#hometovote

MathDebater

Under section 5 of the Electoral Act 1963, it states:

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person shall be deemed not to have given up ordinary residence if he intends to resume residence within eighteen months after giving it up,

(b) a written statement by a person that he intends to resume residence within eighteen months after giving it up shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be conclusive evidence of that fact.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/act/pub/0019/sec0005.html

Are emigrants who have been out of the country for longer than 18 months, and who have returned home to the state to vote today, committing electoral fraud?

hullaballoo

There are at least two parts of that provision that are broad enough so as to make as close to ineffective as makes no difference.

MathDebater

From the Irish Times:

Under Irish electoral law, emigrants retain their right to vote for a period of 18 months, provided they plan to return home within that timeframe.

Siomha Brock, a 27-year-old musician from Co Clare, travelled back from Vancouver on Wednesday to vote because the referendum is "an important chance to change our society".

Musician. Canada. Most likely there on a two year whv. Is that person legally allowed vote?

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/emigrants-take-planes-trains-and-automobiles-hometovote-1.2222151

hullaballoo

Of course they can vote.

All you have to show is an intention to return.

testicle

hullaballoo wrote: »

Of course they can vote.

All you have to show is an intention to return.

Only if it's within 18 months of leaving.

hullaballoo

The word we're looking at is "intends", so effectively the timeframe is irrelevant. I've been intending to quit smoking tomorrow for nearly ten years.

MathDebater

But if they have been away for 18 months, then how can they possibly intend to return within 18 months of leaving? The 18 months have already elapsed.

SparkyLarks

I moved to America. I intended to return to my house in Cork after 12 months. Due to a change in circumstances I have not yet returned 2 years later. I do intend to return in 12 to 15 months and gave a signed declaration. Can I vote? I think so

Chloris

MathDebater wrote:

But if they have been away for 18 months, then how can they possibly intend to return within 18 months of leaving? The 18 months have already elapsed.

What an appropriate username, given your comment...

hullaballoo

Eighteen months after giving up ordinary residence? When's that?

Where is the evidence to the contrary if I write on a piece of paper the words, "I intend to resume residence eighteen months after giving up residence"? It's conclusive evidence of that fact, irrespective of when they left.

MathDebater

 a person shall be deemed not to have given up ordinary residence if he intends to resume residence within eighteen months after giving it up,

A person is no longer resident, but intends to return home to Ireland within an 18 month period.

a written statement by a person that he intends to resume residence within eighteen months after giving it up shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be conclusive evidence of that fact.

The person has left the state, but intends to return 18 months from the date he left(given up residence) and a written statement will suffice to prove that intention.

From reading of the above, I can't see how anyone who has spent longer than 18 months out of the state can legally vote today.

I'm open to interpretation.

MathDebater

SparkyLarks wrote: »

I moved to America. I intended to return to my house in Cork after 12 months. Due to a change in circumstances I have not yet returned 2 years later. I do intend to return in 12 to 15 months and gave a signed declaration. Can I vote? I think so

No. The written statement must be given to show that you intend to return within 18 months after giving up residency/leaving. So you would be legally able to return and vote for the first 18 months of your time in the US, but not for the remaining 18/21 months of your time in the US.

I don't understand how people seem to think that this can be considered open ended indefinitely. Maybe I'm missing something.

MathDebater

hullaballoo wrote: »

Eighteen months after giving up ordinary residence? When's that?

18 months from the date that you left the state and started residing in another.

hullaballoo

But it doesn't say eighteen months since you left the state, it says eighteen months since you have given up residence. Anyway, none of that matters as long as the intent ids there to return. The days and time periods are irrelevant.

I don't really see the point of this thread. That while provision is totally redundant.

SparkyLarks

It says I must intend to return. And I do intend to. It does not say that I it have returned. It only requires intent.

CIARAN_BOYLE

SparkyLarks wrote: »

It says I must intend to return. And I do intend to. It does not say that I it have returned. It only requires intent.

You left 3 years ago and you intend to return within 18 months of leaving? Do you have a time machine?

