Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

Kivaro

Hamachi wrote: »

This is utter insanity. The lunatics truly have (or at least attempting to) take over the asylum. I'm bewildered as to why an unelectable cretin like Ivana Bacik is enabled to impose her will on the Irish people..

Can anybody who is more politically astute than me predict how likely this is to get traction?

I am still trying to wrap my head around Labour's angle here. The Green Party focused on Direct Provision as their cause célèbre to appease their wealthy progressive supporters, so the birthright citizenship must be Labour's cause célèbre. They somehow see votes somewhere from this initiative to reverse a referendum where the overwhelming majority voted to stop this auto-birthright.

Whether or not it gets traction really depends on RTE and The Irish Times. If they see value in pursuing it, then it will happen. Don't forget that if you are a mainstream politician (FFG), then there is no way that you can come out against it without being called a racist by the "progressives", so there will be little push-back from entrenched politicians.

It is really a surreal situation where politicians are going against referendum results that had a majority of almost 80%. In other words, 4/5ths of the population in Ireland do not want it; yet, elected representatives want to reverse that mandate. Truly bizarre.

ExMachina1000

Kivaro wrote: »

I am still trying to wrap my head around Labour's angle here. The Green Party focused on Direct Provision as their cause célèbre to appease their wealthy progressive supporters, so the birthright citizenship must be Labour's cause célèbre. They somehow see votes somewhere from this initiative to reverse a referendum where the overwhelming majority voted to stop this auto-birthright.

Whether or not it gets traction really depends on RTE and The Irish Times. If they see value in pursuing it, then it will happen. Don't forget that if you are a mainstream politician (FFG), then there is no way that you can come out against it without being called a racist by the "progressives", so there will be little push-back from entrenched politicians.

It is really a surreal situation where politicians are going against referendum results that had a majority of almost 80%. In other words, 4/5ths of the population in Ireland do not want it; yet, elected representatives want to reverse that mandate. Truly bizarre.

Labour going after the "progressives" vote. Nobody reasonable will vote for them anymore so they have been reduced to trying to gain support from the perpetually offended mob.

Expect sf and the far left Murphy and co to join in the calls. Ff and fg will go the opposite way.

Mad_maxx

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Labour going after the "progressives" vote. Nobody reasonable will vote for them anymore so they have been reduced to trying to gain support from the perpetually offended mob.

Expect sf and the far left Murphy and co to join in the calls. Ff and fg will go the opposite way.

Michael Martin is determined to be embraced by the irish times and RTE progressive luvvies , FF are a good bet to back this too

biko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Labour going after the "progressives" vote. Nobody reasonable will vote for them anymore so they have been reduced to trying to gain support from the perpetually offended mob.

Never say never. People were stupid enough to vote Hitler into power. All you need to do is to appeal to some shared fears.
Back then it was Jews. Now it's climate (and for some reason Jews again).

biko

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is undemocratic about introducing a bill in the dail?

If it tries to negated a referendum then it's undemocratic.
A referendum show the direct will of the people.

A referendum removed the 8th amendment. What if Labour introduced a bill to revoke the repeal, would you feel that was a democratic way of doing things?

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

If it tries to negated a referendum then it's undemocratic.
A referendum show the direct will of the people.

A referendum removed the 8th amendment. What if Labour introduced a bill to revoke the repeal, would you feel that was a democratic way of doing things?

have you read the wording of what we voted on? it specifically allows for the dail to change it.

and the same thing applies to the 8th. the referendum gave the power to the Dail to change the law on abortion as they see it. I'm not sure you actually know what we voted on in either case and the same probably applies to a lot of people on this thread.

biko

Again I have to go looking for sources when someone makes claims. Can people not just provide them when they make their claims, just easier for everyone.

The text is

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.

Do you mean the last phrase?

Biko, there's nothing anti democratic about amending the constitution or removing amendments. Views change or appetites for change occur. The voting public decide via a referendum, that's entirely democratic..

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Biko, there's nothing anti democratic about amending the constitution or removing amendments. Views change or appetites for change occur. The voting public decide via a referendum, that's entirely democratic..

Isn't that what Biko is saying ?

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

Isn't that what Biko is saying ?

Never mind, a quick glance at the details indicates it's entirely legal to introduce legislation.... Which once again is not anti democratic.

cgcsb

Labour continues to be tone deaf it seems.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Never mind, a quick glance at the details indicates it's entirely legal to introduce legislation.... Which once again is not anti democratic.

It may be legal, but when 80% of Irish voters vote for one thing and fifteen years later that's reversed without going to a vote again it's not democratic. Never mind that "it's the law" has been used and abused throughout history and many of said laws were changed because of democratic votes by the people.

