Retaining Irish citizenship while residing outside Ireland

brdst3r

Came across FORM 5 - Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 which states that all naturalised Irish citizens residing outside Ireland need to submit the form annually else their passport may/will get revoked after seven years. This seems like an outdated legislation in the context of the EU. Can they actually revoke citizenship for someone who lives in another EU state?

Lmklad

The 1956 Act has been heavily amended by subsequent Acts. Might be worth reading up on those.

ohnonotgmail

Lmklad wrote: »

The 1956 Act has been heavily amended by subsequent Acts. Might be worth reading up on those.

INIS have a reference version of the act with all the amendments included. The relevant section is unchanged

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/citizenship-law

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

INIS have a reference version of the act with all the amendments included. The relevant section is unchanged

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/citizenship-law

Can you point to the provision the OP is talking about? I don't see any Form 5 in the Act, nor any provision for revoking passports. (In fact the Act doesn't mentin passports at all.)

duckofdeath

A passport is just a paper that confirms citizenship it's not the citizenship itself. Which is why that is not used as a reference to being one. The consolidated act on that page includes the seven year "limit", which only applies if you neglect to register annually. So, as long as you remember to register every year you'll retain your citizenship, with or without a passport. I haven't looked into the details whether you need a valid passport for that annual registration. That isn't unlikely.

Peregrinus

Right. Found it. S.19(1)(c). If a naturalised citizen has been ordinarily resident outside Ireland for seven years, and if he has not annually registered a declaration of his intent to retain Irish citizenship, and if he has no reasonable excuse for not doing that, the Minister may revoke his certificate of naturalisation.

Couple of points on that:

1. It's "the Minister may revoke", not "the Minister shall revoke". I have no idea what the policy here is. Does the Minister ever actually do this?

2. Before revoking, the Minister has to give notice to the citizen concerned, and the citizen has a right to ask for an inquiry into the reasons for the proposed revocation. The Minister then has to appoint a Committee of Inquiry with a judicial chairman, who look into the matter and report to the Minister.

3. If, after this, the Minister still revokes the certificate of naturalisation, there would still be a right to challenge the Minister's decision in the courts on the basis that it is improperly taken, taken for the wrong reasons, etc, etc.

4. If the person concerned holds no other citizenship (i.e. if they lost their citizenship of birth upon becoming an Irish citizen) then revoking their Irish citizenship would leave them stateless. This would lead to Ireland being in breach of the UN Convention on Statelessness, so presumably in these circumstances the Minister would not revoke the certificate or, if he did, the courts would hold that he had done so improperly.

5. If the person concerned holds citizenship of another EU member state, then revoking their Irish citizenship would not affect their EU citizenship (or their rights in Ireland as EU citizens).

6. If the person concerned does not hold citizenship of another EU member state, then revoking their Irish citizenship would cause them to lose their EU citizenship also. I don't know for sure, but I would think EU law, and in particular EU law on human rights, might have much to say about that.

The bottom line is that for the Minister actually to exercise the power conferred by s.19(2)(c) would be very problematic. Ideally the section would be rewritten to reflect the real-world limitations that operate here. However if, as I suspect, the section is rarely or never operated in practice, that may not be a priority for a crowded parliamentary timetable. Hedged around as he is by the Committee of Inquiry and potentially by the courts, the quick-and-dirty way to address this may be to put in place policy and practice guidelines under which the Minister never exercises this power in a way which would infringe Irish, EU or international law.

EdgeCase

That seems like an incredibly nasty process that could leave someone stateless and potentially discriminated against naturalised citizens by treating them as less than born citizens.

How the hell does the state justify a process that could strip an Irish citizen of their citizenship for failure to comply with a bizzare requirement to register annually?!

Is that even constitutional or in line with European human rights law?!

I'm really surprised that this is the case. It seems grossly unfair.
So much for all the pomp and pleasantries of citizenship ceremonies if this is how the state really feels about people who've become citizens.

Peregrinus

I don't disagree. But if, in practice, the Minister never exercises this power you can argue that, on the one hand, it's harmless; but on the other hand, nobody ever gets a chance to challenge this power (because you can only challenge ministerial actions that actually affect you in some way).

But it's not quite right to say that the Minister can "strip an Irish citizen of their citizenship for failure to comply with a bizzarre requirement to register annually". Failure to register is one of the circumstances which allows the Minister to start the process, but he can't follow through and actually revoke the certificate without, along the way, stating his reasons for doing so. And the reasons will need to be a bit more substantial than "he didn't register ever year".

