Why should an Irish citizen living in Dublin pay his taxes when an ‘Irish citizen’ living in Manchester is free of any financial contributions to the maintenance of the Irish state?

Furthermore, think of the implication that arises from granting automatic citizenship to people residing in Northern Ireland. Such a policy involves at worst racial and at best geographic discrimination. If people beyond the state’s borders in one direction are to be given the right to automatic citizenship then why not those in another? Why should people living in France not be granted such a right also? Indeed, to be fair and just, no one beyond the borders of the Irish state should be discriminated against when handing out citizenship. But such a scenario would be ludicrous, so the only fair way to grant Irish citizenship is to those that reside in and contribute to the Irish state. They are the ones who have a real commitment to the nation. The folly of ethnic nationalism should be dispensed with grounding citizenship instead in the values of civic nationalism. An Ireland formed from its laws and institutions, its rights and responsibilities. Not an Ireland of blood race and geographic fixations.

cdebru wrote:

the right under UK law to british citizenship or any of the other types of britishness does not actually mean a person is british
ie from britain

I’m afraid in the modern day UK it does. Under the laws of the country the term British refers to anyone of UK nationality. That nationality extends to anywhere in the UK. It’s no longer tied to an island. That may be a difficult concept to grasp if your idea of Irish nationality is fixated upon this island. My view is that nationalities are not fixed to island boundaries – they can lie within them or move beyond them.

cdebru wrote:

it could actually mean they are from kenya or some other current or former colony

So let me get this straight: British citizenship does not mean a person is British, which solely means you are from the island of Britain, but can cover a person in Kenya. Eh? I think you should consult the UK statute books. For as they’ll reveal the term British applies to anyone that is a citizen of the UK. Not the people of Kenya – surely referring to Kenyans as British would be a form of imperialism? The term is no longer the exclusive preserve of the population of the island of Great Britain. A Falkland islander has as much right to the term as someone from Islington.

cdebru wrote:

no it does not

Altogether now, ‘oh, yes it does’.

cdebru wrote:

you choose to accept the ESRI poll rather than how people actually vote
ie over 42% of the people who voted in the european election voted for the SDLP and SF both parties whose proclaim to want a united Ireland

Yes, I do choose to accept the ESRI survey over voting patterns in relation to this issue. The latter is simply not a reliable guide to trends on the constitutional question. As I’m sure you well know those that vote for a party rarely agree with its every stance. Voters in the north are no different. I know many people who vote for the SDLP that do not desire a united Ireland. Equally, I know people who vote unionist while being cool on the union. I even know a good number that remain indifferent/apathetic on the subject of the border and yet, remarkable though you might find it, vote SF. This is clearly demonstrated by the ESRI survey. Only 65% of Catholics desire a united Ireland and yet almost 100% of Catholics vote for parties proposing such a constitutional settlement. Believe it or not, in the deluded world of northern political debate the two tribes have found many reasons besides the constitutional issue to continue voting for their respective sectarian blocks. Lack of an alternative being foremost amongst them.

cdebru

MT wrote:

.


Depends on the duration. In my view, if someone chooses to move abroad permanently they should be required to relinquish their right to citizenship. I strongly believe that citizenship is a deeply cherished right that demands certain duties from the holder. One should be a commitment to live in that country in the long run, another is payment of taxes and so on and so forth.
.

what is permanently 5 years 10,20 what about someone with a disability who can not earn or pay tax should they be force to give up their citizenship as they have let down their country

MT wrote:

.
Then you must view such a right as being next to worthless. I place a much higher value upon Irish citizenship. A clear demonstration of commitment to the nation is amongst the most important. Go down your route and you’ll end up with the Sean Connery style of nationality. He’s such a proud Scot he lives in a tax haven to avoid contributing his share to the nations coffers. Wearing a kilt and telling anyone who’ll listen how much of a Scot he is in no way makes up for this woeful failing.
.

