Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Time to have a look at how people can get Irish passports?
Options
Comments
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »]
I didn't say it was a problem, but it seems to be a logical step if the eu is to go down the federalist route.
There is no more a commitment to "go down the federalist route" in the EU than there is a commitment to turn Brexit Britain into a Marxist-Leninist state in the UK's Conservative government.
As for the phrase "ever closer union", I would refer you to the statement by the European Council drafted specifically for the UK in the run up to UK referendum. Concerning the references to that phrase, It explicitly stated that they (the references):... do not require that further competences be conferred upon the European Union or that the European Union must exercise its existing competences, or that competences conferred on the Union could not be reduced and thereby returned to the Member States.
See Section C, point 1 on page 9:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/president/pdf/new-settlement/0 -
Its essentially a racist argument. The idea that somebody who has never even set foot in Ireland is Irish, just because their grandparents were.That´s the point some on this thread would like to see being abolished for those living and born abroad. That is also what I really find too harsh.0 -
It's not a racist argument unless you also believe that to be Irish is inherently superior than belonging to other nations.Its essentially a racist argument. The idea that somebody who has never even set foot in Ireland is Irish, just because their grandparents were.
Nationality is a cultural construct, and it's largely inherited. There's nothing racist about inheriting a cultural or national identity. Citizenship is a legal status which most countries seek (among other things) to align with nationality.
Most countries' citizenship laws involve some combination of jus soli (conferring citizenship on the basis of where you are born) and jus sanguinis (conferring citizenship on the basis of who you are born to). By international standards, Irish citizenship law is fairly generous on both fronts - citizenship by virtue of birth in Northern Ireland, which is not part of the state, and citizenship by virtue of birth abroad to an Irish-born grandparent, instead of just to a parent. There are, of course, historical reasons for both these stances, and neither is racist.
For what it's worth, several other EU countries have citizenship-by-descent laws which are much, much more generous that ours - Italy and Greece, for example. (And they too are nations with a history of high emigration.)0 -
There are practical reasons why such an open policy isn't a good idea.
Not at all we could do like other countries such as France and Switzerland do. An international constituency with say 2 or 3 TDs, that would still ensure that the balance of power remains with those living in the country.0 -
To be racist is not exactly the same as to be supremacist.Peregrinus wrote: »It's not a racist argument unless you also believe that to be Irish is inherently superior than belonging to other nations...
..Most countries' citizenship laws involve some combination of jus soli (conferring citizenship on the basis of where you are born) and jus sanguinis (conferring citizenship on the basis of who you are born to)....
Any kind of discrimination based on jus sanguinis or blood, is based on race. Lets not try to fool ourselves here. Just "call a spade a spade" when that's exactly what it is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Blood based citizenship was the big thing in the colonial era, when Europeans would commonly have children in far flung parts of the world, while fully expecting them to retain the nationality of their mother country.
Since then, that concept has been toned down a bit. "Place of birth" became more of a thing. But as we found in the 1990's people were coming to Ireland specifically to give birth on Irish soil so that the child would get an Irish (EU) passport. The whole family could then claim the right to remain, being the family of an Irish citizen. Often they went off to the UK as soon as they got their EU passports. So that had to change.
But I don't think that means we should go back to relying mainly on the blood concept either. IMO a person should have some physical connection with this country, if they are going to be a citizen/national of it. So that means spending some actual time in Ireland.
A good compromise would be to allow the children and grandchildren (born abroad) of Irish citizens an automatic right of residency. If they wished to take that up, they could then become naturalised as Irish citizens after a couple of years. It could be made slightly shorter than the approx. 5 years residency that refugees/migrants have to wait. Maybe 2 or 3 years. This would be on the basis that they would already have some relatives here, and an affinity for Irish culture, which would allow them to integrate a lot quicker.0 -
"Blood based citizenship", as you put it, long predates the colonial era, and it's a standard feature of the citizenship laws of virtually every country in the world. All that has changed is that in the past you could mostly only inherit citizenship from your father, and in most cases that citizenship would also be that of the country of your birth. But nowadays you can generally inherit citizenship from either of your parents, and if they have different citizenship you will therefore inherit the a citizenship of (at least) one country that you weren't born in. In an increasing global and mobile world more and more people marry someone from another country, so more and more children inherit two citizenships.Blood based citizenship was the big thing in the colonial era . . .
