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

Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

Options
1…6791112…36

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    robindch wrote: »
    And are English-speakers here in Ireland, actually English? Or, are we Irish, because we hold Irish passports?

    As above, national citizenship is defined by what passport you hold (notwithstanding the dual citizenship issue). It's specifically not defined by what language one speaks.

    The point with regard to them listing Russian as their native language was just to bolster the point about them being native Russians and was not intended to exclusively define their nationality. What's important however, lest we get sidetracked, is that I claimed that ~60% of Crimea's population are essentially of ethnic Russian origin and you disagreed. I presented Census information to this regard that you haven't yet addressed.

    Robindch wrote:
    BTW, I see that the Russian state-controlled station, Rossiya 1, has announced that by attempting to eject armed militants from government buildings in the east of the country, Ukraine has, in effect, declared "civil war" (the Beeb's tweet at 12:37) - I can't help but wonder if that turns out to be the pretext the Russians want for the tens of thousands of Russian troops massed on the Russian side of the border to launch a full-scale invasion. Watch that space, I suppose

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27008054

    I did mention that I expected nauseating Russian propaganda to follow.
    Sometimes you'd think they'd just skip the foreplay and get on with but there still seems be a market for thinly disguised propaganda on both sides of the fence and the Americans are by no means anyone's inferior with regard to producing it and subsequently finding people to believe it. The Russians, rather more sinisterly still believe that they can whip up a mass psychosis through it's casual deployment something I think you referred to earlier, rather accurately if may say so as an unlimited flag waving type of howling nationalism.


  • Options
    #243
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    The point with regard to them listing Russian as their native language was just to bolster the point about them being native Russians and was not intended to exclusively define their nationality. What's important however, lest we get sidetracked, is that I claimed that ~60% of Crimea's population are essentially of ethnic Russian origin and you disagreed. I presented Census information to this regard that you haven't yet addressed.
    I didn't disagree with the 60% figure -- though I believe it's a shade less, but let's go with it for the sake of argument. The figure refers to "ethnic Russians" which is a phrase which has little or no meaning in international law or international relations, and bear in mind again, I'm looking at this from the perspective of international law and international expectations.

    I'm sure there are many people in Crimea who believe that they are Russian, despite their being born in "Ukraine". But regardless of their beliefs about themselves, in international law, they have acquired Ukrainian citizenship and that makes them Ukrainian. If they wish to live in Russia, there is a legal process by which they can do so. If they wish to live in Ukraine, well, they can stay where they are. If they wish to become Russians, by which I mean citizens of the RF, then there's a legal, internationally recognised process for that too.

    What is illegal and dangerous, is for Russia to invade, rig a referendum, strip existing citizenship from the current authority and impose a different one. The legal way to do this is to follow the Ukie Constitution and whatever legal process that it recommends for secession and if Crimea had convincingly followed that, well, I'd wish them the very best in the blessed, peaceful paradise that is modern-day Russia.

    Do you accept the specific illegality of Russia's actions?
    stevejazzx wrote: »
    [...] there still seems be a market for thinly disguised propaganda on both sides of the fence and the Americans are by no means anyone's inferior with regard to producing it and subsequently finding people to believe it
    I agree - the propaganda that's coming from the two sides is nauseating. Though in my experience of both, the stuff that's coming from the Russian side is noticeably easier to disprove and contains noticeably more imputation of motive and future action - to be a bit more specific, the Ukie side tends to be more "X happened and here's a (possibly fake) photo/video", while the Russian side is "X is (evil-quality Y) (and if not stopped, might do Z to our, uh, compatriots)".

    I haven't really followed much of the US media on this and the response of the US government is so pisspoor, that I wouldn't expect much comment anyway. I do assume that at most, perhaps 10% of the US population could locate Ukraine on a map of Eastern Europe, and significantly fewer actively give a flying fuck about the place.


  • Options
    #244
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    What are you talking about anti bbc..? Hahaha. Such ****e talk, the first one yeah, but really..,? The independent and telegraph..? Cop on

    You didn't actually link to the Independent, though. You linked to a spurious crank ridden anti-BBC site and the Mail and the Telegraph who have been pursuing their agenda against the BBC for decades.