No i view it as very important so important that it is not something that you can just remove from someone
BTW we all ready have those type of people here tony oreilly Denis O’Brien etc

i would not strip them of their citizenship i would prevent them from coming here to do business and bid for contracts etc when they are not prepared to pay tax

MT wrote:

.
I feel that a claim by someone such as myself for Irish citizenship should be insulting to those who have fulfilled certain duties to obtain such a right. As I’ve said previously, I would consider it free loading on my part. If you don’t feel similarly, then I’d suggest you’re misguided. Do you see citizenship as a right carrying no responsibilities? That there is absolutely no quid pro quo?
.

what duties have others fulfilled

living here carries responsibilities not just for citizens once a citizen lives here then they have responsibilities i believe that a citizen should have a loyalty and fidelity to the country but that does not mean they have to live within its borders

cdebru

MT wrote:

Yes, that’s my view. Citizenship should be an honour that requires commitment to certain responsibilities. In a way it should be earned. Conditions such as living in the state and contributing to its society through the payment of taxes, etc. are essential duties in exchange for such a right. Otherwise, if you grant automatic citizenship to those beyond the state, who need not obey its laws, uphold its values, fund its government and so on, the covenant that it should represent becomes next to worthless. Why should an Irish citizen living in Dublin pay his taxes when an ‘Irish citizen’ is free of any financial contributions to the maintenance of the Irish state?.

people beyond the state do not have to uphold the laws of this state they uphold the laws of the state they are in
a citizen living in dublin is directly benefiting from the tax to suggest that irish people living outside the state should pay for services for people living in the state is ridiculous

MT wrote:

Furthermore, think of the implication that arises from granting automatic citizenship to people residing in Northern Ireland. Such a policy involves at worst racial and at best geographic discrimination. If people beyond the state’s borders in one direction are to be given the right to automatic citizenship then why not those in another? Why should people living in France not be granted such a right also? Indeed, to be fair and just, no one beyond the borders of the Irish state should be discriminated against when handing out citizenship. But such a scenario would be ludicrous, so the only fair way to grant Irish citizenship is to those that reside in and contribute to the Irish state. They are the ones who have a real commitment to the nation. The folly of ethnic nationalism should be dispensed with grounding citizenship instead in the values of civic nationalism. An Ireland formed from its laws and institutions, its rights and responsibilities. Not an Ireland of blood race and geographic fixations..

no it involves following the constitution as voted by the people of the 26 counties it does not force citizenship on people it offers it do them as a right
people living in france can be irish citizens if they fulfill the requirements as laid out itn the constitution

the situation that pertains in this country is a result of partition much the same as the partition of germany east germans where automatically entitled to west german citizenship

all countries have citizenship based on blood and geography there is nothing unique in that

MT wrote:

So let me get this straight: British citizenship does not mean a person is British, which solely means you are from the island of Britain, but can cover a person in Kenya. Eh? I think you should consult the UK statute books. For as they’ll reveal the term British applies to anyone that is a citizen of the UK. Not the people of Kenya – surely referring to Kenyans as British would be a form of imperialism? The term is no longer the exclusive preserve of the population of the island of Great Britain. A Falkland islander has as much right to the term as someone from Islington..

http://www.ukpa.gov.uk/textonly/english/t_who_is_eligible.asp
British Overseas Territories Citizen*

These are people who have a connection with a former British colony, for example Kenya, who did not become citizens of that country when it became independent and did not become British citizens.

Please note: Since Tuesday 21 May 2002, most people holding a British Dependent Territories Citizen passport automatically become British Citizens. This is the effect of the commencement of the British Citizenship provision of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which has already re-named British Dependant Territories Citizenship (BDTC) as British Overseas Territories citizenship. The Act provides that BDTCs except those whose BDTC status derives solely from their connection with the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, become British citizens on 21 May. People born in the territories from that date will be both BCs and BDTCs from birth


and of course it is a form of imperialism britain is reknowned for it

MT wrote:

Yes, I do choose to accept the ESRI survey over voting patterns in relation to this issue. The latter is simply not a reliable guide to trends on the constitutional question. As I’m sure you well know those that vote for a party rarely agree with its every stance. Voters in the north are no different. I know many people who vote for the SDLP that do not desire a united Ireland. Equally, I know people who vote unionist while being cool on the union. I even know some that vote SF but who remain indifferent/apathetic on the subject of the border. This is clearly demonstrated by the ESRI survey. Only 65% of Catholics desire a united Ireland and yet almost 100% of Catholics vote for parties proposing such a constitutional settlement. Believe it or not, in the deluded world of northern political debate the two tribes have found many reasons besides the constitutional issue to continue voting for their respective sectarian blocks. Lack of an alternative being foremost amongst them.

i honestlythink how people vote is more of an indication of how people feel than 1000 surveyed by the esri

A Dub in Glasgo

Here is an interesting (well I found it interesting) opinion piece in The Scotsman newspaper*. I have noticed how irrelevant the notion of Britishness is in Scotland and the way England appears embracing Englishness. If Britain disintegrates in the future, where does that leave NI?

