Undemocratic

arcadegame2004

"Delay on citizenship legislation

18/07/04 00:00

By Sean Mac Carthaigh
The legislation to give force to June's citizenship referendum is now unlikely to be enacted before 2005.

The delay means that alleged ``citizenship tourism'' by non-nationals seeking Irish passports for their newborns can continue for many more months."
(Sunday Business Post)

We voted for the amendment so the Government should enact it this year. I think the delay is undemocratic and only allows for the abuses to continue for probably a year more.

Echoes here of the referendum decades ago on allowing all graduates of universities (rather than just Trinity College and some other one I can't remember) to vote for members of the Seanad, which no Government addressed after its passing.

Do you agree with this delay?

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
We voted for the amendment so the Government should enact it this year.

I believe you pointed out a number of times that the amendment was to give the government the power to legislate for this area, not make it compulsory.


With regard to the referendum decades ago (it was in 1979), that amendment (the seventh) retained the ability of the University of Dublin (Trinity) and the NUI (UCC, UCG, UCD) to elect three senators each as well as the 43 panel-elected senators and added the right of the government to substitute, through legislation, an equal amount of senators fr the first six fom these and/or any other higher education institutions. Apart from the fact that there were rumblings about dissolving the NUI at the time and hence the amendment might have been necessary in the event of the dissolution of that organisation, the 7th amendment was there as a facilitory measure, not a guarantee that any or all additional third-level institutions would receive this option. Additionally the old article 18 section 4 (prior to the amendment) might have been used in a case (which probably wouldn't have been successful) to prevent the dissolution of the NUI, which is why they added subsection 3 to that Article.

arcadegame2004

believe you pointed out a number of times that the amendment was to give the government the power to legislate for this area, not make it compulsory.

But I am not talking about that. I am referring to the text of the subsection to Article 9 of the Constitution. We were voting to insert that into the constitution. We were voting to insert a subsection into the Constitution stating that the Government has the right to legislate on the citizenship issue and that automatic Irish citizenship does not go to children of foreigners born here unless the Dail passes a law allowing it.

My point is that this subsection has not been inserted into the Constitution yet, despite the referendum. In other words, the Dail does not yet even have the right to legislate on the citizenship issue and will not have this power until the enabling subsection that we voted to put in the constitution is inserted there by the Dail. After previous EU treaty referendums, the results did not come into affect until the Dail enshrined the enabling amendments into the Constitution.

We need another change in the Irish Constitution to say that when people vote for a proposed constitutional amendment in a referendum, that the relevant article/subsection automatically enters the constitution.

flogen

legislation and constitutional changes get passed, but it takes time for them to be enacted into law, did you really expect it the constitution to be re-written once the result was announced?

I'm sure its being held up for a reason, I dont imagine FF will throw it to one side after taking such a leap to back it and fight of opposition claims, if theres anything worth noting about FF, its that they dont back down until they really, really have to (and even then they try to avoid it), that can be a good thing (smoking ban), and a bad thing (e-voting shambles).

sit back and relax, the ammendment was passed, it will be put down as law soon enough. If you have a problem with the hold up, find out why it is, and then complain to the responsible bodies.

flogen

gom

As far as i am aware. When the amendment is written into the constitution it will not immediatly change anything regarding citizenship.

Children of non-nationals. Citizenship tourists etc will still be able to availe of Irish citizenship due to legislation already in place that allows for them to become Irish Citizenships. This legislation must be changed or replaced for your desired
PD Paradise to come into existance.

Next amendment. Make Harney live in her own bloody constituancy and get her out of mine thanks...

bobbyjoe

Are there still plane loads of pregnant women landing and being taken to hospital to give birth arriving then?

Zulu

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Are there still plane loads of pregnant women landing and being taken to hospital to give birth arriving then?

there never was! the number were marginal to say the least. What we did was close the door to prevent this from becomming an issue.

arcadegame2004

there never was!

I suspect that there was. The recent large fall in asylum-applications could mislead some into thinking that there is only a trickle. But Chen was not an asylum-seeker seeking asylum in Ireland. You can be an asylum-seeker in any other EU state, and then fly here pregnant to get citizenship for their child, and then fly back to their adoptive home in that other EU state, before at least trying to use the Chen ruling to obstruct future deportations. They are desperate to stay in the EU and we're not that far away.