It's a wild guess, but I suspect that the provision was originally motivated by a concern that people might acquire Irish citizenship, not with any intention of residing in Ireland, but in order to reside in the UK (or, later, elsewhere in the EU). It would embarrass us if our relatively generous policy with regard to citizenship were to be used as a back door to get into other countries. If that was the concern, it seems to have been groundless, because as far as I can find by googling the power of revocation has never been exercised in these circumstances.

johnnyskeleton

EdgeCase wrote: »

That seems like an incredibly nasty process that could leave someone stateless and potentially discriminated against naturalised citizens by treating them as less than born citizens.

Naturalisation is a privilege, not a right, so therefore can be regulated. It is a condition of the gramt of naturalisation that a person intends to reside here long term. So lets say a US citizen lives here for 5 years in the 90s, gets naturalised and then goes back to America for 20 years and then suddemly remembers that they have irish citizenship and we have a much better health and pensions system so they want to move here to retire. The Minister is entitled, IMO, to say that that persons citizenship has lapsed because they didnt actually demonstrate fidelity to the state.

It could only render someone stateless if they renounce or lose their other citizenship. In which case, where have they been living the past 7 years and how? Further, if they genuinely are stateless then they can apply for international protection.

They are treated differently to born citizens but that is because they are different. They swore an oath of fidelity to the state and then left long term. Requiring them to tell the Minister each year that they are outside of the jurisdiction is hardly onerous. If they forget to send the forms it is probably because irish citizenship means so little to them that they never think about it anymore.

How the hell does the state justify a process that could strip an Irish citizen of their citizenship for failure to comply with a bizzare requirement to register annually?!

I dont think it is a bizzare requirement. Why would you want to become Irish but not live here? Its simply telling the Minister that you havent forgotten about us while you are off living elsewhere. Like an official christmas card.

Is that even constitutional or in line with European human rights law?!

Yes.

I'm really surprised that this is the case. It seems grossly unfair.
So much for all the pomp and pleasantries of citizenship ceremonies if this is how the state really feels about people who've become citizens.

It would be unfair if someone could get irish nationality by swearing that they intend to live here long term then breach that promise.

brdst3r

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Naturalisation is a privilege, not a right, so therefore can be regulated.

What about in these cases:

4. If the person concerned holds no other citizenship (i.e. if they lost their citizenship of birth upon becoming an Irish citizen) then revoking their Irish citizenship would leave them stateless. This would lead to Ireland being in breach of the UN Convention on Statelessness, so presumably in these circumstances the Minister would not revoke the certificate or, if he did, the courts would hold that he had done so improperly.

6. If the person concerned does not hold citizenship of another EU member state, then revoking their Irish citizenship would cause them to lose their EU citizenship also. I don't know for sure, but I would think EU law, and in particular EU law on human rights, might have much to say about that.

duckofdeath

All nations has similar types of limitations for non-native citizen. The EU doesn't have power over who can or can't be a citizen of an EU member state. I think you're completely mixing up freedom of movement of services and labour with that. All European countries are sovereign nations with (primarily) trade and services tie-ins to other nations. I think, the primary rules the EU bases their human rights guidelines on are what's being said at the UN. Those rules aren't enforced towards any nation either, they can however be a base for sanctions against nations.
The only cases I've ever heard of where people has become stateless is when their secondary citizenship is revoked for various reasons (usually crime) and their birth country is unable or unwilling to confirm their citizenship. Which is something extremely rare.
Just avoid breaking the law and you should be fine.

Peregrinus

duckofdeath wrote: »

All nations has similar types of limitations for non-native citizen. The EU doesn't have power over who can or can't be a citizen of an EU member state. I think you're completely mixing up freedom of movement of services and labour with that. All European countries are sovereign nations with (primarily) trade and services tie-ins to other nations. I think, the primary rules the EU bases their human rights guidelines on are what's being said at the UN. Those rules aren't enforced towards any nation either, they can however be a base for sanctions against nations.

The EU doesn't have human rights "guidelines"; it has human rights laws. They are not based on "what's said at the UN", but on the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the provisions of the EU Treaties dealing with rights (including, but not limited to, the four freedoms). And, yes, these are absolutely enforceable in the courts of the Member States, and in the European Court of Justice.

