Why is it wrong to oppose mass immigration?

cerastes

alastair wrote: »

If you're talking about a two-tier citizenship arrangement, you're talking about second-class citizens. No two ways about it. Either someone is a citizen, or they're not.

I'd love to know why you would expect any nation to agree to taking in a foreign (ie: Irish) citizen, who had just been found guilty of a serious crime in Ireland, but not actually served any sentence. Would you be in favour of Ireland taking in, say Kiwi criminals, rather than they serve their time in New Zealand? The mind boggles.

The state has an obligation to it's citizens, and if they break the law, it has the power to penalise them through the well-worn mechanisms of fines, community service, and imprisonment.

My post is just prior to yours, so what part of Im not advocating a second class citizenry isn't clear.
Im advocating if some has been given citizenship, then it comes with responsibilities not just rights, and it should be possible for it to be rescinded.
The person in question could go back to their other country of nationality, he is a national of another Country too. If they see fit for him to serve a sentence fine, I'm not suggesting we impose our system on them, let them do as they do, if prison, good, if not, lets not get concerned about it, just that the person shouldnt be allowed to return at all.

Im sure your mind does boggle, I never mention New Zealand regarding people coming here and Ive no interest in any person from another country coming here and commiting serious crimes, given how much it costs to house those imprisoned, I say let anyone serve their time in their home country if after they are deported, if their country sees fit, assuming we have some agreement, but if not, then its not our concern. Im sure you are bringing that up because you think Im advocating deporting some people but not others, but its you thats dragging this off course.

If a person is a non national then I think deporting them to serve their sentence in their home country could be fairer and better for us and maybe them. They have commited crimes, you advocate that do you? just let people in then house them at the taxpayers expense so they can what?, leave a revolving door system to commit more crimes?

Nodin

cerastes wrote: »

My post is just prior to yours, so what part of Im not advocating a second class citizenry isn't clear.
Im advocating if some has been given citizenship, then it comes with responsibilities not just rights, and it should be possible for it to be rescinded.
The person in question could go back to their other country of nationality, he is a national of another Country too. If they see fit for him to serve a sentence fine, I'm not suggesting we impose our system on them, let them do as they do, if prison, good, if not, lets not get concerned about it, just that the person shouldnt be allowed to return at all.

....which is a nonsense, because it means there's two tiers of punishment for the same crime.

Are you proposing this for all new Irish citizens, or only those with dual nationality?

jank

Australia revoked the citizenship of someone who was conspiring to commit terrorist activities. In my opinion it was justified, so it's not unheard of.

cerastes

Nodin wrote: »

....which is a nonsense, because it means there's two tiers of punishment for the same crime.

Are you proposing this for all new Irish citizens, or only those with dual nationality?

Whats the point, you'll just argue this around and around, I think it should be a condition of gaining citizenship, that you maintain dual nationality, so you can be sent back, its not like we dont have enough of our own criminals.

And you? you advocate what the guy was doing? do you?

I such and such, having applied to the Minister

for Justice and Equality for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.

What do you propose? just bang them up here? Id rather see that money go to some of the people that are in need of assistance here, that guy had rights and responsibilities, he gave up the former when he shirked the latter.

Nodin

cerastes wrote: »

Whats the point, you'll just argue this around and around, I think it should be a condition of gaining citizenship, that you maintain dual nationality, so you can be sent back, its not like we dont have enough of our own criminals..............

It's rather stupid, discriminatory and implies a level of distrust against new citizens.

View

clairefontaine wrote: »

Another example, neither can American citizens who have been convicted of a felony, whether in or out of the country. http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

We are not the US and such a system is a blatant breech of human rights under European law.

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

My post is just prior to yours, so what part of Im not advocating a second class citizenry isn't clear.

The bit where you propose a second class citizen?

cerastes wrote: »

Im sure your mind does boggle, I never mention New Zealand regarding people coming here and Ive no interest in any person from another country coming here and commiting serious crimes, given how much it costs to house those imprisoned, I say let anyone serve their time in their home country if after they are deported, if their country sees fit, assuming we have some agreement, but if not, then its not our concern. Im sure you are bringing that up because you think Im advocating deporting some people but not others, but its you thats dragging this off course.