I am concerned that the longer the Government leaves it to implement the wishes of the Irish people, the greater the potential for further abuse - whatever its scale (and I accept we are probably never going to agree what that scare is). I feel, however, that the referendum result suggests that the majority of us have a "gut feeling" that there is probably a lot of individuals abusing the system.

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
They are desperate to stay in the EU and we're not that far away.

Actually they are not desperate to stay in the EU, the vast majority (of a tiny amount) leave as soon as the baby is born. That is why the government felt it needed the referendum in the first place.

If they were only coming to stay in the EU then this referendum would have been even more pointless that it actually was, because they can't stay in Ireland, even if the child has citizenship rights.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, this referedum has almost no effect on present levels of asylum seekers, and wouldn't effect the levels of economic migrants for about 16 years.

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I feel, however, that the referendum result suggests that the majority of us have a "gut feeling" that there is probably a lot of individuals abusing the system.

I am so glad that consitutional changes that effect fundamental rights, such as citizenship, are handled by the "gut feeling" of the general population.

Little things like facts, statistics, and the truth just can't be trusted to produce the "correct" response, can they. You got to go with your gut.

:rolleyes:

arcadegame2004

If they were only coming to stay in the EU then this referendum would have been even more pointless that it actually was, because they can't stay in Ireland, even if the child has citizenship rights.

It takes years for an asylum-application to play itself out and I totally reject your implication that these people are all deported. Only 5% of last year's asylum-seekers were deported in spite of 93% of asylum-claims being rejected last year.

Chen used her Irish-born child as a legal weapon to gain EU-residency rights. EU law supersedes national law, and the ECJ conferred EU-residency rights upon her and her husband. EU-residency rights means rights to live ANYWHERE in the EU, including Ireland.

pete

hey there arcadegamedude

any chance you might get around to responding to this stuff before rehashing all your stuff again? i know it was last month and everything, but y'know - unfinished business and all that.

it'd sure be great if you could find the time to get around to it!

all the best,
pete

arcadegame2004

Pete, my response to it is that the implication behind including the right to return an asylum-seeker to an earlier EU state of entry is that an asylum-seeker should have applied in the first country of entry, since to do otherwise implies the individual is simply rooting around for the most generous system.

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It takes years for an asylum-application to play itself out and I totally reject your implication that these people are all deported.

I never said they were all deported, I said they all leave. They are not refugees, they are here legally.

In 2003 the majority of foreign national births were not to asylum seekers. In fact as the number of asylum seekers has fallen, the number of foreign national births has risen.

I still do not understand why people continue to believe the myth that this issue has to do mainly with asylum seekers.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Only 5% of last year's asylum-seekers were deported in spite of 93% of asylum-claims being rejected last year.

That is simply not true -

There were 7,900 applicants in 2003. Of them, 2,411 deportation orders were signed and 590 of which were carried out. That is 24% not 5%. And that doesn't take into account those who left on their own after they were told they would be deported.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Chen used her Irish-born child as a legal weapon to gain EU-residency rights. EU law supersedes national law, and the ECJ conferred EU-residency rights upon her and her husband. EU-residency rights means rights to live ANYWHERE in the EU, including Ireland.

If you actually look at the Chen ruling, it was decided by the ECJ, that she should have "sufficient resources to ensure that she will not become a burden on the finances of the host Member State"

Basically her parents (wealthy parents) were allowed stay so that the child wouldn't be drain the resources of the EU country she was in. There is no way an asylum seeker, or other poor illegal immigrant would be awarded such a result.

This ruling does not effect the Suprem Court decision of 2003.

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Pete, my response to it is that the implication behind including the right to return an asylum-seeker to an earlier EU state of entry is that an asylum-seeker should have applied in the first country of entry, since to do otherwise implies the individual is simply rooting around for the most generous system.

Any particular reason why you snuck away from the thread last month, then?

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Wicknight
There were 7,900 applicants in 2003. Of them, 2,411 deportation orders were signed and 590 of which were carried out. That is 24% not 5%. And that doesn't take into account those who left on their own after they were told they would be deported.

I meant that only around 5% of last year's asylum-seekers were actually deported. I didn't mean that only 5% of deportation orders had been carried out. I believe that our country should pursue a policy of regarding any asylum-seeker that arrived in another EU state before Ireland as an illegal-immigrant. Full stop.