Having said all that, I don't know what EU law would have to say about someone being stripped of EU citizenship as a by-product of being stripped of Member State citizenship. There may be little precedent here if, as I suspect, the situation does not arise in practice.

seagull

Someone found to be in a sham marriage can have their citizenship revoked. That will also lose them their EU citizenship.

duckofdeath

What I mean is, each nation in the EU is a sovereign nation. Each member state has agreed to individually ratify those guidelines. There are plenty of examples of members not complying to all treaties signed. Like, Poland is still a member of the EU despite not complying to basic democratic principles. Yes, they can be dragged to the EU court if they want to confirm if a country isn't complying to those treaties. The EU court does however not have a direct legal power over any country's laws, it is still up to that country to enforce the ruling from the EU court locally. For instance, there is no EU police or prison system to enforce rulings made by the court. If a country decides not to comply with an EU court ruling the court can really only recommend sanctions by other EU members.

Silas

INIS policy is that you are not required to complete Form 5's if you move outside of the State. While the form is still online they will not revoke naturalisation on grounds that you have been outside of the State and have failed to complete the requisite Form 5.

brdst3r

Silas wrote: »

INIS policy is that you are not required to complete Form 5's if you move outside of the State. While the form is still online they will not revoke naturalisation on grounds that you have been outside of the State and have failed to complete the requisite Form 5.

Please add a link to the INIS policy.

Silas

Answer to a PQ made in 2012 confirming that ZERO certificates of naturalisation have been revoked between 2002 to 2012 as a result of someones failure to complete a Form 5.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-05-28a.1309&s=%22naturalisation%22+%22section+19%22+%221956%22#g1312.r

I also work in the area of Immigration Law in the State and from my experience and from discussions with INIS officials, it is not something that they are actively seeking to enforce

EdgeCase

If it's not their policy to enforce this, why do we still have it on the books at all?

Effectively it's saying that a naturalised citizen is only a citizen subject to ongoing T&Cs i.e. second class.

Becoming a citizen is a huge step and a big commitment - a bit like a marriage or adopting a kid or something.
You're becoming part of the big Irish family. It shouldn't be something that's subject to life-long T&Cs like that.
It just smacks of an awful double standard being applicable. Either you're Irish or you're not. This notion that you're only sort of Irish, unless we feel like ripping your citizenship from you, even if it's only a piece of dead legislation, sends an awful message to people who've made their lives here and consider themselves to be Irish.

If I had naturalised here or anywhere else, I think I would be quite genuinely hurt by discovering something like that applied to me.

It's almost like a parent of an adopted kid repeatedly underlining that they're ADOPTED when they introduce them.

My view of it is you do the background checks, you ensure the person complies with the requirements and you grant citizenship and it's for better or for worse, like getting married. You don't then turn around and say it's subject to terms and conditions.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

If it's not their policy to enforce this, why do we still have it on the books at all?

Possibly, because they can envisage circumstances in which they might wish to enforce it. (I had a guess at what those might be back in post #8.)

EdgeCase wrote: »

Effectively it's saying that a naturalised citizen is only a citizen subject to ongoing T&Cs i.e. second class.

I agree, and I think it's offensive in a republic that there should be different classes of citizenship with different obligations. If I, as a citizen by birth who is resident abroad, don't have to confirm my desire to retain citizenship annually, why should any other citizen have to?

There might be a question over whether this provision would survive constitutional challenge, given the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law for all citizens, and given the drastic nature of the sanction for the relatively minor infringement that gives rise to it. However if the provision is never operated, nobody has the standing to challenge it.

EdgeCase wrote: »

If I had naturalised here or anywhere else, I think I would be quite genuinely hurt by discovering something like that applied to me.

Lots of countries have laws which allow for revoking naturalisations, and so depriving naturalised citizens of their citizenship. However these tend to be much more limited than the Irishlaw, focussing on fraud in the application process, being convicted of a serious offence, etc. Off-hand, I don't know of any other country which allows this simply for failure to comply with a bureaucratic process.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly, because they can envisage circumstances in which they might wish to enforce it. (I had a guess at what those might be back in post #8.)

I agree, and I think it's offensive in a republic that there should be different classes of citizenship with different obligations. If I, as a citizen by birth who is resident abroad, don't have to confirm my desire to retain citizenship annually, why should any other citizen have to?

There might be a question over whether this provision would survive constitutional challenge, given the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law for all citizens, and given the drastic nature of the sanction for the relatively minor infringement that gives rise to it. However if the provision is never operated, nobody has the standing to challenge it.

Lots of countries have laws which allow for revoking naturalisations, and so depriving naturalised citizens of their citizenship. However these tend to be much more limited than the Irishlaw, focussing on fraud in the application process, being convicted of a serious offence, etc. Off-hand, I don't know of any other country which allows this simply for failure to comply with a bureaucratic process.

The bureaucratic nature seems silly. I hold 2 passports, my GF holds 3. Remembering to fill a form every few years would be a nightmare. But I do think states should have the right to strip citizenship from anybody (even citizens by birth).

Australia stripped 4 people of citizenship last week. And last year they stripped a guy who was Australian citizen from birth.

Peregrinus

There are very limited grounds on which somebody who is an Australian citizen by birth can be stripped of their citizenship. And, even then, they can only be stripped of their citizenship if they already hold, or are entitled to acquire, the citizenship of another country. They can't be stripped of their citizenship if this would leave them stateless.

And there's the problem. Laws providing for citizen to be stripped from (a) naturalised citizens, and/or (b) people who are dual citizens do have the effect of creating first-class citizenship (can't be revoked in any circumstances) and second-class citizenship (can be revoked). And this offends against the notion of equal citizenship.

And there's a second problem. Inevitably, in practice, those laws will tend to disadvantage ethnic minorities, since the people they affect are either immigrants (naturalised citizens; dual nationals) or the children of immigrants (dual nationals). So we have not only introduced second-class citizenship; we have introduced ethnically-skewed second-class citizenship. Not good. Like, seriously not good.

Both problems would be solved if you had a law which provided for revocation on uniform terms for all citizens, regardless of how they acquired citizenship, and regardless of whether they hold any other citizenship. The problem with that is that it results in the creation of stateless people, which is a Bad Thing, and is likely to offend against treaty obligations. The other problem with that is that it fails to achieve the object of revoking someone's citizenship, which is usually to deport him. If he's stateless, there is no country obliged to admit him, which makes it difficult to deport him.

I prefer EdgeCase's view. If he's a citizen, he's a citizen, and you have to deal with him, warts and all, just as you would with any other citizen. Whatever he does, you can't impose additional punishments on him just because he has had the temerity to be born in another country, or to have a parent born in another country.

(I would allow revocation for someone who becomes a citizen through fraud in the first place; on one view, he was never truly a citizen to begin with. Nullity, not divorce!)

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are very limited grounds on which somebody who is an Australian citizen by birth can be stripped of their citizenship. And, even then, they can only be stripped of their citizenship if they already hold, or are entitled to acquire, the citizenship of another country. They can't be stripped of their citizenship if this would leave them stateless.

I never suggested that it as trivial, or routine. I was point out that it happens, and happened as recently as last week.
I aware they were left stateless, if these people what to head off to the middle east, and fight for ISIS, I have no problem with any country closing the door on that. They've made their bed.

And there's the problem. Laws providing for citizen to be stripped from (a) naturalised citizens, and/or (b) people who are dual citizens do have the effect of creating first-class citizenship (can't be revoked in any circumstances) and second-class citizenship (can be revoked). And this offends against the notion of equal citizenship.

That's incorrect (part in bold). Being naturalized has nothing to do with it. The person I refer to above was australian by birth.
All citizenship isn't equal imo. I'm a dual citizen. That affords me some extra privileges. But it's less that the sum of its parts. I'm fully aware that my second citizenship isn't equal to that of somebody with one citizenship. I accept that because its not going to ever be an issue for me.
And If it was an issue for me personally, I could renounce my birth citizenship. Now I'm equal.

And there's a second problem. Inevitably, in practice, those laws will tend to disadvantage ethnic minorities, since the people they affect are either immigrants (naturalised citizens; dual nationals) or the children of immigrants (dual nationals). So we have not only introduced second-class citizenship; we have introduced ethnically-skewed second-class citizenship. Not good. Like, seriously not good.

Minorities are a relative term. Am I a minority because I'm irish, or am I a majority because I'm a white european?
If a Lebanese man leaves sydney, and flys to the Lebanon. Is he still a immigrant?

Both problems would be solved if you had a law which provided for revocation on uniform terms for all citizens, regardless of how they acquired citizenship, and regardless of whether they hold any other citizenship.

The law (that I was referring to) is the same regardless of method.
A agreed that the law in the OP is silly and pointless

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

I aware they were left stateless. . . .

They weren't left stateless. Australian law doesn't allow you to be stripped of citizenship unless you either already have another citizenship, or are entitled to one.

Mellor wrote: »

. . . . if these people what to head off to the middle east, and fight for ISIS, I have no problem with any country closing the door on that. They've made their bed.

Gotta point out that, historically speaking, going off to fight other people's wars has been pretty much a defining characteristic of the Australians!

Mellor wrote: »

That's incorrect (part in bold).

But it's only incorrect because you have isolated it and disregarded the rest of the sentence. The sentence as a whole is correct.

Mellor wrote: »

Minorities are a relative term. Am I a minority because I'm irish, or am I a majority because I'm a white european?

This isn't that difficult. Think about the class of people potentially affected by these rules. Does it look to you as if ethnic minorities are disproportionately over-represented in that class, as against the Australian population as a whole?

Mellor wrote: »

If a Lebanese man leaves sydney, and flys to the Lebanon. Is he still a immigrant?

I'm not sure I understand the question. An immigrant to where?

Mellor wrote: »

The law (that I was referring to) is the same regardless of method.

No, it isn't. Australian law includes several different provisions for stripping people of citizenship on various grounds, but they all apply either (a) only to naturalised citizens, or (b) only to citizens who hold or are entitled to another citizenship. There is no general provision applying to all citizens.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

They weren't left stateless. Australian law doesn't allow you to be stripped of citizenship unless you either already have another citizenship, or are entitled to one.

Typo. Supposed to say "weren't". Obvious from the context though I think.

Gotta point out that, historically speaking, going off to fight other people's wars has been pretty much a defining characteristic of the Australians!

That's a very strange way of justifying terrorism, ISIS and the like.
I suppose I gotta point out that Irish people have been fighting in other people wars equally as long.

But it's only incorrect because you have isolated it and disregarded the rest of the sentence. The sentence as a whole is correct.

No it isn't. The part about naturalised citizens is incorrect. Naturalisation isn't a factor in the law.

This isn't that difficult. Think about the class of people potentially affected by these rules. Does it look to you as if ethnic minorities are disproportionately over-represented in that class, as against the Australian population as a whole?

No it doesn't look like that at all.
I'd guess that the people that these laws most apply to are people of white European backgrounds. How do you define ethnic minorities? Am I an ethnic minority?

I'm not sure I understand the question. An immigrant to where?

Say somebody is an immigrant to Australia. Then moves back to [location], and engages in terrorism. And subsequently has his Australian citizenship status cancelled. I don't consider that to be unfair due to his previous immigrant status.
If a different person was born in Australia, and then naturalised to [location], he would and should be treated exactly the same.

No, it isn't. Australian law includes several different provisions for stripping people of citizenship on various grounds, but they all apply either (a) only to naturalised citizens, or (b) only to citizens who hold or are entitled to another citizenship. There is no general provision applying to all citizens.

Again. The "only to naturalised citizen" is completely incorrect. Being naturalised is not a factor. The first person, that had his citizenship revoked, want naturalised. There have been 5 or 6 total. I don't know if any we're naturalised.

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

No it isn't. The part about naturalised citizens is incorrect. Naturalisation isn't a factor in the law . . . Again. The "only to naturalised citizen" is completely incorrect. Being naturalised is not a factor. The first person, that had his citizenship revoked, want naturalised. There have been 5 or 6 total. I don't know if any we're naturalised.

Naturalisation absolutely is a factor in Australian law governing revocation of citizenship. There are a number of provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 under which citizenship can be revoked, and several of them apply only to people who have been naturalised - s.34(2), for example, and s.34A. Others apply only to people with dual nationality - e.g. s. 35, s.35A, s. 36. So far as I know, if you're an Australian citizen by birth, and do not have dual nationality, there is no provision under which your citizenship can be revoked, but if you're in either or both of these categories then it may be, on various grounds (depending on which category you're in).

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Naturalisation absolutely is a factor in Australian law governing revocation of citizenship. There are a number of provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 under which citizenship can be revoked, and several of them apply only to people who have been naturalised - s.34(2), for example, and s.34A.

That section is related to fraudulent applications. Are you actually that it's unfair to revoke citizenship from people who submit fraudulent applications. :pac::pac::pac:

do not have dual nationality, there is no provision under which your citizenship can be revoked,

And if you legally became a naturalised Australian, and haven't got dual nationality, you can't be stripped either.

As I said, the first person stripped (ISIS commander, and disgusting human being) wasn't naturalised. It would have made no difference if he was.

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

That section is related to fraudulent applications. Are you actually that it's unfair to revoke citizenship from people who submit fraudulent applications. :pac::pac::pac:

Two points:

First, I didn't say it was unfair. I said that some provisions of Australian law allow citizenship to be taken from naturalised citizens, others allow citizenship to be taken from dual citizens.

Secondly, s.34 doesn't just related to fraudulent applications. Under s.34(2)(ii), a naturalised citizen can have their citizenship revoked if they are convicted of any serious offence. The offence need have no connection with their application for naturalisation, and indeed may have been committed years afterwards. And section 34A has nothing to do with fraud; it has to do with people who have been naturised and are subject to residence requirements failing to satisfy the residence requirements.

Mellor wrote: »

And if you legally became a naturalised Australian, and haven't got dual nationality, you can't be stripped either.

This is generally the case. Australia is party to the Convention Against Statelessness and won't ever remove your Australian citizenship if that would leave you stateless.

Which goes back to a point you made in post #22, to the effect that your status as a dual citizen "affords me some extra privileges". As far as Australian citizenship law goes being a dual citizen doesn't confer any privileges; it imposes a disadvantage, in that there are a variety of circumstances in which your Australian citizenship can be stripped from you when, if you weren't a dual citizen, it couldn't be.

(And, as we know, a surprising amount of Australians who have no idea that they are dual citizens turn out to be dual citizens )

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Two points:
First, I didn't say it was unfair. I said that some provisions of Australian law allow citizenship to be taken from naturalised citizens, others allow citizenship to be taken from dual citizens.

To phrase it another way, do you think it shouldn't be the case. If not, then I'm not sure what point you are raising.

Secondly, s.34 doesn't just related to fraudulent applications. Under s.34(2)(ii), a naturalised citizen can have their citizenship revoked if they are convicted of any serious offence. The offence need have no connection with their application for naturalisation, and indeed may have been committed years afterwards.

I haven't read the entire section in detail, (to be honest, because I couldn't be bothered to) but I think thinks that's incorrect on a number of counts.

Firstly, It's not any serious offence, it clear says an offence under s.34(5) - which is turn states;

the person committed the offence at any time before the person became an Australian citizen.

And if that crime wasn't disclosed during the process, it would possibly make the application be fraudulent.

But also, unless I'm misreading it, the top of the section states it applies to citizenship by descent and adoption. It doesn't appear to apply naturalization (Subdivision B--Citizenship by conferral).

And section 34A has nothing to do with fraud; it has to do with people who have been naturised and are subject to residence requirements failing to satisfy the residence requirements.

This is citizenship by conferal, but again you are only refering to the top comment without check the referenced subsection.
There is a residence requirement to become a citizen, some people can bypass the resident requirement (with approval from the minister) if in order to carry out their work they need to first be a citizen. In those cases, a post citizenship requirement is in place.
If they don't satisfy that residence, it invalidates the entire basis for which they applied to be a citizen.

This is generally the case. Australia is party to the Convention Against Statelessness and won't ever remove your Australian citizenship if that would leave you stateless.

There is also a section where people can be given australian citizenship on the basis of being stateless elsewhere.

Which goes back to a point you made in post #22, to the effect that your status as a dual citizen "affords me some extra privileges". As far as Australian citizenship law goes being a dual citizen doesn't confer any privileges; it imposes a disadvantage, in that there are a variety of circumstances in which your Australian citizenship can be stripped from you when, if you weren't a dual citizen, it couldn't be.

As far as Australian road traffic laws go, it doesn't offer any advantages either. I was referring to advantages generally.

As for disadvantages in regards to citizenship laws, I can't see any tbh. None of the sections mentioned above apply how I became citizen (wasn't by descent, adoption, or special residence). I wasn't sentenced to death prior to becoming a citizen. And I'm not a terrorist.

The only way it becomes an issue is if I decide to become a terrorist. In that case, I'll renounce my Irish citizenship, and be on a level playing field with australian born terrorists/ :cool:

Peregrinus

You're looking at section 34(1), I think. You need to look at s. 34(2), the relevant parts of which read:

The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:

(a) the person is an Australian citizen under Subdivision B of Division 2 . . . ; and

(b) any of the following apply . . .

(ii) the person has, at any time after making the application to become an Australian citizen, been convicted of a serious offence . . . and

(c) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

S.34(3) goes on to say that the Minister can't do this if the result is that the person would become stateless.

"An Australian citizen under Subdivision B of Division 2" is a naturalised citizen.

It's not that I'm particularly sympathetic to people who are convicted of serious crimes. It's that a naturalised Australian citizen with dual citizenship who commits a serious crime is exposed to an additional sanction that wouldn't apply to a citizen from birth (with or without dual citizenship) or a naturalised citizen without dual citizenship who commits the exact same crime in the exact same circumstances. That seems to be to be wrong in principle. Neither the crime nor its consequence are any worse because the offender is a naturalised dual citizen, so why is he being punished more harshly than an offender who is not a naturalised dual citizen? And why should his naturalised citizenship be contingent in a way that citizenship by birth is not?

Like Edgecase says, second-class citizenship. Not a good thing.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're looking at section 34(1), I think. You need to look at s. 34(2), the relevant parts of which read:

Sub section 5 applies to 34(2) also. You've cut that part off.

(b) any of the following apply . . .

(ii) the person has, at any time after making the application to become an Australian citizen, been convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of subsection (5);

(5) For the purposes of this section, a person has been convicted of a serious offence if:

(a) the person has been convicted of an offence against an Australian law or a foreign law, for which the person has been sentenced to death or to a serious prison sentence; and

(b) the person committed the offence at any time before the person became an Australian citizen.

It's that a naturalised Australian citizen with dual citizenship who commits a serious crime is exposed to an additional sanction that wouldn't apply to a citizen from birth (with or without dual citizenship) or a naturalised citizen without dual citizenship who commits the exact same crime in the exact same circumstances.

Therefore, the part if bold is incorrect. If he commits the crime after naturalisaton, S34 doesn't apply.

That seems to be to be wrong in principle. Neither the crime nor its consequence are any worse because the offender is a naturalised dual citizen, so why is he being punished more harshly than an offender who is not a naturalised dual citizen? And why should his naturalised citizenship be contingent in a way that citizenship by birth is not?

Really simple.
The guy who was a citizen from birth, was a citizen when he committed the crime.
The guy who has his citizenship revoked under S.34(2) was not a citizen when he committed the crime.
The latter guy is punished more harshly because;
(a) he was not eligible to become a citizen in the first place, and
(b) he (presumably) lied on his application to become a citizen, an additional crime that the first person never committed.

Maybe other sections created second class citizenship, but the above doesn't.

fxotoole

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a wild guess, but I suspect that the provision was originally motivated by a concern that people might acquire Irish citizenship, not with any intention of residing in Ireland, but in order to reside in the UK (or, later, elsewhere in the EU). It would embarrass us if our relatively generous policy with regard to citizenship were to be used as a back door to get into other countries. If that was the concern, it seems to have been groundless, because as far as I can find by googling the power of revocation has never been exercised in these circumstances.

If that was the motivation, its contradictory in the sense that the State grants citizenship through ancestry (Foreign Births Registration) without any requirement to ever reside in Ireland, and used to provide citizenship through marriage (Post Nuptial Citizenship) without any requirement to reside in the State.

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly, because they can envisage circumstances in which they might wish to enforce it. (I had a guess at what those might be back in post #8.)


I agree, and I think it's offensive in a republic that there should be different classes of citizenship with different obligations. If I, as a citizen by birth who is resident abroad, don't have to confirm my desire to retain citizenship annually, why should any other citizen have to?

The law as quoted upthread doesn't just apply to citizens abroad, but to citizens in Down or any of the other 5 counties.

The fact it was brought in in the 50's shows the un-enlightened times it was enacted in. ask your td to see about repealing that section.

seamus

Carawaystick wrote: »

The law as quoted upthread doesn't just apply to citizens abroad, but to citizens in Down or any of the other 5 counties.

I don't think that's correct. The part quoted upthread only refers to naturalised citizens.
The GFA put the citizenship status of those in the North on an equal footing to those in the South.
So the section quoted above cannot be used to revoke citizenship from anyone who is entitled to it from birth.