So - you are indeed advocating that we should be obligated to take in criminals (who haven't served their sentence) from another state (New Zealand, or wherever). Don't see much of a cost-saving for the state there. You sure you've thought this through?

cerastes

alastair wrote: »

The bit where you propose a second class citizen?



So - you are indeed advocating that we should be obligated to take in criminals (who haven't served their sentence) from another state (New Zealand, or wherever). Don't see much of a cost-saving for the state there. You sure you've thought this through?

Look, you're clearly looking to get a rise out of me, so troll away.
I have not suggested anything about second class citizenship, just that those who take an oath upon taking up citizenship should be expected to not be involved in serious crimes, like an illegal international drugs enterprise.


And no, I havent said anything about taking in criminals so why bring it up repeatedly, you brought that up about New Zealand so you're clearly trolling again.
If you're trying to suggest if an Irish person was convicted of a crime abroad, then just say it, if such a person had gained citizenship somewhere I wouldnt take any issue with them being stripped of that citizenship and deported if that was that States law. And if we had an agreement with that country Id have no issue with them serving time here. But I have no issue with them serving their time elsewhere either.

What I have said is if anyone commits a crime here, they should be deported/repatriated to their country of origin, if they have taken up citizenship then there are rights and responsibilities, I think it should be possible to revoke their citizenship rather than pay to keep them here, hence why I said they should be expected to maintain dual nationality status, so they can be sent back, if that was the case, they might think before getting involved, probably not, but I dont expect this will affect the majority of law abiding people that have gained citizenship, but it would be a good thing to deter those that might.

There is no point in discussing it with you because you will just keep twisting it around, you have no solution to the problem and aren't willing to discuss it, I dont claim to have the answers, but without discussing it, especially because its too sensitive of a topic to talk about nothing useful will come of it.

View

cerastes wrote: »

that guy had rights and responsibilities, he gave up the former when he shirked the latter.

Well no he didn't. That isn't how our legal system works. The courts may place restrictions upon your ability to exercise some of your rights but you don't "give up" those rights though. They aren't "rights" if they can be stripped from you or if you can voluntarily or otherwise give them up.

jank

The government of Ireland denies the vote to its thousands upon thousands of its ex pats even though most of these are hard working professionals with spotless criminal records where they are seeking to better themselves or their lot, meanwhile scumbags with 70+ convictions are allowed to vote. Great country isn't it!

Citizenship has certain responsibilities attached.

clairefontaine

View wrote: »

We are not the US and such a system is a blatant breech of human rights under European law.

Yeah uh thanks for clarifying you are not the US. Was not aware of that. However, are you sure its illegal under European law or that each nation can decide upon itself how to determine citizenship and the rights it bears?

My point was citizenship rights are not absolute.

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

What I have said is if anyone commits a crime here, they should be deported/repatriated to their country of origin

Oh, I'm clear on what you said. It's just you keep glossing over the consequent obligation to take in other state's criminals, with no time served, because they have chosen to deport them to us. Not so sure where you see a benefit to the state there - on a cost-saving basis or otherwise. After all, there are rather more criminals in the Irish diaspora than are contained in the Irish naturalised community.

The 'solution' to the problem is to impose the normal penalties for criminality - just like they apply to any other citizen.

cerastes

alastair wrote: »

Oh, I'm clear on what you said. It's just you keep glossing over the consequent obligation to take in other state's criminals, with no time served, because they have chosen to deport them to us. Not so sure where you see a benefit to the state there - on a cost-saving basis or otherwise. After all, there are rather more criminals in the Irish diaspora than are contained in the Irish naturalised community.

The 'solution' to the problem is to impose the normal penalties for criminality - just like they apply to any other citizen.

Im willing to take on board what you say, I agree with a lot of it, Im not trying to gloss over things, never said I have all the answers or that its absolute, I believe these things have to be discussed out, openly.