Originally posted by Pete
Any particular reason why you snuck away from the thread last month, then?

I have made tonnes of arguments during the referendum debate for heavens sake! I don't think I can be fairly accused of running away I have always vigorously defended my views.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
We voted for the amendment so the Government should enact it this year. I think the delay is undemocratic and only allows for the abuses to continue for probably a year more.

Let me guess, the enables new legislation, it doesn't obligate new legislation? Most of the recent amendment use the word "may", not "shall", two very different words.

Zulu

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
that the majority of us have a "gut feeling" that there is probably a lot of individuals abusing the system.

Well what ever about your guts the simple fact of the matter is that very,very few people are/were getting pregnant, then flying into the country heavily pregnant, having the baby here, then flying back.

arcadegame2004

Let me guess, the enables new legislation, it doesn't obligate new legislation? Most of the recent amendment use the word "may", not "shall", two very different words.

Okay but they should introduce the amendment into the Constitution this year, as the people voted overwhelmingly for it and the high turnout demonstrates the depth of feeling on this issue.

Zulu

People in this country voted the way they did because they were afraid.
Their fears won't be realised in one year (let alone 5yrs). I fully accept the point that it should be introduced sooner rather than later - but I honestly couldn't care less when it actually goes through.:dunno:

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Okay but they should introduce the amendment into the Constitution this year, as the people voted overwhelmingly for it and the high turnout demonstrates the depth of feeling on this issue.

There is no constitutional imperative to legislate. Remember the idea of having an amendment is something that only came about a few months ago - they people weren't marching in the street demanding an amendment.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

"Delay on citizenship legislation

18/07/04 00:00

By Sean Mac Carthaigh
The legislation to give force to June's citizenship referendum is now unlikely to be enacted before 2005.

The delay means that alleged ``citizenship tourism'' by non-nationals seeking Irish passports for their newborns can continue for many more months."
(Sunday Business Post)

We voted for the amendment so the Government should enact it this year. I think the delay is undemocratic and only allows for the abuses to continue for probably a year more.

I'm surprised this passed un-noticed by AG2004, probably too busy with the whole Chechnya thing. Anyway, McDowell publishes bill on citizenship

The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, has published the bill implementing the decisions ratified in the citizenship referendum in June.

The bill means that a non-national child will only be given citizenship if one of the parents has been lawfully resident in the country for three out of the four years before the child's birth.

Publishing the bill, Mr McDowell said it was the final nail in the coffin for the 'passports for sale' issue.

pete

Mr McDowell said it was the final nail in the coffin for the 'passports for sale' issue

Ah here now, mickey. What's this got to do with CJ / Fianna Fail flogging a few passports to johnny foreigner millionaire's back in the 80's?

Hobbes

The bill means that a non-national child will only be given citizenship if one of the parents has been lawfully resident in the country for three out of the four years before the child's birth.

Does that mean asylum seekers (who technically are legal in the country) if they hold out for four years, have a child then that child is Irish?

MadsL

This 'get around to it' attitude clearly demonstrates that the 'problem' was serious exaggerated, if not manufactured, and that the urgent need to for this legislation was a smokescreen to cover up FF poor performance.

I'd imagine Hobbes that they don't have legal residential status ie they are not a resident untill their asylum claim is adjudged as passed.
The clock ticks then.
Residents who are not citizens can register to vote afaik for local,and Euro elections(but not Dáil) - there is a distinction between that status and the status of someone here on a permit pending the adjudication of an asylum application-conjecture on my part I'd imagine Victor would be able to clarify.
Presumably if they have a kid while they are awaiting judgement and their asylum claim is genuine then the kid would also qualify for legal residential status but citizenship would have to come later in their case* if the parent hasn't held it for 3 out of 4 yrs prior to their birth here.


* could someone also clarify the process for my curiosity where residential status can be transformed to citizenship? I presume theres a binding routine involved?

MadsL

residential status can be transformed to citizenship? I presume theres a binding routine involved?

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/migration_and_citizenship/becoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation.html?search=citizenship

One years continuous residence preceeded by four out of the last eight years.
Good character.

Can be waived for

1. Irish decent (dig up a granny from Wexford etc)
2. Naturalised parent on behalf of a child
3. Spouse of Irish partner
4. Resident overseas on public service
5. Refugee

GuanYin

MadsL wrote:

This 'get around to it' attitude clearly demonstrates that the 'problem' was serious exaggerated, if not manufactured, and that the urgent need to for this legislation was a smokescreen to cover up FF poor performance.