SparkyLarks

Ordinary residence is not just where you live. The key point is if you are required to pay Irish tax "Your pattern of residence over a number of years is taken into account to decide your ‘ordinary residence’. 
If you have been resident for the previous three tax years then you become ordinarily resident from the start of the fourth year. If you leave the country, you will continue to be ordinarily resident until you have been non-resident for three continuous tax years."

MathDebater

SparkyLarks wrote: »

It says I must intend to return. And I do intend to. It does not say that I it have returned. It only requires intent.

That you intend to return within 18 months. Emphasise the word within. Otherwise you could intend to return indefinitely.

View

SparkyLarks wrote: »

Ordinary residence is not just where you live. The key point is if you are required to pay Irish tax "Your pattern of residence over a number of years is taken into account to decide your ‘ordinary residence’. 
If you have been resident for the previous three tax years then you become ordinarily resident from the start of the fourth year. If you leave the country, you will continue to be ordinarily resident until you have been non-resident for three continuous tax years."

That's not what applies in this case. It states 18 months after you cease residing (where you lived) for voting purposes. They don't let you off for tax purposes quite as quickly though.

MathDebater

SparkyLarks wrote: »

Ordinary residence is not just where you live. The key point is if you are required to pay Irish tax "Your pattern of residence over a number of years is taken into account to decide your ‘ordinary residence’. 
If you have been resident for the previous three tax years then you become ordinarily resident from the start of the fourth year. If you leave the country, you will continue to be ordinarily resident until you have been non-resident for three continuous tax years."

There is a specific definition of residence for tax purposes covered in the Irish tax consolidation act 1997. This has no basis on the Irish electoral act.

MathDebater

hullaballoo wrote: »

But it doesn't say eighteen months since you left the state, it says eighteen months since you have given up residence.

If you leave the state and emigrate elsewhere then you are no longer resident. Ergo, you have given up residency and taken it up elsewhere.

SparkyLarks

MathDebater wrote:

If you leave the state and emigrate elsewhere then you are no longer resident. Ergo, you have given up residency and taken it up elsewhere.

True but you can still be ordinarily resident non domiciled , and as such required to pay tax in Ireland, and also eligible to vote. E.g you can live and work on London 5 days a week and have a wife and child in Ireland, you reside in London but are ordinarily resident in Ireland.

Also if you leave for three years and return you would be considered to have been an ordinary resident of Ireland but not domiciled in Ireland. After that in the 18 months if you intend to return you would still be considered resident.

One of the reasons is to claw some tax back from people who may have worked abroad paid little or no tax but then return to use services paid for by others .

To determine the requirement regarding voting it would require a test case to know.

hullaballoo

MathDebater wrote: »

If you leave the state and emigrate elsewhere then you are no longer resident. Ergo, you have given up residency and taken it up elsewhere.

Have you given up residence when you leave the State? Where does it say that? In fact, where is it described anywhere for the purpose of that Act what constitutes giving up residence?

Where in that Act is it defined? Why is it defined in the Tax Acts but not the Electoral Acts, do you think?

The section is a dud. Tbh, I think it's rightly a dud. It's a stupid provision that purports to remove the franchise from citizens. It probably wouldn't survive any constitutional challenge but it's so much of a dud of a provision that it is unlikely any challenge would ever be necessary.

MathDebater

If its a dud, wouldn't survive a challenge and emigrants can return home when they want and vote - why are so many emigrant groups lobbying for full voting rights for emigrants and a change in legislation to allow them to do so? Your explanation makes no sense.

volchitsa

MathDebater wrote: »

If its a dud, wouldn't survive a challenge and emigrants can return home when they want and vote - why are so many emigrant groups lobbying for full voting rights for emigrants and a change in legislation to allow them to do so? Your explanation makes no sense.

Because in many countries citizens living abroad who are registered with their own embassies can still vote, either directly via a postal vote or by proxy. The French embassy in Dublin for example actually has a polling booth for the French in Ireland to vote (I think they may be a separate constituency with their own minster, but I'm not sure if that was just a plan or actually exists.)

What's wrong with citizens who live abroad being allowed to vote? I think it's a significant failure in our democracy not to allow it.