The notion that inheriting citizenship from your parents is "racist" is just silly, really. What might be racist, if anything, is modifying citizenship based on place of birth on the basis that, if your parents are foreign to that place of birth, you don't get citizenship after all, since that's a rule specifically introduced for the purpose of disadvantaging Irish-born people whose parents belong to the "wrong" nation.0 -
Yes, but we're talking about grandparents here. If you have never been to Ireland, and your granny is the only connection to Ireland, there isn't much of a connection apart from "ethnicity".Peregrinus wrote: »The notion that inheriting citizenship from your parents is "racist" is just silly, really.
Now that's just silly. Somebody coming to Ireland specifically to give birth on Irish soil so that the child would get an Irish (EU) passport is not Irish, and neither is the new-born baby. Its not because they are from the "wrong" country, its because they are from another country.Peregrinus wrote: »What might be racist, if anything, is modifying citizenship based on place of birth on the basis that, if your parents are foreign to that place of birth, you don't get citizenship after all, since that's a rule specifically introduced for the purpose of disadvantaging Irish-born people whose parents belong to the "wrong" nation.0 -
There are practical reasons why such an open policy isn't a good idea. It's the main impediment to giving at least a limited franchise to expats. There's no legal way of differentiating between someone like myself who lived in Ireland until I was 23 (24 now and living in Australia) and somebody who has never been to Ireland under the current framework.
To those saying you should only have one passport, this is nonsense. I'm in Australia at the moment but I'm relocating to Canada next year. My job means I can't work in Ireland so I have no real choice but to make a life for myself abroad. Should I have to apply for a tourist visa to come home to Ireland to see my parents? Completely impractical.
Whether it is a good idea or not to give the vote to Irish citizens living abroad in some form or another is an on going debate personally I support the idea for Irish born citizens living abroad. But what is not up for debate is whether doing this is practical or not. It would be simple enough to have voting done via consulates and embassy's as an example and for a special foreign constituency to be created with say a couple of TD's. Nothing difficult in a practical sense about any of that.0 -
If you have a rule that everyone born in Ireland is an Irish citizen, clearly the great bulk of people who qualify under this rule are going to be the children of at least one Irish citizen. That is, they are citizens both by birth and by descent.Yes, but we're talking about grandparents here. If you have never been to Ireland, and your granny is the only connection to Ireland, there isn't much of a connection apart from "ethnicity".
Now that's just silly. Somebody coming to Ireland specifically to give birth on Irish soil so that the child would get an Irish (EU) passport is not Irish, and neither is the new-born baby. Its not because they are from the "wrong" country, its because they are from another country.
And if you then modify your rule so that a certain group of Irish-born people don't acquire Irish citizenship, and that group is composed overwhelmingly or entirely of people whose parents aren't Irish, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that what's bothering you is their lack of Irish parents.
Note that I am not saying that this is racist. I'm saying that if you're determined to find racist elements in Irish citizenship law, this rule change does look like the strongest candidate. It looks much more like racism to me than a rule which says that if you have an Irish parent or grandparent, you're Irish.0 -
Advertisement
-
It may not be difficult, but it's problematic. The problem is that Ireland is a small country and has a small network of embassies and consulates. A large number of Irish citizens abroad who are nominally given a vote under your system would in practice be unable to vote, because they would simply be too far from Irish diplomatic premises. I don't think you should be extending a right to vote to people unless you're willing and able to make that right a practical reality.Whether it is a good idea or not to give the vote to Irish citizens living abroad in some form or another is an on going debate personally I support the idea for Irish born citizens living abroad. But what is not up for debate is whether doing this is practical or not. It would be simple enough to have voting done via consulates and embassy's as an example and for a special foreign constituency to be created with say a couple of TD's. Nothing difficult in a practical sense about any of that.
The obvious way forward, if you're going to extend the vote to expatriates, is to allow postal voting. (And this, in fact, is how expatriates vote in the university constituencies in Seanad elections.)