In this country divorce, Same sex marriage, women's right to choose were all illegal until quite recently and changed because the people wanted them changed and that choice was put to them and they passed with smaller majorities than this issue. That one of the highest majorities of any Irish referendum is being pushed for change without going to the people with that change is nothing short of scandalous.

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

If it tries to negated a referendum then it's undemocratic.
A referendum show the direct will of the people.

A referendum removed the 8th amendment. What if Labour introduced a bill to revoke the repeal, would you feel that was a democratic way of doing things?

you cant revoke a repeal, what does that even mean? they can, however, introduce a bill that would restrict the availability of abortion or make it impossible to obtain. that is what we voted for. we voted to allow the Dail to make legislation on abortion. to then say that introducing legislation is against the will of the people is just pure uneducated bull****.

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

Again I have to go looking for sources when someone makes claims. Can people not just provide them when they make their claims, just easier for everyone.

The text is
Do you mean the last phrase?

exactly. you might finally be getting it.

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

It may be legal, but when 80% of Irish voters vote for one thing and fifteen years later that's reversed without going to a vote again it's not democratic. Never mind that "it's the law" has been used and abused throughout history and many of said laws were changed because of democratic votes by the people.

In this country divorce, Same sex marriage, women's right to choose were all illegal until quite recently and changed because the people wanted them changed and that choice was put to them and they passed with smaller majorities than this issue. That one of the highest majorities of any Irish referendum is being pushed for change without going to the people with that change is nothing short of scandalous.

explain to me what is undemocratic about introducing legislation in the context of a referendum that allows exactly that.

biko

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

exactly. you might finally be getting it.

That you don't like to back up claims with sources? Seems this is your technique to make others do your work for you.
With your bad attitude it will only work this once, I'll just ignore you from here on.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

It may be legal, but when 80% of Irish voters vote for one thing and fifteen years later that's reversed without going to a vote again it's not democratic. Never mind that "it's the law" has been used and abused throughout history and many of said laws were changed because of democratic votes by the people.

In this country divorce, Same sex marriage, women's right to choose were all illegal until quite recently and changed because the people wanted them changed and that choice was put to them and they passed with smaller majorities than this issue. That one of the highest majorities of any Irish referendum is being pushed for change without going to the people with that change is nothing short of scandalous.

The amendment we voted on included the provision around legislation... So we were granting the legislature that ability as part of that referendum.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what we voted for was very explicit. what part of

unless provided for by law

do you not understand?

biko wrote: »

That you don't like to back up claims with sources? Seems this is your technique to make others do your work for you.
With your bad attitude it will only work this once, I'll just ignore you from here on.

I quoted that earlier in the thread.

biko

To date the Labour tweet has 106 likes so we know there are at least 100 nutters out there.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

The amendment we voted on included the provision around legislation... So we were granting the legislature that ability as part of that referendum.

Do you think the vote would have gone a different way if that legislation wasn't part of it? Do you think those voting for divorce, SSM etc read they fine print of legislation attached. Of course they didn't. They voted in favour of divorce and SSM.

The Irish people were given a choice on the pretty fundamental matter of what constitutes being Irish. They made that choice and it was a clear one and for reasons that haven't gone away and are likely to be even more in play with Brexit. Never mind the rest of the EU members, not one of which have birthright citizenship, will not be best pleased by one state going rogue and opening them up to abuses of the process. That a small group of politicians and their friends in NGOs and other vested interests are trying to negate that choice is at best concerning. Answer them better to streamline DP and cut the purse strings of the vested interests in that.

If they were so cocksure with their polls of such a massive sea change in public opinion among Irish voters on this, and it would be about the biggest swing in the history of this state, why are they afraid of putting it to the same Irish people in a democratic vote? Add it as a box to tick on the next round of local elections, or the next general election. They're not pushing for that. I wonder why? Well the answer is simple, they know damned well it would be democratically rejected. Again.

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think the vote would have gone a different way if that legislation wasn't part of it? Do you think those voting for divorce, SSM etc read they fine print of legislation attached. Of course they didn't. They voted in favour of divorce and SSM.

The Irish people were given a choice on the pretty fundamental matter of what constitutes being Irish. They made that choice and it was a clear one and for reasons that haven't gone away and are likely to be even more in play with Brexit. Never mind the rest of the EU members, none of which have birthright citizenship, will not be best pleased by one state going rogue and opening them up to abuses of the process. That a small group of politicians and their friends in NGOs and other vested interests are trying to negate that choice is at best concerning. Answer them better to streamline DP and cut the purse strings of the vested interests in that.