MathDebater

Do other countries have a small population and a huge diaspora? Do they have as generous citizenship by descent laws as us? In the UK alone, up to six million people can obtain Irish citizenship through descent. Then factor in those in America, Canada, Australia etc. who could also obtain citizenship. That's before we factor in Irish born emigrants. Potentially, Irish citizens abroad could have a bigger say in how the country is run than those of us living here.

drkpower

I'm not aware of that subsection having been interpreted by the courts but the likely interpretation is that you can effectively maintain your ordinary residence (for the purpose of that subsection) inðefinitely as long as:
- you continue to have an intention to return within 18 months
- there isn't convincing evidence to the contrary

Many people do emigrate and, in fact, maintain an intention to come home within 18 months even if they don't end up coming back for many years.

In reality, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to ever prosecute someone under that provision, or to prevent such a person from voting.

volchitsa

MathDebater wrote: »

Do other countries have a small population and a huge diaspora? Do they have as generous citizenship by descent laws as us? In the UK alone, up to six million people can obtain Irish citizenship through descent. Then factor in those in America, Canada, Australia etc. who could also obtain citizenship. That's before we factor in Irish born emigrants. Potentially, Irish citizens abroad could have a bigger say in how the country is run than those of us living here.

That might not have been a bad thing.

You seem to be saying that the diaspora are something to be afraid of. Fine to expect them to cough up a few bob whenever it suits - and remember all that sh1t about "the Gathering" last year? But let's make sure they never get a choice about the future of the country, eh? God forbid, some of them might even get notions about possibly being welcome to come back for good one day!

If there really was an issue, it'd be easy to legislate so ex-pats couldn't hold double nationality simultaneously : the Germans and the Spanish have such a rule, for example. (The UK might need separate consideration, but residence in NI could probably be made a special case with no real difficulty.) That way only those who feel themselves to be Irish first of all would keep their vote.

Peregrinus

SparkyLarks wrote: »

True but you can still be ordinarily resident non domiciled , and as such required to pay tax in Ireland, and also eligible to vote. E.g you can live and work on London 5 days a week and have a wife and child in Ireland, you reside in London but are ordinarily resident in Ireland . . . .

"Ordinary residence" is defined for the purposes of the Taxes Acts, but that definition does not apply, and does not purport to apply, for the purposes of the Electoral Act. It's entirely possible to be ordinarily resident for the purposes of the Taxes Acts, but not for the purposes of the Electoral Act.

SparkyLarks wrote: »

To determine the requirement regarding voting it would require a test case to know.

Without a definition, the words have their ordinary meaning. I think most people would reckon that somebody who lives and works in (say) the US, and doesn't have a means of livelihood in Ireland, is ordinarily resident in the US, and this doesn't change just because there is always a bed for them at Mammy and Daddy's. The operation of s. 4 allows to renew their registration for up to 18 months after they have left, and of course once they do that they then have the right to vote for a further 12 months. So they can legitimately vote for up to two-and-a-half years after leaving. If they've been gone for two and a half years, I don't think it's unreasonable to treat them as no longer ordinarily resident.

Peregrinus

drkpower wrote: »

I'm not aware of that subsection having been interpreted by the courts but the likely interpretation is that you can effectively maintain your ordinary residence (for the purpose of that subsection) inðefinitely as long as:
- you continue to have an intention to return within 18 months
- there isn't convincing evidence to the contrary

Many people do emigrate and, in fact, maintain an intention to come home within 18 months even if they don't end up coming back for many years.

In reality, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to ever prosecute someone under that provision, or to prevent such a person from voting.

No, they have to have an intention of returning, not at some time in the next 18 months, but within 18 months of having ceased to be resident. Obviously, you can't have that intention more than 18 months after you have left. So it's not indefinite.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

What's wrong with citizens who live abroad being allowed to vote? I think it's a significant failure in our democracy not to allow it.

On the contrary, traditional republican principles require it. Why should I, living in Australia, have a voice in make laws that you, living in Ireland, will have to obey, but I will not?

Or, in other words, "no representation without taxation"!

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the contrary, traditional republican principles require it. Why should I, living in Australia, have a voice in make laws that you, living in Ireland, will have to obey, but I will not?

Or, in other words, "no representation without taxation"!

So you are for a vote based on residency rather than citizenship then? It'd be interesting to see that being brought in here.

And where do you stand on those residents who don't pay tax?
You'd remove the vote from the unemployed, would you?

