Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1911131415

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    Systems that work for purpose, that is, the benefit of the same society that creates them, are all well and good. Until they aren't.


    As above, public perception isn't behind these jokey systems, and that's what counts. That's what will change systems, that's what affects everyday life while you're buying milk.


    Technicalities are what's introducing these type of people, and technicalities are keeping them here against all good sense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,670 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    As above, public perception isn't behind these jokey systems, and that's what counts.

    If you're gauging public perception on a handful of Boards accounts, I've bad news for you. Peter Casey would be the sitting President if this place was an accurate metric.

    Most people in the real world will see you simply can't treat people in such a blatant discrimanatory fashion.

    What do you mean by 'these type of people' by the way? I might know what you are talking about if we didn't have a raft of home grown examples of people engaging in fraud.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What about Irish citizens who are criminals?

    I'm gonna blow your mind now, there are huge amounts of people that have commited fraud in relation to the PUP, who just live here! Not even citizens! 😱



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    Yeah, as if I'd take an online anything as a clue to public perception.


    No, it's every day that informs, and from a wide range of people from every slice of life, there isn't a person or aquaontaince I know that thinks this system is honest. And that tallies with reported facts, funnily enough.


    And the tired "but the homegrown!" is entirely separate to a discussion entirely centered on not-home-grown scammers, whataboutism blah blah.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    "What about this other thing that's separate from the discussion?"


    Yeah, exactly. What about it, indeed.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    How is it different? Irish citizens commit fraud. Also non irish citizens commit fraud. What is the.difference?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    "How is it different?" You ask, while having to distinguish the subjects :p

    You are answering your own question with the very question, impressive.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Well that appears to be the point of the thread, does it not? That Irish citizens who achieve citizenship through some other means other than having an Irish parent and then commit crime are somehow worse than other Irish citizens that commit crime?

    That's the premise of the thread.

    Which also ignores that non Irish citizens also commit crime.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    You are listing off one difference after another, and then asking what's the difference.


    I can't give you any further clues as to the pointlessness of your question.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ok, so we are in agreement then? All people should be treated equally before the law.

    There's no need for this thread.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that we're in agreement?


    You cant even ask a sensible question, which I suppose answers my own question in turn.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Well you don't see any difference in anyone that commits fraud in this country, and I don't either. They are all just people who commit fraud.

    Therefore, agreement 😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    You don't see any difference in people committing fraud?


    Despite you specifically listing out differences?


    Despite everything everyone else has said in this thread?


    Maybe away over the rainbow we're in agreement, but I'm here on Earth.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,572 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    I'd imagine if there was a poll done most people would be in favour of kicking out foreigners who game the system and stripping those who were given citizenship of it as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator




  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I have no idea what your opinion is, nor why you are in this thread.

    you either agree with the OP, that people convicted of crime should be stripped of their citizenship or you do not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    Sure the idea is preposterous.


    Instead of the government taking money from you on the sly, just picture the situation if they had to call to your door and ask for money directly out of your wallet.


    "Excuse me, sir, this bloke who I allowed into the country robbed me last night. Now, I'm going to put him in prison and would you mind sparing 50 quid to help me out, because of the decision I made?"


    It would be rough going asking to fund the imprisonment of our own thieves, but to fund the imprisonment of people from other countries too?


    They'd be lucky to only have the door slammed in their face.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    I don't know if the Citizenship of Ireland is granted on condition , I'd doubt it. So therefore I don't think it could be rescinded.


    If they were criminals they shouldn't have been granted entry into the country in the first place I doubt this is their first rodeo; I suspect considering their skillet Citizenship was possibly obtained fraudulently.

    The question is theoretical, therefore I would be in favour of conditional Citizenship. If you're convicted of a serious crime, cheerio.

    But legally this is I would expect impossible because all citizens are considered equal therefore revoking Citizenship wouldn't be possible

    It's the price the free world pays for success



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I have no idea what you're on about and not do I care.

    I'm just not sure why you would bother contributing to a thread while pretending not to engage. Very strange.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    Yeah I have totally barking mad ideas, woof woof.


    Dudes abscond into the country via a hilariously well known broken system, rob the country, and aren't booted out as quick.


    And you're here to defend that stupidity by leaning on the hilariously well known broken system.


    Absoloot barker's, roight?



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ah ok, you do see some citizens as less then other citizens.

    A second class under citizen if you will. I understand now, what you are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27 ululator


    "Let me use this broken system to defend calling you racist real quick"


    Cowards hide behind broken rules, and they'll be the first to kick up a storm when it doesn't suit them. Zero principles.


    It's you and 3 other people in the entire country that thinks it's a fair system. Thankfully nobody else believes it, and that's what will get the system fixed, sooner rather than later.