I still think there should be an obligation for a person that has been made a citizen to not be involved in illegal activity, maybe a probationary period that any involvement in serious crime in certain time is a definitive revoking of the status granted, maybe 5-6 years or more, if a person was found to have commited a crime within that time period even after, Id suggest they are sent packing. Any law abiding citizen shouldnt have any concerns but a person that has premeditated criminal intent or is from a criminal background that intends on not changing their ways, probably wont hold out that long. I think this would protect the state and its existing citizens, so its possible to get rid of undesireable elements that have no place here, that would otherwise cost the law abiding citizens money.
I know you or others will revert to saying this is two tier, you seem to think that its an acceptable cost to use the Nations resources to detect the crimes, bring a case and prosecute someone and if successful then house them at great expense to the State, at the least in any circumstances if we have? agreements with other countries, I think we should offer to allow convicted criminals to have their stay in their country of origin.

What agreements we have to do the same or not with other countries is not relevant, that would be down to those countries laws and any similar agreements they might have with us.

alastair

cerastes wrote: »

Im willing to take on board what you say, I agree with a lot of it, Im not trying to gloss over things, never said I have all the answers or that its absolute, I believe these things have to be discussed out, openly.

I still think there should be an obligation for a person that has been made a citizen to not be involved in illegal activity, maybe a probationary period that any involvement in serious crime in certain time is a definitive revoking of the status granted, maybe 5-6 years or more, if a person was found to have commited a crime within that time period even after, Id suggest they are sent packing. Any law abiding citizen shouldnt have any concerns but a person that has premeditated criminal intent or is from a criminal background that intends on not changing their ways, probably wont hold out that long. I think this would protect the state and its existing citizens, so its possible to get rid of undesireable elements that have no place here, that would otherwise cost the law abiding citizens money.
I know you or others will revert to saying this is two tier, you seem to think that its an acceptable cost to use the Nations resources to detect the crimes, bring a case and prosecute someone and if successful then house them at great expense to the State, at the least in any circumstances if we have? agreements with other countries, I think we should offer to allow convicted criminals to have their stay in their country of origin.

What agreements we have to do the same or not with other countries is not relevant, that would be down to those countries laws and any similar agreements they might have with us.

Again you refuse to engage with the logic of your proposal - the state opens itself up to the cost of taking in criminals from all around the world - because this arrangement would obviously have to be mutual. Which scenario exposes the state to greater costs - handling domestic crimes and criminality, or handling international crime and criminality? Article 40 of the constitution protects the equality of citizens, so this whole probationary arrangement for some is entirely at odds with the understanding of citizenship of this state.

Is it an acceptable cost to the state to detect and penalise crime? Of course it is - irrespective of whether it's crime committed by citizens from birth, naturalised citizens, or non-nationals.

oscarBravo

cerastes wrote: »

Im advocating if some has been given citizenship, then it comes with responsibilities not just rights, and it should be possible for it to be rescinded.

I was given citizenship at birth. Does that come with responsibilities? Should it be possible for it to be rescinded?

If your answer is "no", then - despite your protestations to the contrary - you are advocating distinct classes of citizenship.

oscarBravo

clairefontaine wrote: »

Two tiered citizenships already exist.

For example Irish citizens abroad cannot vote.

That's not a tier of citizenship. Irish citizens abroad have the right to move to Ireland and then vote.

What's being advocated is that some citizens should have their very citizenship lent to them conditionally, whereas others get to keep theirs no matter how heinous their crimes. That's two-tiered citizenship.

jank

What if people make fraudulent applications for their citizenship? Should they be allowed keep it after the fact?

alastair

jank wrote: »

What if people make fraudulent applications for their citizenship? Should they be allowed keep it after the fact?

If they gained citizenship through fraud, they shouldn't - which is the current law, and in no way undermines equality of citizens - as there wasn't an entitlement in the first place.

clairefontaine

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not a tier of citizenship. Irish citizens abroad have the right to move to Ireland and then vote.

What's being advocated is that some citizens should have their very citizenship lent to them conditionally, whereas others get to keep theirs no matter how heinous their crimes. That's two-tiered citizenship.