And of course the logical next step has to be multiple votes for those who pay a lot of tax, as was the case in NI pre-civil rights days?

How quickly some people would remove rights from others.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are for a vote based on residency rather than citizenship then? It'd be interesting to see that being brought in here.

We're already part-way there. Irish law affords voting rights to nationals of other EU member states resident in Ireland, provided those states reciprocate for Irish citizens resident there.

But, basically, yes. I think there's a strong republican case to be made for affording voting rights to all long-term residents.

(Of course, the same result can be acheived by affording access to Irish citizenship to all long-term residents. I'd be just as happy with that.)

volchitsa wrote: »

And where do you stand on those residents who don't pay tax?

On a nitpick, there are few residents who don't pay tax. To pay no tax in Ireland you not only have to have no income; you also have to spend no money. I'd say the entire population of resident non-taxpayers in Ireland is aged under 7. And they don't have the vote for other reasons.

But it's not really about tax; it's about being subject to the law, and within the jurisdiction. Tax is just one way in which Irish residents are affected by Irish laws. Leaving tax aside, if you live in Ireland then you are affected by Irish laws on social protection, health provision, personal freedom, police powers . . . The list is endless. If you live outside Ireland you're not affected by any of those things. In that case you don't need, and have no democratic claim to, a vote in Ireland; you need a vote in the country you live in.

volchitsa wrote: »

You'd remove the vote from the unemployed, would you?

Only if they emigrate.

volchitsa wrote: »

And of course the logical next step has to be multiple votes for those who pay a lot of tax, as was the case in NI pre-civil rights days?

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. As in, if we let men marry men, the logical next step is that we must let them marry cats, geraniums and plates of veal.

volchitsa wrote: »

How quickly some people leap to the unwarranted conclusion that others would remove rights from others.

Fixed that for you!

hullaballoo

I can't understand why citizens would be disenfranchised under your republic, Peregrinus?

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're already part-way there. Irish law affords voting rights to nationals of other EU member states resident in Ireland, provided those states reciprocate for Irish citizens resident there.

But, basically, yes. I think there's a strong republican case to be made for affording voting rights to all long-term residents.

(Of course, the same result can be acheived by affording access to Irish citizenship to all long-term residents. I'd be just as happy with that.)

On a nitpick, there are few residents who don't pay tax. To pay no tax in Ireland you not only have to have no income; you also have to spend no money. I'd say the entire population of resident non-taxpayers in Ireland is aged under 7. And they don't have the vote for other reasons.

But it's not really about tax; it's about being subject to the law, and within the jurisdiction. Tax is just one way in which Irish residents are affected by Irish laws. Leaving tax aside, if you live in Ireland then you are affected by Irish laws on social protection, health provision, personal freedom, police powers . . . The list is endless. If you live outside Ireland you're not affected by any of those things. In that case you don't need, and have no democratic claim to, a vote in Ireland; you need a vote in the country you live in.

Only if they emigrate.

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. As in, if we let men marry men, the logical next step is that we must let them marry cats, geraniums and plates of veal.

Well, it's not in fact a slippery slope, it's about consistency, so not at all the same as gay marriage leading to other, entirely different forms of relationship.

If it's enough to pay only one Euro in tax to get the full representation that comes with the right to vote, then you're right, there's no reason why those who pay lots of different taxes should get extra representation to acknowledge that.

But how would that be fair? As a disabled person I might pay no tax but still have a huge interest in how hospital services are run. Do I really have no rights just because I'm too poor to pay taxes, compared to someone who pays taxes on his/her income from inherited wealth?

So make up your mind : is it taxation or residency that should count?

Because if taxation is the most valid expression of interest in a country, as you said earlier, then those who pay multiple taxes do have a greater interest than those who pay little or none. Why shouldn't that be recognized in terms of their voting power?

Anyway, as things currently stand, it's not enough just to be resident in a country, you do have to have citizenship to vote, so your argument that it should be residency vs non residency is not an option for now. It's citizenship, not taxation that counts, and the issue is whether adding residency as a limiting requirement on top of that is fair.

I'd suggest it's not, if only because voting rights should be broadly similar in all EU countries, so as to permit reciprocation, unless there's some pressing reason to be different. And I can't see one in that regard. Can you?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

I can't understand why citizens would be disenfranchised under your republic, Peregrinus?