    Can't wait to hear all 4 of you go mental about the law when that happens, conveniently enough :p



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think you will find the majority of this country believe in our constitution. Our constitution which was way ahead of its time in human rights.

    Our constitution which defends the rights of our citizens and treats everyone equally.

    So, no, I don't believe there are only four people that believe in our constitution.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's the price the free world pays for success

    That makes little sense. The western world gained it's success based on it's historical advantages in technology and warfare. Economics based on expansion (imperialism/colonialism), and the production of war materials provided the bases for Western economic success... which was expanded upon after WW2 by further technological success, and the exploitation of the 3rd world. The US economy is based off the wealth it gained from Britain and Lend lease, and then compounded as being the biggest manufacturer and supplier of military hardware.

    Western success is not based on any kind of equality. Look at US society? Do you really see equality extended to the majority of people, or glaringly wide margins of income inequality, and the access to power/influence being largely dependent on wealth? Most of Europe still retains the social frameworks of working classes, and the wealthier upper classes, who own most of everything. Generational wealth accrued over decades or centuries.

    Equality is mostly a piece of propaganda trotted out to show the superiority of western culture compared to other cultures, but, in reality, it's never been close to what it claimed itself to be.

    And the success of the "free world" has been on shaky ground for decades now. There is no connection between the high ideals for equality and representation, with the success of Western nations, except for the immigration of highly talented individuals who were encouraged to come to the West, and acted as a driver for technological success.. but they would have been an extreme minority compared to the remainder who ended up at the bottom of the society as cheap labor.

    The question is theoretical, therefore I would be in favour of conditional Citizenship. If you're convicted of a serious crime, cheerio. But legally this is I would expect impossible because all citizens are considered equal therefore revoking Citizenship wouldn't be possible

    A nations laws can be changed. The only real obstacle to such a change would be the UN... and that organisation has never been particularly effective. It wouldn't be that difficult to completely ignore the UN if the EU member states believed it was worth implementing such a condition on citizenship, and the revoking of that status depending on specific circumstances.

    TBH I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of discussion, over the next few years, in Europe from France, Denmark, etc about how to change these laws. Attitudes have shifted considerably over the last two years, and that's likely to continue due to the continued problems with migrant populations, and those who have become citizens in those countries.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,639 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    The law (the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, not the constitution as I first posted) already allows for citizenship through naturalisation to be revoked for a number of reasons:

    ________________________

    19 .—(1) The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied—

    (a) that the issue of the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts or circumstances, or

    (b) that the person to whom it was granted has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State, or

    (c) 45 that (except in the case of a certificate of naturalisation which is issued to a person of Irish descent or associations) the person to whom it is granted has been ordinarily resident outside the State or, in the case of an application for a certificate of naturalisation granted under section 15A, resident outside the island of Ireland (otherwise than in the public service) for a continuous period of seven years and without reasonable excuse has not during that period registered annually in the prescribed manner his name and a declaration of his intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister, or

    (d) that the person to whom it is granted is also, under the law of a country at war with the State, a citizen of that country, or

    (e) that the person to whom it is granted has by any voluntary act, other than marriage or entry into a civil partnership, acquired another citizenship.

    _________________________


    (b) would be the reason that seems most applicable in cases like this. This is the wording of the pledge: “I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.

    I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.

    So it could apply here, but it could also apply to illegal parking, so it depends on how that is interpreted.

    Post edited by osarusan on


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    I didn't say it was the reason for our success, it's more a cost of maintaining it.


    There is always inequality in all societies unless you live in a communist one where everybody lives in the mud except of course the leaders


    But, in a country where we have freedoms, healthcare, flushing toilets and a justice system that's fair - you will be an attractive nation for other people who will want to live here.

    Should we have an open border? Absolutely not.

    We have to deal with people we don't like in ways that may seem unfair, but putting a tyre filled with kerosene around the neck of a child molester and setting it on fire sounds nice, but civil society doesn't allow it.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    that is not article 19 of the constitution.

    perhaps you are confused.

    This, however, is an article of the constitution;

    Article 40

    'All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law '

    one of the most important articles in our constitution. Way ahead of its time in the 1930s



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,639 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    I edited my post to be accurate about the source.

    I'm not arguing for/against different treatements in that post, my post was just to point out that although some people think citizenship is currently irrevocable, citizenship can actually be revoked under certain circumstances*.

    *actually, right now, I believe it can't as Ali Charaf Damache successfully appealed his revocation of citizenship based on the unconstitutionalty of sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the same act, which deal with the way to appeal a revocation, and until those sections have been revised to be consitutional, the Minister for Justice cannot make any revocation orders.

    But maybe those sections have already been revised and added to the act, in which case the minister could.



Advertisement