So innocent Irish people abroad, very likely still paying ax in Ireland, possibly even supporting families and children can't vote, but criminals of heinous crimes can vote?

Yes I would call that conditional citizenship.

Frank Grimes

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes I would call that conditional citizenship.

It isn't conditional, they cannot lose citizenship and they are not being stopped from voting; granted it is not easy for them to vote but it is not the same thing as was being suggested above.

trashcan

cerastes wrote: »

What I have said is if anyone commits a crime here, they should be deported/repatriated to their country of origin, if they have taken up citizenship then there are rights and responsibilities, I think it should be possible to revoke their citizenship rather than pay to keep them here, hence why I said they should be expected to maintain dual nationality status, so they can be sent back, if that was the case, they might think before getting involved, probably not, but I dont expect this will affect the majority of law abiding people that have gained citizenship, but it would be a good thing to deter those that might.
.

I really think you are confusing citizenship with legal permission to remain in the country. Someone could be here perfectly legally for years (even to their death) and never become a citizen. It's not a necessity, and it's not a right.

Rainbow_Bright

It's only "wrong" to oppose according to the PC Brigade. Everyone has the right to an opinion.

It does seem to place more strain on the already stretched Irish economy. Personally , I'd welcome more stringent immigration laws (even for fellow EU nationals) like those imposed by the likes of Australia, which ask the immigrant to prove that they can support themselves whilst unemployed as opposed to relying on the Australian government for handouts.

Pro Hoc Vice

cerastes wrote: »

Im willing to take on board what you say, I agree with a lot of it, Im not trying to gloss over things, never said I have all the answers or that its absolute, I believe these things have to be discussed out, openly.

I still think there should be an obligation for a person that has been made a citizen to not be involved in illegal activity, maybe a probationary period that any involvement in serious crime in certain time is a definitive revoking of the status granted, maybe 5-6 years or more, if a person was found to have commited a crime within that time period even after, Id suggest they are sent packing. Any law abiding citizen shouldnt have any concerns but a person that has premeditated criminal intent or is from a criminal background that intends on not changing their ways, probably wont hold out that long. I think this would protect the state and its existing citizens, so its possible to get rid of undesireable elements that have no place here, that would otherwise cost the law abiding citizens money.
I know you or others will revert to saying this is two tier, you seem to think that its an acceptable cost to use the Nations resources to detect the crimes, bring a case and prosecute someone and if successful then house them at great expense to the State, at the least in any circumstances if we have? agreements with other countries, I think we should offer to allow convicted criminals to have their stay in their country of origin.

What agreements we have to do the same or not with other countries is not relevant, that would be down to those countries laws and any similar agreements they might have with us.

But it is an obligation of any naturalised citizen to not be involved in such activity.

From section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship act 1956 as amended,


Revocation of certificates of naturalisation.
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

Engaging in criminal activity is failing in a persons duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state. Certificates of Naturalisation can be revoked, it is not a second class citizenship, it simply a nation that gives the gift if citizenship retains the right to withdraw that gift in certain circumstances.

djpbarry

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

It does seem to place more strain on the already stretched Irish economy.

What seems to be the case and what actually is the case are often two very different things.

Rainbow_Bright

I'm pretty sure it is the actual case i.e. more people = more strain. Resources only stretch so far.

Scofflaw

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it is the actual case i.e. more people = more strain. Resources only stretch so far.

People are the primary resources of the Irish (any) economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

clairefontaine

Scofflaw wrote: »

People are the primary resources of the Irish (any) economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Human resources. A horrible turn of phrase.

djpbarry

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it is the actual case i.e. more people = more strain.

More people also means more tax revenue.

Rainbow_Bright

djpbarry wrote: »

More people also means more tax revenue.

Not if they are receiving benefits or sending earnings to their home countries.

Nodin

Rainbow_Bright wrote: »

Not if they are receiving benefits or sending earnings to their home countries.

....to receive benefits they'd have to pass a number of conditions, including having worked for at least 18 months. They'd still be paying indirect taxes on foodstuffs etc.

As tax is deducted by the employer, I fail to see how someone sending money home would bypass the tax system.