Do I have to point out that nearly half of all Irish citizens live abroad, many of them have never lived in Ireland, and indeed many of them have never so much as set foot here?

Ireland has a very broad citizenship law. It's not quite as broad as it used to be, but it is still pretty broad by comparison with most others. It's estimated that there are about three million Irish citizens resident elsewhere, and something over four million resident in the State. This, of course, reflects our history as a nation that had a distinct identity before the State was established, and as a nation with a long history of emigration.

Fairly obviously, there's not much of a democratic case for extending the franchise to all citizens. You would end up with a country in which most elections would be decided by the votes of people who don't live in the country, won't be affected by the outcome of their votes, and may be profoundly ignorant of Irish affairs and Irish realities. I can't see why anybody would think for an instant why this was a good idea. Just imagine your stereotypical Irish-American casting a vote in Irish elections based on his understanding of Irish affairs. Now multiply that by several hundred thousand.

Pretty obviously, democratic principles require that you should have some connection with the community greater than citizenship (in the terms in which Irish law confers citizenship) in order to vote.

Classical republican principles see voting as a duty more than a right. Participating in a community carries with it an ethical obligation to contribute to the public life of the community, and one way we exercise this responsibility is by voting. But the key point is that we are making decisions for the community in which we participate. For me to be exercising power, even in a small way, with respect to decisions that will govern another community, in another place, in which I do not participate, is not republicanism; it's closer to imperialism or colonialism or paternalism.

So I suggest the connection you need to have with the community in order to justify a claim to a vote is that you should live in the community and be part of it, be subject to the laws that will be enacted by the legislature that you will elect, be under the authority of the executive that will be accountable to that legislature, and have your welfare and your fortunes connected with the public welfare and the public fortunes.

As a citizen resident abroad, I am none of those things with respect to Ireland. I could be those things, because as a citizen I have a right to return and live in Ireland any time I choose. And, if I do that, I'll have a vote. That seems to me to be rational and sensible - citizenship carries the right to participate in the community, and one aspect of that right is voting. But you don't get to cherry pick, voting without participating in other respects.

I can't see any argument for saying that I should have a voice in framing the laws for a community in which I could choose to live, when in fact I choose not to live there. If that was a valid democratic principle, then I should be entitled to a vote in every country in which I have a right of residence, which at the present is 33 countries, the majority of which I have never set foot in.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

If it's enough to pay only one Euro in tax to get the full representation that comes with the right to vote, then you're right, there's no reason why those who pay lots of different taxes should get extra representation to acknowledge that.

But how would that be fair? As a disabled person I might pay no tax but still have a huge interest in how hospital services are run. Do I really have no rights just because I'm too poor to pay taxes, compared to someone who pays taxes on his/her income from inherited wealth?

So make up your mind : is it taxation or residency that should count?

False dichotomy, Vol. Liablity to taxation comes with residency.

This is not really about taxation, though. I only came up with the "no representation without taxation" line as a humorous inversion of the familiar "no taxation without representation" line. The truth is I don't particularly like that line either. It suggests that political participation is founded on a financial relationship, which I find a bit . . . Thatcherite.

Forget tax. It's just one of the many, many ways in which we contribute to/participate in/benefit from the community that we are a part of. The real issue is, if you're not subject to Ireland's laws (whether about tax or anything else), why should you have a voice in making those laws? If you don't live under the jurisdiction of the Irish authorities, why should you have a voice in electing those authorities?

Even if an Irish resident owns no property, earns no money and spends no money, so that he manages to pay no tax, he is still subject to Irish laws and affected by Irish public policy. If he is taken away in the middle of the night by the police and consigned to a nameless black hole, it will be by the Irish police. If he falls ill, he will go to an Irish hospital. His children will go to an Irish school. If he wants to marry his same-sex partner, it is Irish law that will determine whether he can do so.

None of this is true of the non-resident, and I really can't see any reason why we would think that the non-resident should have a voice in determining what the Irish police can or can't do, what schools or hospitals Irish residents should provide for themselves, etc, etc.

Basically, it comes down to this. If your welfare and your fortune and your affairs are unconnected with the welfare and the fortunes and the affairs of those living in Ireland, what is the case for saying that you should be voting in Ireland?