* The 2 Scottish broadsheets are The Scotsman which is Edinburgh based and The Herald which is Glasgow based.

MT

Earthman wrote:

In this case, yours I'd say for suggesting that Cdebru wasn't only talking about people born outside of this island but with family connections to it, as well as the other existing qualifications.

I'm not sure I fully grasp what your refering to here. If its cdebru's remarks that automatic citizenship should be given to people born and living outside the Irish state, then what I was questioning was were do you draw the line. To maintain such a policy, discrimination along either grounds of racial identity or geographic identity has to be employed. This, I believe is an unfair and unjust method of awarding citizenship. Furthermore, it not only tarnishes its value with discriminatory overtones but also devalues it by rendering the contributions of those participating within the Irish state as worthless. In terms of the covenant that citizenship should represent between the governed and government, tax paid becomes meaningless while someone having never contributed can also attain citizenship.

Earthman wrote:

Well if you want to pick the entire Irish soccer team from Bray wanderers, you go right ahead, but I think your views on this are out of step with reality.

I accept they may well be but surely if a politics forum is to be worth the name it should be place for debate and the expression of differing opinions, not uniform conformity.

Earthman wrote:

Many countries if not a majority of countries factor some lineage into the qualifications for nationality outside of their own country, we are not alone in that.

Ireland may not be alone in basing citizenship in the realm of ethnic nationalism but that doesn't mean such an approach is just or right. I believe it is neither.

Earthman wrote:

By the Way leave SF out of this thanks, this is a discussion about citizenship.

You're the mod, so it's your call. But their ethnically based views of Irish identity are very relevant to a discussion over Irish citizenship.

MT

cdebru wrote:

people beyond the state do not have to uphold the laws of this state they uphold the laws of the state they are in

And, other than stating the obvious, your point is? This of course supports my argument concerning civic nationalism as the basis of citizenship. If you live abroad you will not have to live by Ireland’s laws therefore you’ll have little or no interest in whether such laws are maintained or altered. You are not participating in the covenant between the people and those that govern them. Granting such ‘absentee stakeholders’ citizenship devalues its meaning.

cdebru wrote:

a citizen living in dublin is directly benefiting from the tax to suggest that irish people living outside the state should pay for services for people living in the state is ridiculous

My sentiments entirely. Hence, why I believe those with no long term commitment to residency in the state should have no right to its citizenship. Of course it’s ludicrous to ask people not living in the nation or availing of its services to pay its taxes, where have I claimed otherwise? But it is equally ludicrous to grant such people citizenship. As I’ve stated previously, such a state of affairs undermines the incentive for someone living in Dublin to fulfil the responsibilities citizenship involves. How can it be just to those residing in the Irish state that someone living abroad, free from their commitments, can acquire a citizenship of no lesser standing.

cdebru wrote:

no it involves following the constitution as voted by the people of the 26 counties it does not force citizenship on people it offers it do them as a right
people living in france can be irish citizens if they fulfill the requirements as laid out itn the constitution

Don’t you realise that this is a debate in a politics forum and accordingly I am not required to agree with the contents of every law or article of the constitution? The whole point of a discussion is to express differing viewpoints not to establish conformity. I disagree with the constitution in this area. I feel it is incorrect. And where have I said the constitution forces citizenship on anyone? My contention throughout this thread is that the right of citizenship should be accompanied by certain responsibilities. It should not be handed out to those not required to perform the duties any right, for that matter, demands in return. People living in Northern Ireland, France or anywhere beyond the nation’s boundaries should not be offered Irish citizenship. They simply cannot fulfil the responsibilities such a covenant requires while apart from the state.

cdebru wrote:

the situation that pertains in this country is a result of partition much the same as the partition of germany east germans where automatically entitled to west german citizenship

What are you really debating in this thread – citizenship or your desire for a all-island state?