    Back on topic, it's clear that Russia are determined to expand their interests into Eastern Ukraine. After that, who knows? Georgia?


  • Options
    #245
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    old hippy wrote: »
    Back on topic, it's clear that Russia are determined to expand their interests into Eastern Ukraine. After that, who knows? Georgia?
    More likely stirring up tension in Transnistra - some pro-Ukrainian tweets have indicated that Kishinev has been hosting to an above-average number of fit, military-looking men over the last few days. Transnistra is already Russian in all but name - I visited it a few years back; it's yet another Russian-sponsored frozen-conflict shithole - the Gazprom bank and dilapidated 1970's highrise with multi-story photos of a Putin and Medvedev smiling down on the main street tell you all you need to know about the place.

    In broader terms, the following -- badly drawn, apologies, lack time -- map shows one possible gameplay.

    1 Crimea
    2 East Ukraine including Donetsk and perhaps Kharkov
    3 Certainly Kharkov and Odessa
    4 Transnistra

    All of this land is within Putin's grasp so long as European countries and the US continues to wave their umbrellas at him with becoming languidity.

    303145.png


  • Options
    #246
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    In completely unrelated news, the Russian deputy defense minister in charge of defense and space industries has said that Russia intends to invade the moon:

    http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_11/Russia-plans-to-get-a-foothold-in-the-Moon-Dmitriy-Rogozin-5452/

    I seem to remember that the US declared that the moon was claimed for "All Mankind", but I wonder how this will stand up if Russia claims it for itself. Possession, as the Ukrainians are finding out, is nine-tenths of the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm sure there are many people in Crimea who believe that they are Russian, despite their being born in "Ukraine". But regardless of their beliefs about themselves, in international law, they have acquired Ukrainian citizenship and that makes them Ukrainian.If they wish to live in Russia, there is a legal process by which they can do so.
    I find this opinion a bit strange. I can see it makes sense in a strict legalistic sense, but I am still uneasy with it. If you applied this logic in N.Ireland, then everyone born there would be "British", whether they liked it or not, and plenty of them would find that label offensive. If you then went on to suggest that anyone not happy with their Britishness should go and live in the Republic, you'd be skating on very thin ice indeed.
    robindch wrote: »
    ...Russia intends to invade the moon:

    http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_04_11/Russia-plans-to-get-a-foothold-in-the-Moon-Dmitriy-Rogozin-5452/

    I seem to remember that the US declared that the moon was claimed for "All Mankind", but I wonder how this will stand up if Russia claims it for itself. Possession, as the Ukrainians are finding out, is nine-tenths of the law.
    According to the link, they aspire to setting up a permanent base on the moon. It says nothing about claiming ownership of the moon. I'd imagine the situation will be similar to the way different countries currently have bases in Antarctica, with nobody actually owning it.


  • Options
    #248
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    If you applied this logic in N.Ireland, then everyone born there would be "British", whether they liked it or not, and plenty of them would find that label offensive. If you then went on to suggest that anyone not happy with their Britishness should go and live in the Republic, you'd be skating on very thin ice indeed.
    Isn't everyone who's born in Northern Ireland British whether they like it or not? I know people born in N.I. used to be allowed to choose to be Irish as well (as the Republic of Ireland claimed all of Ireland, all those born on the island were Irish citizens and could get an Irish Passport), but not since Ireland renounced the constitutional claim to the North; now they're only British unless they apply for and are granted Irish citizenship. Whether or not they find it offensive, I'm pretty sure it's factual?


  • Options
    #249
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,638 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Absolam wrote: »
    Isn't everyone who's born in Northern Ireland British whether they like it or not? I know people born in N.I. used to be allowed to choose to be Irish as well (as the Republic of Ireland claimed all of Ireland, all those born on the island were Irish citizens and could get an Irish Passport), but not since Ireland renounced the constitutional claim to the North; now they're only British unless they apply for and are granted Irish citizenship. Whether or not they find it offensive, I'm pretty sure it's factual?
    What's factual is that they are British citizens (or subjects or whatever), but they are Irish, not British (referring to ethnicity or culture), it's a tricky issue on how you label or identify someone, or they identify themselves.