You should be participating in the political life of the community of which you form a part, not of a different community of which you could form a part if you chose, when you have chosen not to. If you can't vote in the community that you participate in, that may be an injustice, but it's an injustice that is magnified, not remedied, by giving you a vote in a community that you don't particpate in.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There can be particular cases of doubt, but mostly it's not very difficult. Neither Ireland nor any other country that I know of has found residential tests for the franchise impossible to apply.

Mellor

MathDebater wrote: »

Musician. Canada. Most likely there on a two year whv. Is that person legally allowed vote?

Yes, if its within the first 18 months of that two years.

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

Yes, if its within the first 18 months of that two years.

Nitpick: He can register (or re-register) to vote within the first 18 months, if he intends to come home. Having re-registered, he can vote until the registration lapses, which will be another 12 months. So he can vote for up to two-and-a-half years. And, if he's on a 2-yr WHV, he'll be home within that time.

Or, he could make the case that, being on a working holiday visa, he hasn't ceased to be ordinarily resident at all; he's still ordinarily resident in Ireland, just on a longish holiday. On that view, he doesn't need to rely on the 18-month "deemed ordinarily resident" grace period at all. That only kicks in if his working holiday comes to an end, and he still doesn't come home.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: He can register (or re-register) to vote within the first 18 months, if he intends to come home. Having re-registered, he can vote until the registration lapses, which will be another 12 months. So he can vote for up to two-and-a-half years. And, if he's on a 2-yr WHV, he'll be home within that time.

That's a fair point, can't really argue with that. The relevant paragraph is relating to registering, not voting.

Or, he could make the case that, being on a working holiday visa, he hasn't ceased to be ordinarily resident at all; he's still ordinarily resident in Ireland, just on a longish holiday. On that view, he doesn't need to rely on the 18-month "deemed ordinarily resident" grace period at all. That only kicks in if his working holiday comes to an end, and he still doesn't come home.

WHV vrs 457 vrs PR, etc

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

WHV vrs 457 vrs PR, etc

Obviously, I don't think Irish electoral law can (or should) depend on the niceties of other countries' migration and visa regimes.

The 18-month grace period means that the question of whether you are "ordinarily resident" in Ireland doesn't come up until you have been gone for 18 months, at which point, really, the onus is on you to make an argument as to why you should still be regarded as ordinarily resident in Ireland since, prima facie, it doesn't look as if you are.

The visa you are using to access another country might be a relevant factor - e.g. a WHV. But of course you could be in a country for which no visa is required, or in a country of which you happen to be a citizen. Or you could have a visa status that entitles you to settle, but the facts and circumstances may point to your stay being temporary.

If, e.g., an Irish resident citizen goes to (say) the UK to complete a master's degree, and is absent for two or three years, I think they could make a pretty good case for saying that they are still ordinarily resident in Ireland, as long as they do in fact have a residence available to them. And they'll probably be able to point to other factors like frequent trips home, still have a bank account in Ireland, etc. But if, after they have graduated, they still haven't returned and have taken an apparently permanent job in the UK, signed a lease on a flat, etc, it becomes harder and harder to say that they are "ordinarily resident" in Ireland.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Do I have to point out that nearly half of all Irish citizens live abroad, many of them have never lived in Ireland, and indeed many of them have never so much as set foot here?

Ireland has a very broad citizenship law. It's not quite as broad as it used to be, but it is still pretty broad by comparison with most others. It's estimated that there are about three million Irish citizens resident elsewhere, and something over four million resident in the State. This, of course, reflects our history as a nation that had a distinct identity before the State was established, and as a nation with a long history of emigration.

Then maybe there's a problem with granting citizenship to people who have no real connection with the place, and that is what needs to be changed?

Though fwiw, I'd say that doesn't need to be an issue : applying a couple of simple tests of criteria would suffice. For instance anyone born here and not holding another passport (or maybe holding an EU passport but also keeping their Irish passport up to date) should qualify, whereas someone born elsewhere holding dual nationality wouldn't.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Then maybe there's a problem with granting citizenship to people who have no real connection with the place, and that is what needs to be changed?

Well, possibly. But it emerges out of the historical experience of the Irish nation. I wouldn't advocate changing it just to secure a bureacratically-neat lining-up of citizenship with the electoral franchise. You're still not offering any arguments as to why the two need to line up.

volchitsa wrote: »

Though fwiw, I'd say that doesn't need to be an issue : applying a couple of simple tests of criteria would suffice. For instance anyone born here and not holding another passport (or maybe holding an EU passport but also keeping their Irish passport up to date) should qualify, whereas someone born elsewhere holding dual nationality wouldn't.

But all you would be doing here is introducing a slew of apparently arbitrary requirements about what passports people hold and whether they renew them, without offering any account of why this should be linked to voting rights. Whereas I have offered a rationale for linking voting rights with residency which you haven't (so far) quarrelled with.

Plus, there's a practicality issue. The Irish state can verify that you are (or are not) an Irish citizen, or that you have (or don't have) a current Irish passport, but it can't verify your foreign citizenship/foreign passport status. If you say that you have no second citizenship and/or do not hold a passport issued by any other country, they have no practical way of checking that. So even if there were a good principled reason for making this a condition of the franchise, I don't know that it would be workable in practice. At the very least, it would be easy to perpetrate electoral fraud (by voting when not entitled) and virtually impossible to detect or prosecute. So why would this be a good idea?

On edit: It occurs to me that what you are essentially proposing here is franchise based on birth in Ireland. Since anyone born abroad will almost certainly hold another citizenship, your rule would confine voting to citizens borne in Ireland. But practically everyone born in Ireland is a citizen, except the children of temporary visitors with no right to remain. So instead of a rule allowing you to vote based on your ordinary residence in Ireland, you have come up with a rule which (in effect) allows people to vote based on their parents' ordinary residence in Ireland, at the time of their birth.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, possibly. But it emerges out of the historical experience of the Irish nation. I wouldn't advocate changing it just to secure a bureacratically-neat lining-up of citizenship with the electoral franchise. You're still not offering any arguments as to why the two need to line up.


But all you would be doing here is introducing a slew of apparently arbitrary requirements about what passports people hold and whether they renew them, without offering any account of why this should be linked to voting rights. Whereas I have offered a rationale for linking voting rights with residency which you haven't (so far) quarrelled with.

Plus, there's a practicality issue. The Irish state can verify that you are (or are not) an Irish citizen, or that you have (or don't have) a current Irish passport, but it can't verify your foreign citizenship/foreign passport status. If you say that you have no second citizenship and/or do not hold a passport issued by any other country, they have no practical way of checking that. So even if there were a good principled reason for making this a condition of the franchise, I don't know that it would be workable in practice. At the very least, it would be easy to perpetrate electoral fraud (by voting when not entitled) and virtually impossible to detect or prosecute. So why would this be a good idea?

On edit: It occurs to me that what you are essentially proposing here is franchise based on birth in Ireland. Since anyone born abroad will almost certainly hold another citizenship, your rule would confine voting to citizens borne in Ireland. But practically everyone born in Ireland is a citizen, except the children of temporary visitors with no right to remain. So instead of a rule allowing you to vote based on your ordinary residence in Ireland, you have come up with a rule which (in effect) allows people to vote based on their parents' ordinary residence in Ireland, at the time of their birth.

Seems a bit pointless to discuss the details of your suggestion since this isn't a thread about how to avoid electoral fraud, but I'd just point out that plenty of countries don't allow their citizens to hold another citizenship simultaneously. Germany makes such a decision irrevocable, while Spain allows citizenship to be taken back at any time, by renouncing the second citizenship.

You can't really claim that Ireland can't do that because it wants to recognize its diaspora while you're also using that as a reason to disenfranchise that same diaspora - that comes down to saying that what Ireland actually wants is for its diaspora to Fk off and leave it in peace.

The "ah sure we couldn't possibly do that" argument for someo thing that other countries do without a problem just doesn't convince.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Seems a bit pointless to discuss the details of your suggestion since this isn't a thread about how to avoid electoral fraud, but I'd just point out that plenty of countries don't allow their citizens to hold another citizenship simultaneously. Germany makes such a decision irrevocable, while Spain allows citizenship to be taken back at any time, by renouncing the second citizenship.

Actually, no. Plenty of other countries have a rule that if you intentionally acquire another citizenship, then you lose their citizenship. But I don't think any of them have a rule that says that, if you are born with another citizenship (which is the case we are discussing here) then you don't get our citizenship.

Regardless, for other reasons I don't favour Ireland adopting any kind of ban on dual nationality. And I certainly wouldn't favour banning dual nationality in order to align citizenship with the electoral franchise when I'm still waiting for you to offer any reasons for why they need to be aligned.

(Conflict of interest acknowldegement: I have two citizenships.)

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't really claim that Ireland can't do that because it wants to recognize its diaspora while you're also using that as a reason to disenfranchise that same diaspora - that comes down to saying that what Ireland actually wants is for its diaspora to Fk off and leave it in peace.

Not at all. By giving foreign-born but Irish-descended people citizenship we are giving them the right to come and live (and vote) here if they wish. That's not nothing. What we are not giving them is the right to vote here when they don't live here, because we don't give that to anybody, because why would we? Which is a question I'm still waiting for you to answer.

volchitsa wrote: »

The "ah sure we couldn't possibly do that" argument for someo thing that other countries do without a problem just doesn't convince.

Other countries have franchise rules under which your right to vote depends on you not holding another passport? Examples, please.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. Plenty of other countries have a rule that if you intentionally acquire another citizenship, then you lose their citizenship. But I don't think any of them have a rule that says that, if you are born with another citizenship (which is the case we are discussing here) then you don't get our citizenship.

If the rule is that you can't hold two citizenships simultaneously, as in Germany, I don't think the manner of acquiring them matters as far as voting rights are concerned. Someone with a valid German (say) passport, can't legally hold an Irish passport without notifying the German embassy and giving it back. Passports dont belong to the holders.

Regardless, for other reasons I don't favour Ireland adopting any kind of ban on dual nationality. And I certainly wouldn't favour banning dual nationality in order to align citizenship with the electoral franchise when I'm still waiting for you to offer any reasons for why they need to be aligned.

(Conflict of interest acknowldegement: I have two citizenships.)

Not at all. By giving foreign-born but Irish-descended people citizenship we are giving them the right to come and live (and vote) here if they wish. That's not nothing. What we are not giving them is the right to vote here when they don't live here, because we don't give that to anybody, because why would we? Which is a question I'm still waiting for you to answer.

Other countries have franchise rules under which your right to vote depends on you not holding another passport? Examples, please.

Germany and Spain are the two I know of. I don't know what the documents required are, I referred to a passport as it's the usual proof of citizenship required for registration to vote when abroad. There may be others, but the point I'm making is that holding dual nationality is not the same as having a right to two nationalities.

There are different possibilities : a right to settle in a country doesn't need to correspond to holding that nationality. As I said, Spain allows its citizens/ex citizens to put their citizenship on hold when they use a second citizenship right, they can reclaim their Spanish citizenship at any time by renouncing the other, and vice versa.

So whether or not you dislike the idea isn't really relevant, your claim was that it couldn't be done because Ireland's diaspora something something. It can be done, and there's no reason why it shouldn't except that official Ireland seems to want to wave its young people off at the airport and hope never to hear from them again, except as tourist cash cows for the Gathering-style pretendey Céad Mile Fáilte stuff.

blackwhite

volchitsa wrote: »

It can be done, and there's no reason why it shouldn't except that official Ireland seems to want to wave its young people off at the airport and hope never to hear from them again, except as tourist cash cows for the Gathering-style pretendey Céad Mile Fáilte stuff.

My uncle has lived in Melbourne since 1988.

He has no intention of ever returning to live in Ireland. He's still an Irish citizen, and uses his Irish passport to travel to certain countries with work (namely those that don't charge a VISA fee for Irish citizens, but do for Commonwealth countries).

Please explain why he should be entitled to have a say who comprises the Government of Ireland, and directly from that, have a say in setting tax rates that he will never be subject to?

plodder

We could do what the US does of course.. Allow citizens to vote from abroad, but make them pay US income tax at the same time. Be careful what you wish for ... No representation without taxation ..

Carawaystick

The single biggest stumbling block to letting emigrants vote in the countries they live in, is the half a million or more irish citizens in the 6 counties.