The automatic granting of citizenship to East Germans was one of the most blatant examples of ethnic nationalism in action that you could find. Turks who emigrated to the FRG, participated in society and paid their taxes were denied citizenship because they were deemed not to be true Germans. In other words, the ethnic barrier was raised. And yet, East Germans while contributing nothing to the FRG were granted this right as they were Germans of the blood. The spirit of Hitler lived on ensuring such untermenschen as the Turks were deemed to hold a much lower standing than 'real' Germans in the East.

Equally, I see no reason why I should be given a right to citizenship on a par with an immigrant to the Irish Republic from Nigerian. If they play their part and pay their taxes then they are infinitely more deserving than I. Any other approach smacks of the racist approach of the FRG.

cdebru wrote:

all countries have citizenship based on blood and geography there is nothing unique in tha

That’s debatable. You should back up such sweeping statements with some evidence. However, whether they do or don’t does not validate such an approach as one that is just or right. As far as I can see there tends to be a scale. I would prefer that Ireland move towards the just and democratic end that a civic identity represents and away from the racialism and inevitable discrimination that are consequences of ethnic nationalism.

cdebru wrote:

These are people who have a connection with a former British colony, for example Kenya, who did not become citizens of that country when it became independent and did not become British citizens.

Please note: Since Tuesday 21 May 2002, most people holding a British Dependent Territories Citizen passport automatically become British Citizens. This is the effect of the commencement of the British Citizenship provision of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which has already re-named British Dependant Territories Citizenship (BDTC) as British Overseas Territories citizenship. The Act provides that BDTCs except those whose BDTC status derives solely from their connection with the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, become British citizens on 21 May. People born in the territories from that date will be both BCs and BDTCs from birth

All of this reinforces my comments on the extent of British citizenship. Furthermore, Britain is not exerting a neo-imperialist claim over the people of its former colonies. It’s merely offering those excluded by the current arrangements a status. Equally, the dependant territories do not represent colonialism as far as I’m aware they have the right through a vote to break the link with Britain. Having said all this, it doesn’t mean I’m entirely content with these arrangements. In my view, these people should not be granted their citizenship until they move to Britain or the territories in which they reside become fully constituent parts of the UK, with all the accompanying voting and taxation responsibilities.

cdebru wrote:

and of course it is a form of imperialism britain is reknowned for it

How is it?

cdebru wrote:

i honestlythink how people vote is more of an indication of how people feel than 1000 surveyed by the esri

You wouldn’t, to paraphrase your words, be using the figures that most suit your own argument?

MT

MT wrote:

I'm not sure I fully grasp what your refering to here. If its cdebru's remarks that automatic citizenship should be given to people born and living outside the Irish state, then what I was questioning was were do you draw the line.

Well from what I read, you were creating an extreme and ridiculous line for him-were you expecting him to agree that, that was his position,I doubt that you were.

I accept they may well be but surely if a politics forum is to be worth the name it should be place for debate and the expression of differing opinions, not uniform conformity.

I expressed an opinion just like you.

You're the mod, so it's your call. But their ethnically based views of Irish identity are very relevant to a discussion over Irish citizenship.

Mentioning SF's views and theirs alone on citizenship in this thread was mischievous, (given that the thread it was split from was involving NI and SF and this thread was for a discussion on citizenship)if you want to do it again, open a thread titled SF's views on citizenship.
But in here if you are only mentioning one parties policy critically without reference to the others,I'll have to view it as mischievous given that I'm aware of your overall views on SF from other threads.

Zombrex

"Irish" doesn't mean anything apart from your own personal interpritation of what it means for yourself. If someone believes themselves to be Irish then I have no problem with that, be they born and bread in the Republic or a Japanise person who has lived in Northern Ireland for 5 years. What nation you feel you best describe as your home is something that should be a personal decision for yourself and family.