I hope you're not only copping that now.

Apart from the fact that the Governments only source is a very fallible one (I won't say corrupt for fear of libel but does remember the balls the Maternity Masters made of the abortion data?) and that there was no statistical evidence whatsoever to indicate that the referendum proposal was ever an issue, most people were duped into thinking that they were voting for something that would "stop johnny foreigner coming her to take our jobs and our women"...which it clearly wasn't.

The government played a classical chess move, they preyed on the fears of working class people and the prejudices of the upperclass brackey and won kudos to divert attention away from all their other cock ups at the time.

The irony is the result of the referendum will have no effect whatsoever on any of the people who supported it.

The sooner FF and the PD's go the better.

arcadegame2004

I am pleased that my fears that the democratically-expressed will of the Irish people would not be implemented this year has proven unfounded

MadsL

I am pleased that my fears that the democratically-expressed will of the Irish people would not be implemented this year has proven unfounded

Not pompous. At all. Not one bit.

ecksor

Pompous and an excellent example of how democracy isn't working in this country.

Boggle

Seriously lad - wake up! You voted to give bertie the power to make the change. There was no mention of a time frame for doing so... Why do youcare anyway? Aside from your obvious prejudices against these people what have they ever done to harm you? Numbers wise there's not a problem ... but then again to some people 1 is too many. (gut feeling and all that)

We can vote next month on when we change the national flag to a swastica as it will soon be more representative of this state....

TwoShedsJackson

Pompous and an indication that he's too lazy too get off his hole and find out what was done about it, so because he hasn't heard about it he assumes nothing's been done and starts pissing and moaning on the Internet about it.

chill

Victor wrote:

There is no constitutional imperative to legislate. Remember the idea of having an amendment is something that only came about a few months ago - they people weren't marching in the street demanding an amendment.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that because the Const has been changed... the right that they had is now void.

There is no need now to legislate except to set out exceptions and conditions.

Sounds like a job well done.

arcadegame2004

The government played a classical chess move, they preyed on the fears of working class people and the prejudices of the upperclass brackey and won kudos to divert attention away from all their other cock ups at the time.

It didn't divert attention, and the results of the local and European elections shows this. People were not fooled. I understood the proposal perfectly well. People have more intelligence that you credit them with.People must have felt the proposal had merit or they wouldn't have voted for it.

We can vote next month on when we change the national flag to a swastica as it will soon be more representative of this state....

Oh Please! :rolleyes: Suppose you think the same about the rest of Europe then for also denying automatic citizenship to the children of all non-nationals born there? Especially Switzerland which just voted in a referendum against even allowing the grandchildren of non-nationals to get automatic Swiss citizenship. We do not compare badly at all to the rest of Europe in terms of generosity or lack of it.

In life, you always have to look after No.1 first. Countries are no different.

Victor

chill wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that because the Const has been changed... the right that they had is now void. There is no need now to legislate except to set out exceptions and conditions. Sounds like a job well done.

Will get back to you when it's not the middle of the night.

Boggle wrote:

We can vote next month on when we change the national flag to a swastica as it will soon be more representative of this state....

Nah, they cancelled that one because nobody would nominate Dana and it wouldn't be worth having a referendum if there was no election.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Especially Switzerland which just voted in a referendum against even allowing the grandchildren of non-nationals to get automatic Swiss citizenship.

And it was a far closer call then the vote in Ireland, despite some of the more extreme parties using mathematics you would be especially proud of to show that implementing the law would mean Switzerland would be 90% Muslim by 2040. Of course, the same math showed that Switzerland would be about 114% Muslim by 1050, but, y'know....they just ignored the criticism and blared their message of "fear the hordes" out regardless. Sounded surprisingly familiar, funninly enough.

And my understanding wasn't that it was about giving them right, but rather making it easier...which I understood to be a unification of the process so that it was the same across the nation rather than varying canton-to-canton.

jc

Victor

bonkey wrote:

1050

2050?

bonkey

Errr...yes

omnicorp

Even more undemocratic things have happened in this fair republic.
The Presidential Election.

Have we lost our right to vote just because Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour decide that they like Mary McAleese?

Those B*st*rds