    Culture and ethnicity both have serious flaws if you use them (what makes someone Irish for example? What most people would agree on clearly doesn't apply to everyone) but I still prefer using them to citizenship, as citizenship is so arbitrary and potentially fast changing that I don't think it's so useful to use.


  • Options
    #250
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    If you applied this logic in N.Ireland, then everyone born there would be "British", whether they liked it or not, and plenty of them would find that label offensive.
    This isn't about legitimate or illegitimate offense-taking - it's about legal realities.
    recedite wrote: »
    If you then went on to suggest that anyone not happy with their Britishness should go and live in the Republic, you'd be skating on very thin ice indeed.
    Again, I'm talking strictly about the legal realities. If somebody in the North is unhappy with being a British subject, then they're welcome to apply for Irish citizenship and if they meet the requirements, I'm sure the government here will confer it. They can stay in the North if they want to, or -- owing to free movement in the EU -- can move into the Republic too. This is how citizenship works.

    BTW, the UNHCR has issued a report on events in Ukraine over the last few months - the report is here:

    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_Report_15April2014.doc

    ...and it notes that there were "credible allegations of harassment, arbitrary arrest, and torture targeting activists and journalists who did not support the referendum" in Crimea, that "the OHCHR delegation received many reports of vote rigging" and that "the referendum held on 16 March 2014 had no validity".


  • Options
    #251
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Latest is that the Ukrainian government has launched a military operation to recover control of Kramatorsk airfield - twitter suggests multiple deaths - Ukrainian military also entering Sloviansk, no reports yet. Russia claims that Ukraine is on the brink of civil war. One tweeter has reported that Russia is preparing to launch a full-scale invasion in order to protect, uh, well, I'm not quite sure, but the twitter suggestion of "their people" might be accurate, since multiple tweets have suggested, with quite a lot of (possibly fake) photographic/video evidence, that the unrest in the east has been led by Russian soldiers.

    *chucks bottle of vodka into the bin*


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,196 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Absolam wrote: »
    Isn't everyone who's born in Northern Ireland British whether they like it or not?

    No, it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so they could call themselves British or Northern Irish if they want (or both). Almost certainly they're entitled to Irish citizenship also so can call themselves Irish also (perhaps in combination with one or both of the others.) Identity in NI can be a very fluid thing.
    I know people born in N.I. used to be allowed to choose to be Irish as well (as the Republic of Ireland claimed all of Ireland, all those born on the island were Irish citizens and could get an Irish Passport), but not since Ireland renounced the constitutional claim to the North; now they're only British unless they apply for and are granted Irish citizenship. Whether or not they find it offensive, I'm pretty sure it's factual?

    No. For citizenship purposes being born in NI is no different from being born in the ROI. This is borne out by the post-GFA Article 2, and the revised Article 9.2 (after the 27th Amendment) makes no such distinction either.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #253
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Isn't everyone who's born in Northern Ireland British whether they like it or not? I know people born in N.I. used to be allowed to choose to be Irish as well (as the Republic of Ireland claimed all of Ireland, all those born on the island were Irish citizens and could get an Irish Passport), but not since Ireland renounced the constitutional claim to the North; now they're only British unless they apply for and are granted Irish citizenship. Whether or not they find it offensive, I'm pretty sure it's factual?
    If you are born "on the island of Ireland" to Irish or British parents, you can choose Irish citizenship. It has not changed since we dropped the constitutional claim on N.Ireland.
    But if you were born in the Republic and your parents were neither Irish nor British, and only short term residents, you would not automatically be entitled to get Irish citizenship.
    And if you were born outside Ireland to an Irish parent living abroad, you can claim Irish citizenship.