There is a difference between being "Irish" and being a Citizen of the Republic of Ireland. The latter is a distinction by law, allowing you the protection and rights of the government and state of the republic. But the vast majority of the worlds citizens who call themselves "Irish" are not citizens of the Republic.

cdebru

MT wrote:

I'm not sure I fully grasp what your refering to here. If its cdebru's remarks that automatic citizenship should be given to people born and living outside the Irish state, then what I was questioning was were do you draw the line. To maintain such a policy, discrimination along either grounds of racial identity or geographic identity has to be employed. This, I believe is an unfair and unjust method of awarding citizenship. Furthermore, it not only tarnishes its value with discriminatory overtones but also devalues it by rendering the contributions of those participating within the Irish state as worthless. In terms of the covenant that citizenship should represent between the governed and government, tax paid becomes meaningless while someone having never contributed can also attain citizenship..

the constitution and laws governing citizenship clearly draw the line as to who is entitled to citizenship they were endorsed bu the vast majority of irish people living in the 26 counties
all citizenship laws discriminate that is the nature of citizenship it is a right given to people born in a predetermined area if they fulfill various qualifications it precludes people not born in that area or who dont fulfill the various qualifications
citizenship is more than just the ability to have a taxable income

MT wrote:

Ireland may not be alone in basing citizenship in the realm of ethnic nationalism but that doesn't mean such an approach is just or right. I believe it is neither..

can you name a country that does not base its citizenship laws on ethnic nationalism as you call it and what would you base citizenship on if not on the basis of a geographic area and /or parent/s who are entitled to citizenship that is the automatic right to citizenship
we also like most other countries also have naturalised citizenship available to people who are not entitled to automatic citizenship who fulfill various criteria

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

can you name a country that does not base its citizenship laws on ethnic nationalism as you call it and what would you base citizenship on if not on the basis of a geographic area and /or parent/s who are entitled to citizenship that is the automatic right to citizenship

Well actually the U.S doesnt exclusively base its citizenship on ethnicity.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well actually the U.S doesnt exclusively base its citizenship on ethnicity.

you cut off the last line of my post ireland also has naturilised citizenship there is no difference

we have both as well

http://www.ucc.ie/law/irlii/statutes/2001_15.htm

cdebru

MT wrote:

And, other than stating the obvious, your point is? This of course supports my argument concerning civic nationalism as the basis of citizenship. If you live abroad you will not have to live by Ireland’s laws therefore you’ll have little or no interest in whether such laws are maintained or altered. You are not participating in the covenant between the people and those that govern them. Granting such ‘absentee stakeholders’ citizenship devalues its meaning.

no there is a difference civic responsibility is not a basis for granting or taking away citizenship if it was we would remove irish citizenship from any one convicted of a crime

MT wrote:

My sentiments entirely. Hence, why I believe those with no long term commitment to residency in the state should have no right to its citizenship. Of course it’s ludicrous to ask people not living in the nation or availing of its services to pay its taxes, where have I claimed otherwise? But it is equally ludicrous to grant such people citizenship. As I’ve stated previously, such a state of affairs undermines the incentive for someone living in Dublin to fulfil the responsibilities citizenship involves. How can it be just to those residing in the Irish state that someone living abroad, free from their commitments, can acquire a citizenship of no lesser standing.?

it is just because they are Irish by right it is not a privilege that may be granted by the government
the situation is no different to any other country i know of
the situation you would wish for would have millions of stateless people

the fact is that irish people who live abroad have the right to come home anytime and live here and when and if they do they willl have the same responsibilities as any other citizen

MT wrote:

Don’t you realise that this is a debate in a politics forum and accordingly I am not required to agree with the contents of every law or article of the constitution? The whole point of a discussion is to express differing viewpoints not to establish conformity. I disagree with the constitution in this area. I feel it is incorrect. And where have I said the constitution forces citizenship on anyone? My contention throughout this thread is that the right of citizenship should be accompanied by certain responsibilities. It should not be handed out to those not required to perform the duties any right, for that matter, demands in return. People living in Northern Ireland, France or anywhere beyond the nation’s boundaries should not be offered Irish citizenship. They simply cannot fulfil the responsibilities such a covenant requires while apart from the state.?

what are the responsibities that you see they cannot perform

yes but your claim that it is insulting to irish citizens is not backed up by any fact including the fact that irish citizens themselves are the ones who chose the citizenships rules

MT wrote:

What are you really debating in this thread – citizenship or your desire for a all-island state?