If they were so cocksure with their polls of such a massive sea change in public opinion among Irish voters on this, and it would be about the biggest swing in the history of this state, why are they afraid of putting it to the same Irish people in a democratic vote? Add it as a box to tick on the next round of local elections, or the next general election. They're not pushing for that. I wonder why? Well the answer is simple, they know damned well it would be democratically rejected. Again.

your post boils down to "the people who voted are stupid so we should ask them again" and is massively condescending to the people who voted.

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your post boils down to "the people who voted are stupid so we should ask them again" and is massively condescending to the people who voted.

In what universe could you summarise my post in that fashion? It's certainly not one I live in. And apparently you don't think it's "massively condescending" to simply ignore 80% of Irish voters who said no? PLus I hate to break it to you, but we asked the "stupid" people to vote on divorce more than once. Why? Because it was a fundamental change to Irish society.

Richard Hillman

The thing is, they don't even want to go for a vote again. Bacik was on the journal the other day saying it doesn't need a referendum, you can change it in the Dail. They want to do it without a vote (most because they know they won't win one).

That for me shows you everything about them. Even if it was true that it can be amended without a refendum, it is absolutely to the bare minimum that they put it to a vote out of courtesy to the people. Otherwise its anti-democratic.

Kivaro

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you think the vote would have gone a different way if that legislation wasn't part of it? Do you think those voting for divorce, SSM etc read they fine print of legislation attached. Of course they didn't. They voted in favour of divorce and SSM.

Almost 80% of the people of Ireland voted in favour to stop the ridiculous anchor baby loophole that Nigerians (in particular) were exploiting at the time. The primary intention of the vote was to put a stop to this, and not for any addendums that the government attached. That was the sole intent of the voter on that day. Now that Labour wants to undo the "will" of the people, I hope it gets further decimated in all future elections. If the recent poll was carried out this week, Labour's support would be down to 2% or lower due to the appalling spit in the face at the Irish people.

ohnonotgmail

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The thing is, they don't even want to go for a vote again. Bacik was on the journal the other day saying it doesn't need a referendum, you can change it in the Dail. They want to do it without a vote (most because they know they won't win one).

That for me shows you everything about them. Even if it was true that it can be amended without a refendum, it is absolutely to the bare minimum that they put it to a vote out of courtesy to the people. Otherwise its anti-democratic.

she is right. it doesn't need a referendum, the dail can change. the referendum that was passed specifically allowed for that

Wibbs

And ignore the rest of the points while you're at it. Points that are the same they were when the Irish people voted to address them.

This loophole brought in on the back of the GFA was exploited. The dogs on the street knew it and still do and why it was put to a vote in the first place. A large proportion of those who ended up resident in this country when that loophole was in play would be soundly rejected for valid reasons at point of entry today. Change it back and they'd "magically" be grand.

No other EU nation has birthright citizenship like we had. Even Luxembourg which has some provision for jus soli is restrictive about it and Luxembourg is hardly a typical state. Worldwide the nations that do are few and far between and in most cases are more restrictive. Getting Irish citizenship automatically entitles someone to free movement within the EU. Then again you seem to think the EU has nothing to do with it going on a previous post.

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

In what universe could you summarise my post in that fashion? It's certainly not one I live in. And apparently you don't think it's "massively condescending" to simply ignore 80% of Irish voters who said no? PLus I hate to break it to you, but we asked the "stupid" people to vote on divorce more than once. Why? Because it was a fundamental change to Irish society.

Do you think those voting for divorce, SSM etc read they fine print of legislation attached. Of course they didn't.

what we voted on what right there on the ballot form in big letters. you think people are stupid to understand what they voted for. though having read some of the replies here you might be on to something.

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

she is right. it doesn't need a referendum, the dail can change. the referendum that was passed specifically allowed for that

Again: Do you think the vote would have gone a different way if that legislation wasn't part of it? Do you think those voting for divorce, SSM etc read they fine print of legislation attached. Of course they didn't. They voted in favour of divorce and SSM. What's the point of holding a vote on a fundamental matter to the Irish people if a small bunch of busted flush politicians and vested interests can simply ignore and reverse it?

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

Again: Do you think the vote would have gone a different way if that legislation wasn't part of it? Do you think those voting for divorce, SSM etc read they fine print of legislation attached. Of course they didn't. They voted in favour of divorce and SSM. What's the point of holding a vote on a fundamental matter to the Irish people if a small bunch of busted flush politicians and vested interests can simply ignore and reverse it?

you're just repeating yourself now.

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what we voted on what right there on the ballot form in big letters. you think people are stupid to understand what they voted for. though having read some of the replies here you might be on to something.

People voted on the fundamental issue after weighing up their personal opinions on it. Just like any vote.