I'd also be concerned about the suggestion of having two or three TDs to represent non-resident voters. Experience with the Seanad elections, and the experience of other countries who allow overseas citizens to vote, suggests that only a tiny proportion of those entitled actually vote, which means that the non-resident TDs would be selected by a small, and not particularly representative, group, who would, relative to their numbers, be vastly better-represented than resident citizens.
I think the way around this is not to have separate representation for non-residents. If non-residents are to be allowed to vote for five or ten years after they have left Ireland, then let them vote in whatever constituency they were entitled to vote in immediately before they left.
If you want to have segregated representation for non-residents, the place for that would be the Seanad, which is (at least in theory) supposed to provide representation for different groups in society in a way that Dail Eireann is not.0 -
Its essentially a racist argument. The idea that somebody who has never even set foot in Ireland is Irish, just because their grandparents were.That´s the point some on this thread would like to see being abolished for those living and born abroad. That is also what I really find too harsh.
It clearly is not and you show to simply brand it as what you like to see it, therefore I strongly disagree with you. I see no rational reason to deny the children of Irish parents who live abroad to grant them Irish citizenship in accordance to their descendancy to their Irish parents. Some poster on this thread already expressed that he would go that far and frankly, this is plain injustice and has no justification whatsoever.0 -
But we don't have this rule. It worked well enough while Ireland was a country of emigrants, but in the 1990's we had people coming here specifically to give birth in an Irish maternity hospital, as a way of circumventing the normal immigration procedures.Peregrinus wrote: »If you have a rule that everyone born in Ireland is an Irish citizen, clearly the great bulk of people who qualify under this rule are going to be the children of at least one Irish citizen.
I think most countries would accept that a baby should primarily have the citizenship of its parents, whether born in Ireland, Singapore, Germany or anywhere else.
However if the parents stay in the adoptive country, and the child is brought up there, then the child should, and can, acquire the new citizenship, as can the parents. No problem there, I think we all agree.
However, if that child grows up as a citizen of the adoptive country, and subsequently meets a partner there, and rears their own child there, it is a bit ridiculous for the grandchild to be able to claim automatic citizenship of the country which one of their grandparents emigrated from. That is really the subject of this thread.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It may not be difficult, but it's problematic. The problem is that Ireland is a small country and has a small network of embassies and consulates. A large number of Irish citizens abroad who are nominally given a vote under your system would in practice be unable to vote, because they would simply be too far from Irish diplomatic premises. I don't think you should be extending a right to vote to people unless you're willing and able to make that right a practical reality.
The obvious way forward, if you're going to extend the vote to expatriates, is to allow postal voting. (And this, in fact, is how expatriates vote in the university constituencies in Seanad elections.)
I'd also be concerned about the suggestion of having two or three TDs to represent non-resident voters. Experience with the Seanad elections, and the experience of other countries who allow overseas citizens to vote, suggests that only a tiny proportion of those entitled actually vote, which means that the non-resident TDs would be selected by a small, and not particularly representative, group, who would, relative to their numbers, be vastly better-represented than resident citizens.
I think the way around this is not to have separate representation for non-residents. If non-residents are to be allowed to vote for five or ten years after they have left Ireland, then let them vote in whatever constituency they were entitled to vote in immediately before they left.
If you want to have segregated representation for non-residents, the place for that would be the Seanad, which is (at least in theory) supposed to provide representation for different groups in society in a way that Dail Eireann is not.
I don't see any real problem with the number of Irish embassies and consulates. We may be a small country but we have 74 embassies and consulates all around the globe. Clearly that is not one in every country but certainly we are well represented in all the places where there is a significant ex pat population so I do not see any problem as those who live too far away from an embassy or consulate can easily vote via the post as you yourself mention. I guess I was not specific enough when I mentioned using embassies and consulates. I was thinking of them as centers for postal as well as in person voting in my original post.
As for what percentage of people would vote. I could care less about the seanad quite honestly. It is useless IMHO and if only a small number of those eligible to vote do actually vote then it looks like I am not the only one who holds that opinion. In terms of what percentage of those eligible would actually vote assuming what you say is true as I have never seen any voting data on that it does not deter my opinion on have a foreign born Dail constituency with 1-2 TD's. I think it would be a very good idea for us.0 -
A key problem here is that there are actually more Irish citizens living outside the state than there are living within it.