    If you add these three things together, which are fairly recent developments, it means that Irish citizenship "as a birthright" has changed to become largely based on ethnicity, whereas in the past it was largely based on where you were born. I hadn't noticed that before; it seems to have just crept in since the 90's.
    more info


  • Options
    #254
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Ukrainian tank takes a short cut across the grass making $hit of the lawn, gets chased and harassed by irate local people in a Lada. :)

    A Lada car (Russian made) faces up to a Ukrainian tank as people from the "People's Republic of Donetsk" prevent Ukrainian soldiers from heading to Slaviansk.
    I'm getting a sense that the Ukrainian army is not really "up for" attacking its own citizens, despite getting whatever orders from certain ultra hardline nationalists in the Maidan "government".


  • Options
    #255
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    ninja900 wrote: »
    No. For citizenship purposes being born in NI is no different from being born in the ROI. This is borne out by the post-GFA Article 2, and the revised Article 9.2 (after the 27th Amendment) makes no such distinction either.

    In reality though someone is an Irish citizen at birth in ROI (assuming they have qualifying parentage) but if from NI the Irish authorities won't know about them until they, for example, apply for an Irish passport. They are if course entitled to Irish citizenship and once conferred it exists on the same basis as those born in ROI.


  • Options
    #256
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    ninja900 wrote: »
    No, it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so they could call themselves British or Northern Irish if they want (or both). Almost certainly they're entitled to Irish citizenship also so can call themselves Irish also (perhaps in combination with one or both of the others.) Identity in NI can be a very fluid thing.
    In fairness, yes the passport does say Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is distinct from the other countries lumped under Britain.
    ninja900 wrote: »
    No. For citizenship purposes being born in NI is no different from being born in the ROI. This is borne out by the post-GFA Article 2, and the revised Article 9.2 (after the 27th Amendment) makes no such distinction either.
    That's genuinely interesting; I assumed the 'island of Ireland' provision was gone, rendering Northern Irish births ineligible, but it is now born on the island of Ireland wit a least one parent who is an Irish citizen, or a British citizen, which is a neat piece of work. Also interesting that the legislation doesn't recognise a Northern Irish citizen; it just says British.


  • Options
    #257
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Richard wrote: »
    In reality though someone is an Irish citizen at birth in ROI (assuming they have qualifying parentage) but if from NI the Irish authorities won't know about them until they, for example, apply for an Irish passport. They are if course entitled to Irish citizenship and once conferred it exists on the same basis as those born in ROI.
    They're Irish citizens from birth.

    It's true, though, that in the case of people born both in RoI and in NI the government will not take a position on whether they are Irish citizens or not until it needs to - usually because they have applied for a passport, but it could be some other attempt to exercise a privilege of citizenship.

    The government knows about people born in RoI (because it maintains a register of births) but it does not know that those people are Irish citizens (because that depends on their parents nationality and/or residence status, and that information is not contained in the register of births).

    It's not the case that someone born in NI of an Irish or British parent is "entitled" to Irish citizenship, and that this is "conferred" when a passport is granted. They are Irish citizens, whether or not they ever apply for a passport. All that is conferred when a passport is granted is a passport.


  • Options
    #258
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    They're Irish citizens from birth.
    Not according to the Irish government:


    http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/WP11000023

    Although they don't draw a distinction between North and South, they just say both are "entitled"


  • Options
    #259
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Absolam wrote: »
    Also interesting that the legislation doesn't recognise a Northern Irish citizen; it just says British.

    That's because it's referring to the legal definition of "British Citizen" i.e. Citizen of the UK. There is no Northern Irish Citizenship, neither is there English, Scottish or Welsh citizenship.


  • Options
    #260
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Richard wrote: »
    That's because it's referring to the legal definition of "British Citizen" i.e. Citizen of the UK. There is no Northern Irish Citizenship, neither is there English, Scottish or Welsh citizenship.
    What we were discussing above; must a citizen of the United Kingdom born in Northern Ireland be considered "British", or may they be considered Northern Irish, since a distinction is obviously acknowledged by the United Kingdom in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" title on passports. They are obviously a United Kingdom citizen, but not so obviously a British citizen?


  • Options
    #261
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Richard wrote: »
    Not according to the Irish government:

    http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/WP11000023

    Although they don't draw a distinction between North and South, they just say both are "entitled"
    Actually, on further examination, you’re right.

    Since 2005 the position is this.