The automatic granting of citizenship to East Germans was one of the most blatant examples of ethnic nationalism in action that you could find. Turks who emigrated to the FRG, participated in society and paid their taxes were denied citizenship because they were deemed not to be true Germans. In other words, the ethnic barrier was raised. And yet, East Germans while contributing nothing to the FRG were granted this right as they were Germans of the blood. The spirit of Hitler lived on ensuring such untermenschen as the Turks were deemed to hold a much lower standing than 'real' Germans in the East.

no it was a recognition of the fact that those people in the east were germans there is nothing rascist or fascist about it
yet you defend the UK government handing out citizenship to some people(white) in various former colonies and different levels of britishness to others in colonies and former colonies (non whites)

MT wrote:

Equally, I see no reason why I should be given a right to citizenship on a par with an immigrant to the Irish Republic from Nigerian. If they play their part and pay their taxes then they are infinitely more deserving than I. Any other approach smacks of the racist approach of the FRG.

an nigerian can attain irish citizenship and many have they dont acquire it at birth as a right in nigeria they attain nigerian citizenship there is nothing rascist about this a child born here in ireland to nigerian parents attains nigerian citizenship as a right they may also attain irish citizenship if they fulfill certain criteria


That’s debatable. You should back up such sweeping statements with some evidence. However, whether they do or don’t does not validate such an approach as one that is just or right. As far as I can see there tends to be a scale. I would prefer that Ireland move towards the just and democratic end that a civic identity represents and away from the racialism and inevitable discrimination that are consequences of ethnic nationalism.[/QUOTE]

it is not debatable all countries have automatic citizenship rights that are based on blood and geography many also have naturalised citizenship for people who dont have citizenship as a birthright

what is your alternative




?


You wouldn’t, to paraphrase your words, be using the figures that most suit your own argument?[/QUOTE]

no iam using the most relevant figures how people actually vote an opinion poll is far less trustworthy as the recent opinion poll in meath proved

Hydroquinone

cdebru wrote:

also US citizens can and do travel and work around the world ( often uninvited) without any suggestion that they are less american in fact they even maintain the right to vote even though not directly contributing anything to the US in taxes etc

Interesting debate, but this point is wrong.

If you are an American citizen living and working outside of America, you have a tax obligation to the American IRS, as well as the tax you pay in whatever country it is you live in and earn your wages.
I think it's a stipulation of retaining your citizenship as an American, but I could be wrong about that.

cdebru

Hydroquinone wrote:

Interesting debate, but this point is wrong.

If you are an American citizen living and working outside of America, you have a tax obligation to the American IRS, as well as the tax you pay in whatever country it is you live in and earn your wages.
I think it's a stipulation of retaining your citizenship as an American, but I could be wrong about that.

can you provide a link to that

you say this point is wrong and then i could be wrong on that which is it

i have looked up the US law on overseas voting and it makes not mention of tax

however US citizens is obliged to make a tax return while living overseas they dont pay any tax on the first $80000 for a single person or $160000 for a married couple they can also offset tax payed in the foreign country against any tax liability in the US so if the tax rate is higher in the country they live in no tax is due

none of this has any impact on right to a federal vote or on US citizenship

http://www.globaltaxhelp.com/taxbasics.htm

Hydroquinone

Can I provide a link? No, but my other half is an American and he earns well in excess of $80,000 a year, so he has to write a cheque to the IRS every year. I've seen hinm do it on a number of occasions.

I said I wan't sure about the tax liability being a requirement to remain a citizen, so I'm quite prepared to be corrected on that. He says that if he didnt do it, they could make it very sticky for him if he ever wanted to go back living there. But what I know is he has dual citizenship, he pays tax in both places and votes in both places. He had a postal vote in the last American Presidential election.

cdebru

Hydroquinone wrote:

Can I provide a link? No, but my other half is an American and he earns well in excess of $80,000 a year, so he has to write a cheque to the IRS every year. I've seen hinm do it on a number of occasions.

I said I wan't sure about the tax liability being a requirement to remain a citizen, so I'm quite prepared to be corrected on that. He says that if he didnt do it, they could make it very sticky for him if he ever wanted to go back living there. But what I know is he has dual citizenship, he pays tax in both places and votes in both places. He had a postal vote in the last American Presidential election.

he would have his vote wether he paid tax or not just the IRS would be looking for him when he got back

he would still be a citizen wether he paid his tax or not he might be a citizen in prison but still a citizen



the link i posted explains the tax law