Unless you're going to amend the constitution to remove the requirement for equality of representation in the Dail, if you extend the vote to non-resident citizens and have separate constituencies for them, a clear majority of the deputies will be elected by people who do not live in Ireland, pay Irish taxes, obey Irish laws, etc (and that clear majority will in all likelihood be elected by a very low turnout of those actually entitled to vote). That's obviously not a state of affairs that is either politically realistic or defensible on basic democratic principles.
Obviously, you reduce the problem by limiting the vote to citizens who are resident in Ireland, or who have been resident within (say) the past 5 years. But if you do that, there's no obvious reason why you would segregate these citizens into a separate constituency. It is, after all, their recent residence in Ireland which qualifies them to vote; why should they not vote in the constituency in which they were resident?
But you also have to confront the democratic problem. Why should somebody who doesn't have to obey Irish laws, who doesn't pay Irish taxes, who isn't under the jurisdiction or within the power of Irish authorities, have any say in the making of Irish laws or the election of Irish governments? As a non-resident, why should I be entitled to impose obligations on you that I don't have to observe myself?0 -
Ridiculous, arguably, but certainly not racist. Which is the point I came in to make.. . . However, if that child grows up as a citizen of the adoptive country, and subsequently meets a partner there, and rears their own child there, it is a bit ridiculous for the grandchild to be able to claim automatic citizenship of the country which one of their grandparents emigrated from. That is really the subject of this thread.0 -
Its a very fine line between "blood" and "race" when defining people.Peregrinus wrote: »Ridiculous, arguably, but certainly not racist.0 -
If inheriting Irish citizenship from my parents or grandparents is racist, is inheriting blue eyes racist? Is inheriting property racist?Its a very fine line between "blood" and "race" when defining people.
Not every concept into which we can drag the word "race" kicking and screaming thereby becomes a racist concept. "Racism" does not mean "tangentially connected in some way with a group that could be termed a race"; it means "the belief that one's own racial or ethnic group is superior to others".
Citizenship laws are mostly defined to correlate to a group that can be defined on racial or ethnic terms. Most French citizens are, amazingly, French. Most American citizens are American. And the reverse is also true; most French people are French citizens; most Americans are American citizens. None of this amounts to racism. It's not racism until you assert that American citizens, French citizens, Irish citizens or whatever are superior to other nationalities.0 -
Again, you are confusing racist with supremacist.Peregrinus wrote: »"Racism" does not mean "tangentially connected in some way with a group that could be termed a race"; it means "the belief that one's own racial or ethnic group is superior to others".
No, you are completely wrong there, and that is a racist statement. Although I'm guessing its just carelessness on your part, rather than any racist intent.Peregrinus wrote: »Citizenship laws are mostly defined to correlate to a group that can be defined on racial or ethnic terms. Most French citizens are, amazingly, French.
A person born and raised in France with a Cameroons or Algerian ethnic background is a French citizen just as much as the Frenchman whose great great grandfather was French.0 -
No, I'm not. I'm looking in a dictionary for the definition of the word "racist"Again, you are confusing racist with supremacist.
Speak ye not of carelessness! Your words will bite ye in the bum!No, you are completely wrong there, and that is a racist statement. Although I'm guessing its just carelessness on your part, rather than any racist intent.
A person born and raised in France with a Cameroons or Algerian ethnic background is a French citizen just as much as the Frenchman whose great great grandfather was French.
When you look again at my post with greater care, you will see that my statement is that most French citizens are French. The fact that you can point to some who are not does not make my claim "completely wrong", or even wrong at all.
Plus, it's entirely possible (and quite common) to have "a Cameroons or Algerian ethnic background" and also to be French. Shared ancestry is only part of the composite that is nationality. The present English Queen is, after all, Scottish on her mother's side and largely German on her father's, but few would deny that she is English.0 -
Advertisement
-
That was my point!Peregrinus wrote: »Plus, it's entirely possible (and quite common) to have "a Cameroons or Algerian ethnic background" and also to be French. Shared ancestry is only part of the composite that is nationality. The present English Queen is, after all, Scottish on her mother's side and largely German on her father's, but few would deny that she is English.
It doesn't really matter where your grandfather came from originally.