    1. The only people who are automatically Irish citizens from birth are those who (a) are born in Ireland (the geographical entity, not the State of that name) and (b) are not entitled to the citizenship of any other country.

    2. Other people born in Ireland are not automatically Irish citizens from birth, but they are entitled to become citizens if at least one parent is:

    (a) an Irish citizen;

    (b) a person who is themselves entitled to become an Irish citizen;

    (d) a British citizen;

    (e) a Irish resident with an indefinite right of residence in Ireland (this would include EU and EEA nationals resident in Ireland); or

    (f) a person who has legally resided in Ireland for at least three out of the four year’s before the child’s birth (other than as a student or an asylum seeker).

    A person who is entitled to become an Irish citizen becomes and Irish citizen when they (or someone acting on their behalf) does something that only an Irish citizen is entitle to do. So when you apply for an Irish passport, you become an Irish citizen (even if, e.g. the application is rejected for reasons other than citizenship). Or, if you never apply for a passport, you become an Irish citizen when you, e.g., vote in a Presidential election.

    The same rules apply both north and south of the border. However, since almost everyone born in Northern Ireland is a British citizen from birth or is entitled to become one, very few people born in NI are automatically Irish citizens from birth. But a significant number of people born in the RoI are also not automatic citizens, because through a parent or grandparent they have another citizenship, or the entitlement to one. They don’t acquire citizenship until they apply for a passport, vote in a Presidential election, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Absolam wrote: »
    What we were discussing above; must a citizen of the United Kingdom born in Northern Ireland be considered "British", or may they be considered Northern Irish, since a distinction is obviously acknowledged by the United Kingdom in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" title on passports. They are obviously a United Kingdom citizen, but not so obviously a British citizen?
    Confusingly, in the expression "British citizen" the word "British" doesn't refer to the island of Great Britain, but to the political entity called the United Kindgom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The same is true in expressions like "British Government", "British embassy", "British army". The citizenship conferred by UK legislation is called "British citizenship".

    The UK does in fact have different categories of citizen (British Overseas Territories citizens, British nationals, British subjects, etc; I think there are six in all) but it has no category of citizenship which refers exclusively to Northern Ireland (or any other constituent country of the UK). There are British citizens who are currently resident in Northern Ireland, but there are no Northern Ireland citizens.


  • Options
    #263
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Absolam wrote: »
    They are obviously a United Kingdom citizen, but not so obviously a British citizen?

    It says "British Citizen" in the "Nationality" section on the photo page.

    I think it used to be "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" until about 40 years ago, which sounds really anachronistic now.


  • Options
    #264
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    So then, to Recidites original post; everyone born in Northern Ireland is British, whether they like it or not. But some may have the facility to be Irish, as well.


  • Options
    #265
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Richard wrote: »
    It says "British Citizen" in the "Nationality" section on the photo page.

    I think it used to be "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" until about 40 years ago, which sounds really anachronistic now.
    It used to be just "British subject" until 1948, when it dawned on them that they needed to distinguish between white people, who could safely be let into the UK, and brown and black people, who couldn't.

    So they created the status of "Citizen of the UK and Colonies" (CUKC), which was basically British subjects with a close link to the UK, nearly all of whom were white, or to a directly governed colony. CUKC's had a right of entry into the UK. British subjects who didn't qualify for CUKC status might qualify for Canadian citizenship, Australian citizenship, etc (while still remaning "British subjects") or they became British subjects without citizenship. They didn't have an automatic right of entry into the UK.

    They tweaked the system in 1962, to provide that CUKCs whose passports were issued by the UK government had a right of entry into the UK, while CUKCs whose passports were issued by a colonial government - did not. This resulted in the bizarre situation that there was a substantial class of UK citizens who had no right of entry into the UK.

    They tweaked the system again in 1971, to make a CUKC's right of entry into the UK dependent, not on where your passport was issued, but on whether your parents, your grandparents or your husband (but not your wife) were born in the UK. This increased the pool of CUKCs who had no right of entry into the UK.

    Finally, in 1981 they overhauled the whole system, abandoning the concept of CUKC altogether. Instead you had British Citizens, British Dependent Territories Citizens and British Overseas Citizens. To this you can add a couple of categories created since (e.g. British Nationals Overseas) plus the poor old British Subjects without citizenship, who had been hanging around since 1948.

    British Subjects without citizenship are people who were British subjects at birth, and never acquired the citizenship of any commonwealth country. Nearly all of them are dead now, and since the status is not inherited the number continues to decline. Most of the suriviving British Subjects without citizenship are in fact Irish citizens who were born in the RoI before 1949. As Irish citizens and EU nationals they have rights of entry and abode in the UK anyway, so the rather limited rights attached to their BSwc status aren't a handicap in practice.


  • Options
    #266
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Actually, on further examination, you’re right.

    To be honest I think the current situation where it makes it trivial for anyone to become an Irish citizen but in practice hardly anyone in NI is automatically one means that both unionists and nationalists can claim victory on this one.

    Interestingly, from what you say, if two Irish Citizens from ROI who don't hold British (or any other citizenship) have child in NI, that child wouldn't be automatically an Irish citizen.

    Also it seems that if two Irish citizens, one from NI had a baby in ROI, that baby wouldn't be automatically an Irish citizen even if the parent from NI had never had a British passport unless they had officially renounced British citizenship.


  • Options
    #267
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Richard wrote: »
    Interestingly, from what you say, if two Irish Citizens from ROI who don't hold British (or any other citizenship) have child in NI, that child wouldn't be automatically an Irish citizen.

    Also it seems that if two Irish citizens, one from NI had a baby in ROI, that baby wouldn't be automatically an Irish citizen even if the parent from NI had never had a British passport unless they had officially renounced British citizenship.

    The point is surely that "automatic dual citizenship" is a bit of a redundant concept. People have the right to a citizenship, so it's important for there to be a procedure that determines what that is, if there is only one. If you're entitled to half a dozen, it's hardly crucial that they all be "forced" on you.


  • Options
    #268
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Absolam wrote: »
    What we were discussing above; must a citizen of the United Kingdom born in Northern Ireland be considered "British", or may they be considered Northern Irish, since a distinction is obviously acknowledged by the United Kingdom in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" title on passports.

    There's very little "must" when it comes to the culture of self-identification. As others have pointed out, "British Citizen" is the official legal term, and there's no arguing that. OTOH, it's not necessarily helpful to go waving that in front of a NI person (for example) and saying "hah! This proves you're British!" It makes more sense to me, for example, to describe Rory McIlroy as a "UK golfer" than a "British golfer" (at least while he's trading under that brand; this post might be out of date already, as he changes his mind again). Though it doesn't just cut against nationalist/Catholic sensibilities: if he pitches up at the Olympics to play for the state of his birth, it'll be as part of the "Great Britain" team.


  • Options
    #269
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    They're Irish citizens from birth.

    It's true, though, that in the case of people born both in RoI and in NI the government will not take a position on whether they are Irish citizens or not until it needs to - usually because they have applied for a passport, but it could be some other attempt to exercise a privilege of citizenship.

    Citizenship is a matter for governments. It doesn't make sense to say that they're citizens in some abstract sense "that the Irish government doesn't take a position on". (Citizens in the eyes of eternity?)
    It's not the case that someone born in NI of an Irish or British parent is "entitled" to Irish citizenship, and that this is "conferred" when a passport is granted.

    It's not "conferring"; what it is, though, is removal of the ambiguity implied by the use of "entitled".

    If nothing else, it spares the embarrassment of a few hundred thousand northern Prods queuing up to "renounce" the Irish citizenship that's being "forced on them by a foreign power".


  • Options
    #270
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Absolam wrote: »
    In fairness, yes the passport does say Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is distinct from the other countries lumped under Britain.

    Eh, no. The UK is a unitary state. The "and" bit is part of the name of that state. (And post-GFA, a part that Ireland even puts in the envelope when it's writing "Dear Imperialist Former Oppressors" letter.)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    robindch wrote: »
    [...]Russia is preparing to launch a full-scale invasion in order to protect, uh, well, I'm not quite sure[...]

    Putin's prospects for being declared President for Life, perhaps?


Advertisement