Is citizenship too easy to obtain?

RandomName2

I've heard both sides: people who have had to jump through unnecessary hoops when they've been a valuable member of our society, and others who've seemingly been handed citizenship for doing nothing other than living here.

However, it seems that Shatter pushed an agenda of increasing numbers of people being granted citizenship, at least going by offical figures.

As it stands it seems you can come here from outside the European Union/EFTA areas, work on a taxi/ other non-visa based work (or apply for refugee status and appeal any rejections), and provided you clock up five years' stay you can get citizenship for a few thousand euro.

Should this be changed? Why should citizenship have a temporal or even financial cost at all - it doesn't prove integration, loyalty, or commitment to the state. Is there any bar on people obtaining citizenship for people who break their visa conditions - and if there is, is it ever put into practice?

comongethappy

Its neither too easy or too hard.
I think its pretty adequate as it is.

I haven't bothered yet to apply, but I may one day.

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

As it stands it seems you can come here from outside the European Union/EFTA areas, work on a taxi/ other non-visa based work (or apply for refugee status and appeal any rejections), and provided you clock up five years' stay you can get citizenship for a few thousand euro.

You can't just arrive in Ireland, hang out for a few years then file for naturalisation.
You have to be registered with the Garda to clock up the five years residency. IE: have a visa.
Likewise, you can't apply for naturalisation while an asylum seeker.

benway

Naturalisation is at the absolute discretion of the Minister for Justice. Up until 2012, it wasn't even clear that he/she had to give reasons for a decision.

While I don't really have a view on whether it's too easy or difficult to obtain (granted, messing around a Syrian like Mallak from the SC case linked above is kinda telling), I do certainly think that an objective and predictable system needs to be introduced. Not good enough to have requirements for naturalisation varying with the Minister's shoe size.

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

You can't just arrive in Ireland, hang out for a few years then file for naturalisation.
You have to be registered with the Garda to clock up the five years residency. IE: have a visa.
Likewise, you can't apply for naturalisation while an asylum seeker.

But does it matter if you breach the terms of your visa?

For instance, and I've not really seen this mentioned anywhere, I've seen lots of people who aren't EU citizens working full-time in positions that are... unlikely to be work visa related (labouring, driving, shop clerks, etc.). Does that matter, in practice?

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

But does it matter if you breach the terms of your visa?

For instance, and I've not really seen this mentioned anywhere, I've seen lots of people who aren't EU citizens working full-time in positions that are... unlikely to be work visa related (labouring, driving, shop clerks, etc.). Does that matter, in practice?

Supposition about people with regard to whom you hold no factual data does not, thankfully.

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

But does it matter if you breach the terms of your visa?

For instance, and I've not really seen this mentioned anywhere, I've seen lots of people who aren't EU citizens working full-time in positions that are... unlikely to be work visa related (labouring, driving, shop clerks, etc.). Does that matter, in practice?

Pure conjecture. You've no idea of their background and are relying on the assumption that they're all working illegally.

RandomName2

Nodin wrote: »

Supposition about people with regard to whom you hold no factual data does not, thankfully.

Hmm? Oh I personally don't give a damn whether they're working illegally or not, the question is whether breaking visa conditions has any practical implications (in general) on naturalisation application.

Unless of course that is the answer: that the government does not have any factual data on such applicants, and does not engage in supposition.

Young Blood

I think it's the visa system that's the problem. Brazilians for example are entitled to study English here for three years and then apply for a level 7 or 8 course which is another 3/4 years. If they hang around long enough they will qualify for residency then citizenship. And this isn't to mention the jobs they take at the same time while they're here or the already shortage of rental accommodation.

Nobody should be allowed study English for three years. I don't care whether it benefits the economy or not. We shouldn't behave like this country is a one stop shop for every migrant worker on the planet.

It's an utter disgrace.

FURET

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why should citizenship have a temporal or even financial cost at all - it doesn't prove integration, loyalty, or commitment to the state.

Can you provide concrete examples of what integration, loyalty, and commitment to the state look like?

Lockstep

Young Blood wrote: »

I think it's the visa system that's the problem. Brazilians for example are entitled to study English here for three years and then apply for a level 7 or 8 course which is another 3/4 years. If they hang around long enough they will qualify for residency then citizenship. And this isn't to mention the jobs they take at the same time while they're here or the already shortage of rental accommodation.