In ye olden days, it mattered more, because ethnicity and blood was considered the main factor in determining nationality/citizenship. The modern trend is to place more emphasis on the length of residency time in the country, and especially time spent in education (because those are the formative years).
By bringing a person's grandfather back into the equation, Ireland is bucking the trend.0 -
It doesn't really matter what soil you were born on either.That was my point!
It doesn't really matter where your grandfather came from originally.
Mostly not. Length of residence is typically a big factor in naturalisation applications (and it always has been in most countries). But most people acquire their citizenship from the circumstances of their birth, and the big factors there are, and have always been, place of birth and ancestry.In ye olden days, it mattered more, because ethnicity and blood was considered the main factor in determining nationality/citizenship. The modern trend is to place more emphasis on the length of residency time in the country, and especially time spent in education (because those are the formative years).
What do you mean, bringing them back into the equation? Ireland has always had citizenship-by-descent laws which refer back to grandparents.By bringing a person's grandfather back into the equation, Ireland is bucking the trend.
And we're by no means bucking a trend. You can acquire British citizenship from a UK-born grandparent, provided your parent has spent (I think) at least two years in the UK at some time in their lives. The same is true of the US, although the required residence period for the parent is 5 years. In that case the citizen grandparent doesn't even have to have been born or settled in the US. You can acquire Italian citizenship passed on from any ancestor, however remote, who was born in Italy at any time after 1861. Greek citizenship is primarily acquired by descent (even for those born in Greece) and it can pass on from generation to generation of Greeks born outside Greece, with no limit.
Each country's citizenship law of course reflects its own historical circumstances. Countries whose populations are largely descended from immigrants and are (at least initially) ethnically diverse tend to develop citizenship laws that focus on naturizatation, and on citizenship on the basis of place of birth. Countries with a history of emigration tend to put some emphasis on citizenship by descent. Countries that have been colonised or invaded tend to combine the two - when you acquire independence, frequently after a war, you don't want to confer citizenship on the locally-born children of the colonial oppressors, so you only give it to locally-born children of the indigenous population. (Or, at least, you only give it to them automatically; others have further hurdles to cross.) And of course a country's citizenship laws may change as it's historical circumstances change; as the UK has transitioned from being an imperial power with a far-flung population to being a country that has experiences substantial immigration, its citizenship laws have evolved in the most complex ways.
The same is true of Ireland. As long as we were a substantial net exporter of migrants with a small and declining population, birthright citizenship for everyone actually born here wasn't a a problem, and a generous policy towards the expatriate community was seen as both fair and self-interested. As our circumstances have changed our citizenship laws have responded by limiting both birthright citizenship and citizenship by descent.0 -
A person can get British citizenship through their parents, provided the parents got it "not by descent". So that cuts off the chain of descent at the second generation, and excludes the grandparents from being taken into account.
Also worth noting that even in colonial times, people in the colonies were designated as British subjects, not British citizens. So somebody born and raised in British India, of Indian parents, was "Indian" and not "British".0 -
That's not quite right.A person can get British citizenship through their parents, provided the parents got it "not by descent". So that cuts off the chain of descent at the second generation, and excludes the grandparents from being taken into account.
If your parent is a British citizen not by descent, you are automatically a British citizen.
If your parent is a British citizen by descent (which would be the case if you have a UK-born grandparent) you can be registered as a British citizen provided your parent has at some time in their life spent 3 years in the UK. (It used to be twelve months, but it was raised in 2010.)
Again, that's not right.Also worth noting that even in colonial times, people in the colonies were designated as British subjects, not British citizens. So somebody born and raised in British India, of Indian parents, was "Indian" and not "British".
Prior to 1948 there was no different citizenship status for different parts of the British Empire (except in the Irish Free State, but park that). Anyone born in any part of his Majesty's dominions was a British subject, as was anyone born anywhere whose father was a British subject born anywhere within the said dominions. (And, as at present, a second generation born abroad could register as British subjects - but the descent had to be through the male line.) There were no further distinctions or gradations; a British subject born in Bombay had exactly the same citizenship status as a British subject born in Birmingham.
