PUP fraud €183k, should the guilty be stripped of citizenship?

Don't new citizens have to swear fidelity to the nation? Surely engaging in a massive defrauding of the State is a breach of this?

Are you living in Ireland?

I’d lay any money false banking accounts didn’t involve applying for a mortgage. Easy come, easy go except it’s easy come, easy come.

probably retrofitted house(s) too. As for property tax.............

Strumms, do you own a dictionary?

Discriminate: To differentiate; to distinguish; to treat differently. From the Latin discrimen, a distinction or difference.

Discrimination in itself is neither good nor bad. To choose an icecream based on flavour is to discriminate between e.g. chocolate and strawberry; it's a morally neutral act. It can be positive: a rule forbidding men from the women's changing room and vice versa obviously discriminates between men and women, but most people would agree that this is a wise and desirable discrimination to make. To say that someone is a sound judge of whiskey is a compliment; it means that he has the discriminating taste that can distinguish between the bad stuff and the good.

But there are certain forms of discrimination that we think are generally wrong - discrimination between men and women in the workplace, for example. Even in those case there are exceptions - e.g. you can hire an actress rather than an actor to play a female role - but the general principle is that we shouldn't discriminate between men and women in the workplace, and any exception requires scrutiny and needs to be justified. Hiring the actress over the actor is still discrimination, obviously; we are treating male and female applicants for the job differently. It's just not unlawful discrimination.

Right. When it comes to citizenship, the general principle is that we treat all citizens equally. That's the principle of equality before the law. As already noted, it's constitutionally enshrined in Ireland (and many other countries). It's also generally recognised as a fundamental of modern republican political theory. (If you disagree with that principle, now is a good time to say so, explicitly. The conversation will not go well if you don't believe in equality before the law, but pretend that you do.)

Given that principle, a suggestion that two people who commit the same crime should be differently punished depending on the circumstances in which they acquired their citizenship is definitely discrimination, and definitely requires a compelling justification. It's the creation of first- and second-class citizenship, so as to discriminate between citizens. I've pointed out the need for a justification several times in this thread. I've yet to see a compelling justification offered.

Most attempts to do so draw attention to the ethnic background of the citizens against whom it is desired to discriminate. But these attempts are dead in the water, frankly; we generally regard discrimination on the grounds of ethnic or national origin just as we regard discrimination on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation; fundamentally objectional. Far from justifying the creation of second-class revocable citizenship for naturalised citizens, these arguments tend to reinforce the view that it is highly offensive.

Other attempts point to the duties of loyalty and fidelity that naturalised citizens owe, but they fail because they are the exact same duties owed by citizens by birth and citizens by descent. They are therefore not the reason for treating these groups differently. (They are possibly a cover for other reasons which people do not wish to acknowledge.)

Attempts to equate naturalised citizens with people who can't speak English or people who can't fly an aircraft also fall over. People who can't fly an aircraft are refused a pilot's licence. There's an obvious connection between the characteristic identified (inability to fly and aircraft) and the disadvantageous treatment imposed (refusal of pilot's licence). But people who acquired their citizenship by naturalisation are punished more severely for crimes than people who acquired it by birth or descent? I'm not seeing the connection here. You might as well suggest punishing brown-eyed people more severely than blue-eyed.

The bottom line here is that we don't strip citizens by birth or citizens by descent - the vast majority of citizens convicted of crimes - of their citizenship in consequence of a criminal conviction. Given this, there's no apparent need to do this to the minority of criminals who are citizens by naturalisation. Discriminating between these groups seems objectionable in principle for the reasons already given, and attempts to justify it do not stand up to even minimal critical scrutiny.

It's even less than that .

We've had 60,000 + come through direct provision ,but that's only one area we've something like 11,000 deportation orders issued

We've deported less than 1500 people over the 30 years ,

So the idea of only 20% get approval is bs where have the tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers gone ,oh yes they went on to get citizenship

You seem to be assuming that the only possible outcomes of an unsuccessful asylum application are (a) deportation or (b) citizenship - there are no other possible outcomes.

But you'd need to be at a Fr Dougal Maguire-level of stupidity to think that. So I don't think you really do think that. I think you're just pretending to.

Well, voluntary departure, for one. INIS has a strong preference for voluntary departure, and facilitates this wherever possible. That's one of the reasons why the number of deportations carried out is small. This is the kind of thing you would know if you took any real interest in this question, as opposed to leaping to conclusions which are unsupported by evidence but which gratify and confirm your prejudices.

Another possible outcome of an unsuccessful asylum application is a grant of subsidiary protection - the is the outcome where you are found not to qualify for refugee status, but it is not currently safe to return you to your home country. Yet another possible outcome is "permission to remain", which may be granted for humanitarian or other reasons. These are not citizenship and they do not necessarily lead to citizenship.

Again, these are the kind of things you would already know if you cared about these matters.

Is one of those fellas a citizen and the other here for 5 years with a child (no mention of citizenship but presuming not here long enough to be naturalised)

I presume then, from your "no discrimination" stance, you wouldn't be in favour of deporting your man who is not a citizen? Would you even be in favour of using it as a reason to deny his application for citizenship or would that be discrimination as well?

"Yet another possible outcome is "permission to remain", which may be granted for humanitarian or other reasons. These are not citizenship and they do not necessarily lead to citizenship."

That is a bit misleading. After 5 years here they will get become eligible for citizenship. Yes, they won't automatically become citizens after 5 years - they need to go through the formality of filling out an application

Exactly. People talking here like they sweated blood and tears for the country when they literally had no say in being 'Irish' but they want to hold people who suffered hardship in life, came to Ireland, liven in Direct Provision for god knows how long and choose to become Irish to a higher standard.

It's on the same level as when they bemoan multiculturalism negatively impact the Irish culture while the do nothing to promote an Irish culture and in many cases actually spend their time ridiculing it.

Ideally yes deport them....but the fact at least one of them is here 18 plus years, has an Irish passport and 5 kids so not straightforward

Article only refers to one as a citizen. The other is stated as being "in a relationship" with a citizen