Nobody should be allowed study English for three years. I don't care whether it benefits the economy or not. We shouldn't behave like this country is a one stop shop for every migrant worker on the planet.

It's an utter disgrace.

Time spent in the stage on a student visa doesn't count towards the residency requirement...

RandomName2

FURET wrote: »

Can you provide concrete examples of what integration, loyalty, and commitment to the state look like?

Well that's a loaded question, and the first two are somewhat subjective; so you'd never get an answer that would satisfy you.

However, commitment could be seen in investing in Ireland: setting up a business, spending money (for instance buying property), etc. It means that the person has a stake in the country, and the country is benefiting from their presence. Even something as simple as setting up a bank account means that someone has some sort of ties.

Proof of residency/marriage to current citizen as sole determining factors for naturalisation seems a bit barmy.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well that's a loaded question, and the first two are somewhat subjective; so you'd never get an answer that would satisfy you..

But these are the 'loaded questions' you are asking people, as per your OP.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Proof of residency/marriage to current citizen as sole determining factors for naturalisation seems a bit barmy.

Bit more to it than that.

"In general, apart from refugees and stateless persons, applicants for naturalisation must prove they can support themselves and their families while living in Ireland. If you can show that you have not received State support in the 3 years before your application, this will generally meet the Minister for Justice and Equality's requirement that you have been supporting yourself and your dependants and that you will continue to do so."
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/becoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation.html

And you can have it revoked should you have conned your way through the process.

FURET

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well that's a loaded question, and the first two are somewhat subjective; so you'd never get an answer that would satisfy you.

Yeah, that's right, so let's maybe agree to drop the integration and loyalty criteria (they sound vaguely fascistic, even though I realize this wasn't your intention). Besides, as a born Irishman, I never felt especially integrated or loyal (whatever that is), and I certainly don't want my own citizenship revoked in your new order!

However, commitment could be seen in investing in Ireland: setting up a business, spending money (for instance buying property), etc. It means that the person has a stake in the country, and the country is benefiting from their presence. Even something as simple as setting up a bank account means that someone has some sort of ties.

I dunno. There are lots of native Irish people who are probably a great debenefit to the country. There are others, emigrants like myself (though I'm a voluntary emigrant), who simply don't know whether they will ever move back for various reasons. So if your criteria for "commitment" fail for many existing Irish citizens, I'm not sure that they should be applied to prospective citizens.

Admittedly I have an interest in this issue as my wife is a non-EU Asian national. She speaks perfect English, is well educated and economically productive, will give birth to an Irish citizen, and would be an asset to Ireland. But she'll never get to be an Irish citizen unless we end up moving back to Ireland for 5 years or so. "Proper order", you might say, and you might be right; but I would say that Ireland needs to grow its population and that people such as my wife, whether resident or not, enhance and diversify the citizenry. It's not something I care about too much I must admit. She can get a visa without problems whenever we want to visit.

Sand

The concept of citizenship is a difficult conundrum for European nation states. Post colonial states like the USA (never seems to hold them back) have a concept of citizenship based on shared values and loyalties, which largely ignore race, though the Plymouth Rock/Founding Fathers have an obvious WASP bias. For Europeans, up until recently, the concept of citizenship was very tightly tied to national, cultural and racial bonds. This isn't unique to Ireland - African and Asian states face the same problem - its just they face slightly less applicants.

With Ireland: asking foreigners to demonstrate integration, loyalty, and commitment to the state seems kafkaesque when our Government, TDs and civil servants demonstrate utter contempt for the Irish state, people and laws. I'd rather have sympathetic laws that are adhered to rather than draconian laws that are ignored in practise, which is a typical Irish solution to an Irish problem. The problem of national identity and citizenship is particularly pronounced in Ireland of course, given the Gaelic Catholic identity the state has awkwardly taken on to appease fringe fanatics whilst simultaneously trying to claim the allegiance of British Protestants.

So long as an individual has been relatively law abiding, has paid their taxes, adheres to some basic values of tolerance of others and has lived in Ireland for more than a wet weekend then I'm okay with them gaining citizenship. As far as I'm concerned citizenship implies responsibilities - its not a no strings gift, its a challenge.

Certainly most immigrants I have worked with ( and I have worked with a couple of people who travelled a long way to be **** at their jobs so I'm not rosy eyed that all immigrants are a higher form of life) would meet a higher set of standards than some scobe who fell out of his mothers arse on Irish soil, never worked a day in his life and is well "known to Gardai".

Sulla Felix

Yeah, I think it is. For one, I don't think people born of Irish parents should have an automatic right.
Listening to part of the ceremony today, I really like the pledging to abide by the laws etc etc. Everyone should have "provisional" status until majority (16-18?) and then formally apply to the state for citizenship. Been a little scumbag the last few years? Well, your app gets pushed back a couple of years until you can prove you're fit to join society. The fact that there's citizens today that could give two !"£$s about the rest of us makes a mockery of getting fn's to jump through hoops to attain the same status.
It should be a privilege, not an entitlement.

RandomName2

FURET wrote: »

Yeah, that's right, so let's maybe agree to drop the integration and loyalty criteria (they sound vaguely fascistic, even though I realize this wasn't your intention). Besides, as a born Irishman, I never felt especially integrated or loyal (whatever that is), and I certainly don't want my own citizenship revoked in your new order!

*sigh*

I mean this dead hand of... well not necessarily Godwin's Law, but the elephant in the room of the threat of being called ultra-conservative, reactionary or lunatic fringe really suffocates the ability to discuss things as 'spooky' and 'threatening' as naturalisation.

Look, an example of integration would be the capacity to speak English, or possibly knowing a couple of things about Ireland.

If I got a work visa to Singapore, for instance, and worked in an engineering firm (predominantly with ex-pats) for a few years; never really left the compound owned by the company; never really had much to do with Singapore; felt homesick and returned home whenever I could; I might be fine for the economic interests of Singapore, but the concept of me being eligible to become a citizen would be logically idiotic.

Immigration and naturalisation are two totally different things. Citizenship is the greatest gift... and arguably responsibility... that a government can bestow upon a person.

FURET wrote: »

I dunno. There are lots of native Irish people who are probably a great debenefit to the country. There are others, emigrants like myself (though I'm a voluntary emigrant), who simply don't know whether they will ever move back for various reasons. So if your criteria for "commitment" fail for many existing Irish citizens, I'm not sure that they should be applied to prospective citizens.

Well if you were judging the criteria on awarding citizenship on your present circumstance then the entire population of Australia (and possibly the world) would be Irish citizens. I'm not altogether sure what point you are trying to make - unless you think that the revocation of citizenship is a thing.

FURET wrote: »

Admittedly I have an interest in this issue as my wife is a non-EU Asian national. She speaks perfect English, is well educated and economically productive, will give birth to an Irish citizen, and would be an asset to Ireland. But she'll never get to be an Irish citizen unless we end up moving back to Ireland for 5 years or so. "Proper order", you might say, and you might be right; but I would say that Ireland needs to grow its population and that people such as my wife, whether resident or not, enhance and diversify the citizenry. It's not something I care about too much I must admit. She can get a visa without problems whenever we want to visit.

Well Ireland doesn't really need, in particular, to grow its population - but that's not the point. I'm not 100% sure what the situation is concerning marriage without residence... but the question is "what does the person eligible for citizenship have to do with Ireland?". If the answer is that they have an family with an Irish person in Ireland, that would seem to indicate that they do indeed have a very serious stake in Ireland - they have effectively made their life in Ireland. If the answer is that they never stepped foot in the country... well...

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, commitment could be seen in investing in Ireland: setting up a business, spending money (for instance buying property), etc. It means that the person has a stake in the country, and the country is benefiting from their presence. Even something as simple as setting up a bank account means that someone has some sort of ties.

Proof of residency/marriage to current citizen as sole determining factors for naturalisation seems a bit barmy.

Buying in a house in a country that might kick you out tomorrow because you’re not a citizen seems a bit barmy to me.

RandomName2

djpbarry wrote: »

Buying in a house in a country that might kick you out tomorrow because you’re not a citizen seems a bit barmy to me.

Can you be kicked out simply for not being a citizen? Surely you'd have a visa and the state would be breaking the visa agreement if it indiscriminately chucked people out?

comongethappy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Can you be kicked out simply for not being a citizen? Surely you'd have a visa and the state would be breaking the visa agreement if it indiscriminately chucked people out?

The immigration bureau can decline renewal of your 5yr long term residency visa if you've been naughty.

Though I don't know how often its done.

Otherwise, no, the 5yr stamp gets renewed unless there is a reason not to.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

Can you be kicked out simply for not being a citizen? Surely you'd have a visa and the state would be breaking the visa agreement if it indiscriminately chucked people out?

I obviously didn't mean literally.