This changed in 1948, with the development of a two-tier system. There was an overarching concept of British Subject (also called Commonwealth Citizen), which covered everyone, but the idea was that each Subject would also have a citizenship, which could be (a) citizenship of one of the self-governing dominions - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc or (b) "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies", which had the rather unfortunate acronym of CUKC.
After that, as colonies transitioned to independence, new citizenships were created. So, for example, if you were born in 1952 in Jamaica (then a colony) you were a CUKC from birth, but when Jamaica became independent in 1962 you became a Citizen of Jamaica and you lost your CUKC status - unless you had a father born in the UK, or in some other colony which was not yet independent, or you had a grandfather so born and a father who had spent at least a year, etc, in which cases you got both citizenships. Either way, you remained a British Subject (or Commonwealth Citizen).
The system changed again in 1981. The overarching concept of Commonwealth Citizen/British Subject was dropped. The status of "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" was divided into about six different categories - British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, etc - depending on the nature of your link to the UK or one of its colonies. But note that this was the first time that different citizenships were created for people from different British-ruled territories. (The main purpose of this was to give people born in Hong Kong a different citizenship from those born in the UK.) Finally, there was a residual category of "British subject" for people who had an ancestral link to formerly British-ruled territories but who didn't hold citizenship in any Commonwealth country. Perhaps ironically, the great majority of British subjects still alive today are Irish citizens. The status is closed to new entrants and is not hereditary, so in a couple of decades it will disappear entirely.0 -
So the parent of the (grand)child must spend at least 3 years resident in the UK, in which case they have "earned" their own passport by naturalisation. So the citizenship is not passed on to the 3rd generation automatically "by descent" from the grandparent. Also the parent must register the child for the passport before they have grown up.Peregrinus wrote: »If your parent is a British citizen by descent (which would be the case if you have a UK-born grandparent) you can be registered as a British citizen provided your parent has at some time in their life spent 3 years in the UK.
That 3 years naturalisation is the same period as would be required of a foreign spouse who has married a British citizen, and is only slightly less than the 5 years for somebody with no connection to the UK at all.
Yes, but only people from "The British Isles" ie Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands actually called themselves "British". Others such as Canadians, South Africans and Indians were indeed British subjects.Peregrinus wrote: »Anyone born in any part of his Majesty's dominions was a British subject, as was anyone born anywhere whose father was a British subject born anywhere within the said dominions.
Here's an example. A British Indian passport; not the same as a UK British passport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#/media/File:BIpassport.jpg0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »A key problem here is that there are actually more Irish citizens living outside the state than there are living within it.
Unless you're going to amend the constitution to remove the requirement for equality of representation in the Dail, if you extend the vote to non-resident citizens and have separate constituencies for them, a clear majority of the deputies will be elected by people who do not live in Ireland, pay Irish taxes, obey Irish laws, etc (and that clear majority will in all likelihood be elected by a very low turnout of those actually entitled to vote). That's obviously not a state of affairs that is either politically realistic or defensible on basic democratic principles.
Obviously, you reduce the problem by limiting the vote to citizens who are resident in Ireland, or who have been resident within (say) the past 5 years. But if you do that, there's no obvious reason why you would segregate these citizens into a separate constituency. It is, after all, their recent residence in Ireland which qualifies them to vote; why should they not vote in the constituency in which they were resident?
But you also have to confront the democratic problem. Why should somebody who doesn't have to obey Irish laws, who doesn't pay Irish taxes, who isn't under the jurisdiction or within the power of Irish authorities, have any say in the making of Irish laws or the election of Irish governments? As a non-resident, why should I be entitled to impose obligations on you that I don't have to observe myself?
Yes there are many Irish passport holders living outside Ireland. I have not seen anything that suggests everyone entitled to an Irish passport should be allowed vote in Ireland. Personally I would suggest something along the lines of Irish born citizens living abroad. There are roughly about 800,000 Irish born citizens living abroad. In terms of representation as I mentioned before it is easy to set up a foreign constituency which would elect 1-2 TD's thus giving representation without unduly affecting the Dail. There is nothing obvious about what you claim. It is just your opinion and one I disagree with. Payment of income taxes is not a requirement to vote. If it was there would be many people getting kicked off the voting roles in Ireland. Never mind what to do with those who get back more from the system then they put in income tax wise. There is no requirement to have a certain percentage of votes to make an election valid. I have no idea if the turnout for a foreign constituency would be high or not. Maybe it would be maybe it would not.
I never mentioned any special power that Irish born citizens living abroad would suddenly be able to impose so no idea what your talking about there. All that is been suggested is giving them a voice a small one but a voice in our country. We have been sending out the begging bowl for a long time to our emigrants. Now we have many highly educated, talanted and well networked people in many different fields living outside Ireland and giving them a voice and a direct connection to allow them to share their thoughts and views can have positives for Ireland as well as the fact that given emigration is such a factor in our country there are many issues which very directly affect emigrants such as for example the many issues emigrants face when returning to Ireland today such as even simple things such as getting a drivers license for example.0 -
A referendum would be required to change the Dail and Seanad numbers. Currently all constituencies require no less than 3 and no more than 5 seats were 1 TD represents 25,000-30,000???? people.0
-
A referendum would be required to change the Dail and Seanad numbers. Currently all constituencies require no less than 3 and no more than 5 seats were 1 TD represents 25,000-30,000???? people.
Not just that, but it's implicit in the Constitution that constituencies are subsets of the population of the country:
16.2 would need a fair bit of overhaul to make an overseas constituency feasible. I think it would need revision even to allow for expat voting in their constituency of last residence, tbh.16.2.3 The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.0 -
No, they haven't. They were British citizens by descent before they ever came to the UK, and they didn't need to "earn" a British passport; they already held one, if they cared to. They don't need to be naturalised, and their own citizenship status is not changed in any way by spending time in the UK. What is affected is the citizenship status of any children they have, or may have in the future.So the parent of the (grand)child must spend at least 3 years resident in the UK, in which case they have "earned" their own passport by naturalisation.
The people who from Britain, Ireland, etc who called themselves "British" and the people from Canada, Australia, etc who in some cases called themselves "British" and in some cased did not may have had varied national/cultural/ethnic identities, but up until 1948 they all held exactly the same citizenship status: British Subject.Yes, but only people from "The British Isles" ie Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands actually called themselves "British". Others such as Canadians, South Africans and Indians were indeed British subjects.
Here's an example. A British Indian passport; not the same as a UK British passport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_passport#/media/File:BIpassport.jpg
A British Subject wanting a passport was supposed to apply to the government of the particular British territory with which he had a connection by birth or descent. The passport would show which government had issued it, but all the passports confirmed that the holder was a British Subject.0 -
Advertisement
-
You'd need to make some case for that.Yes there are many Irish passport holders living outside Ireland. I have not seen anything that suggests everyone entitled to an Irish passport should be allowed vote in Ireland. Personally I would suggest something along the lines of Irish born citizens living abroad.
At the moment the distinction is between citizens resident in Ireland, who are subject to Irish law and the jurisdiction of the Irish authorities, and citizens not resident, who are not. You can see the democratic logic in saying that people who are bound by the laws and subject to the government should have a say in making the laws and choosing the government, and people who are not should not. You may not like that, but you can certainly see the argument.
You're proposing a distinction between citizens born in Ireland and citizens not born, but you're not offering any reason for thinking that this makes a better basis for the franchise. If a citizen lives abroad, why should the fact that he was born here have any relevance at all to the question of voting rights?
Plus, you're introducing a two-tier citizenship; first-class citizens, who can vote no matter where they reside, and second-class citizens, who can vote only if they reside in Ireland. This offends my republican sensitivities.
And are you proposing to apply the "must be born in Ireland to have non-resident voting rights" rule to people born in Northern Ireland? Evidently you are, since you talk about "800,000 Irish born citizens", and the population of NI alone is much larger than that. So you're intending to give people born in NI second-class citizenship rather than first-class. That's going to go down well, isn't it? Way to undermine the Good Friday Agreement!
As others have pointed out, if there are 800,00 of them that would entitle them to about 30 T.D.s, unless you amend the Constitution to eliminate the equal treatment guarantee, which I wouldn't favour.There are roughly about 800,000 Irish born citizens living abroad. In terms of representation as I mentioned before it is easy to set up a foreign constituency which would elect 1-2 TD's thus giving representation without unduly affecting the Dail.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement