Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

November Golf

Bonniedog wrote: »

The people voted by 80% to get rid of birthright ciutizenship.

They voted to remove the constitutional right to citizenship, and replace it with a provision which is clear "in accordance with law".

You say that people voted by 80% but if you don't know what they voted for 15 yesr on; how could you possibly claim they knew back then what they were voting for.

Bonniedog

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

They voted to remove the constitutional right to citizenship, and replace it with a provision which is clear "in accordance with law".

You say that people voted by 80% but if you don't know what they voted for 15 yesr on; how could you possibly claim they know back then what they were voting for.

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the text of referendums, and the proviso that any change must be "in accordance with the law."

As in above post regarding the gay marriage referendum.

So you would be okay if that was overturned if the political landscape changed?

Oh, and by the way, who are you or the fkn Labour Party to claim that people who voted in huge numbers didn't know what they were voting for? Hmmm?

Kermit.de.frog

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

They voted to remove the constitutional right to citizenship, and replace it with a provision which is clear "in accordance with law".

You say that people voted by 80% but if you don't know what they voted for 15 yesr on; how could you possibly claim they know back then what they were voting for.

They were voting to end the exploitation of Ireland and the citizens of this country.

Make no mistake about that.

ExMachina1000

The UK would have every right to revoke the cta agreement as an Irish reintroduction of birthright citizenship is a threat to the Uk border security.

This also has a knock on effect on the good Friday agreement

EU border security also would be affected by Ireland reintroducing birthright citizenship.

The above has already been mentioned by senior government ministers.

titan18

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK would have every right to revoke the cta agreement as an Irish reintroduction of birthright citizenship is a threat to the Uk border security.

This also has a knock on effect on the good Friday agreement

EU border security also would be affected by Ireland reintroducing birthright citizenship.

The above has already been mentioned by senior government ministers.

Our best chance would be appealing to UK politicians on it. Our own sh1ts won't care what we say but maybe if they got pressure from UK about the CTA they might rethink it

Arthur Daley

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK would have every right to revoke the cta agreement as an Irish reintroduction of birthright citizenship is a threat to the Uk border security.

This also has a knock on effect on the good Friday agreement

EU border security also would be affected by Ireland reintroducing birthright citizenship.

The above has already been mentioned by senior government ministers.

It is at times like this that you really are on a hiding to nothing to consider if there could ever be an IREXIT.

It is very sad state of affairs, but let's be honest people are actually better here being run by the French and Germans.

ExMachina1000

titan18 wrote: »

Our best chance would be appealing to UK politicians on it. Our own sh1ts won't care what we say but maybe if they got pressure from UK about the CTA they might rethink it

Just today the UK announced a change to a points based system.
The French and Germans are talking about schengen reform and tightening the Eu border.

Ireland is going in totally the opposite direction from our neighbors and also from our fellow EU members

November Golf

Bonniedog wrote: »

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the text of referendums, and the proviso that any change must be "in accordance with the law."

As in above post regarding the gay marriage referendum.

So you would be okay if that was overturned if the political landscape changed?

Oh, and by the way, who are you or the fkn Labour Party to claim that people who voted in huge numbers didn't know what they were voting for? Hmmm?

1. They voted to allow citizenship to be determined by law. You can claim their motivation to vote was X, Y or Z but the actual constitution resolution put to the people was to let the oireachtas decide what citizenship laws should be in place. Oh and by the way, the actual law that governs citizenship "Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act" has been amended a number of times since 2004 without a referendum the arguement is moot.

2. Your the one claiming they voted by 80% for X, Y and Z which is simply a lie. You don't seem to know how referendum works. People have different motivations for voting but what matters is the actual amendment; the written text.

Bonniedog

It will be worse because they are likely to amend the Bacik Bill to ensure that once the illegals are given citizenship here that they won't be able to move to another EU state. How they will manage the border post Brexit is another matter as there is already a flow of illegals coming from Britain through north to here. That will increase if law is changed.

Bonniedog

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

1. They voted to allow citizenship to be determined by law. You can claim their motivation to vote was X, Y or Z but the actual constitution resolution put to the people was to let the oireachtas decide what citizenship laws should be in place. Oh and by the way, the actual law that governs citizenship "Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act" has been amended a number of times since 2004 without a referendum the arguement is moot.

2. Your the one claiming they voted by 80% for X, Y and Z which is simply a lie. You don't seem to know how referendum works. People have different motivations for voting but what matters is the actual amendment; the written text.

So if a majority in Oireachtas voted to overturn the gay marriage referendum, as they could "according to the law" clause, that would be okay too?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The UK's 4% is still a small minority, and most of it clustered in urban centres. There's zero sign of any great replacement that is all too often trotted out as some grand plan. That's my point.

England and Wales is over 5% now. Happened quick didn't it?

As for the great replacement, one wonders where our massive population increase over the next 30 years (which is a stated aim of the government) will come from when Irish people are having children below replacement rate.

Population in 2000 was 3.8 million with a tiny percentage foreign-born.
20 years later it's 4.9 million of which 816k were foreign-born. Add their kids in and it's pretty likely that account for all (and more) of the population growth in the last 2 decades.
23% of births are to non-Irish mothers. The overall fertility rate is 1.7, leaving us well below replacement. To get to another million people people by 2050 we're looking at a million more people not descended from people here in 2000. That'll be a good 1/3 of the total population. So in the Irish context I can see where the "replacement" theory gets some legs.

titan18

[Deleted User] wrote: »

England and Wales is over 5% now. Happened quick didn't it?

As for the great replacement, one wonders where our massive population increase over the next 30 years (which is a stated aim of the government) will come from when Irish people are having children below replacement rate.

Population in 2000 was 3.8 million with a tiny percentage foreign-born.
20 years later it's 4.9 million of which 816k were foreign-born. Add their kids in and it's pretty likely that account for all (and more) of the population growth in the last 2 decades.
23% of births are to non-Irish mothers. The overall fertility rate is 1.7, leaving us well below replacement. To get to another million people people by 2050 we're looking at a million more people not descended from people here in 2000. That'll be a good 1/3 of the total population. So in the Irish context I can see where the "replacement" theory gets some legs.

Maybe it'd be smarter to make it more affordable to actually have kids/accomodation etc rather than inviting others in and taxing us for the pleasure of having them.

November Golf

Bonniedog wrote: »

So if a majority in Oireachtas voted to overturn the gay marriage referendum, as they could "according to the law" clause, that would be okay too?

Constitutional, yes because that is what people voted for; to let the oireachtas decide. Do I think its right? No but I'm not going to pretend its something that its not.

The constitution is designed to protect the people from the state. Everytime its amendment to include "in accordance with law" we water down our constitutional rights and giving additional powers to the Oireachtas to make and amend the laws as they see fit. Do I think its right? No, but it doesn't change the facts.

fly_agaric

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

They voted to remove the constitutional right to citizenship, and replace it with a provision which is clear "in accordance with law".

You say that people voted by 80% but if you don't know what they voted for 15 yesr on; how could you possibly claim they knew back then what they were voting for.

That is nonsense really. I'm long enough in the tooth to remember the campaign.

The opponents of the referendum (incl. Labour) were quite clear people voting for the change were just being bigoted, and the government (as embodied by the Minister of Justice at the time) was somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun for doing this!

People voting "yes" were quite clear IMO it was about getting an unintended loophole plugged which was causing problems at the time.
The "Right on" faithful and their braying priests & witchfinders on Twitter did not exist to same extent back then though.

weldoninhio

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

The people voted to let the Oireachtas decide.

Citizenship is now a matter of law, not the constitution, and the Oireachtas have the authority to make and amend laws as they see fit.

Hold on. The Oireachtas work FOR the people. They are not there to make or amend laws “as they see fit”. Their JOB is to follow the will of the people who EMPLOY them.

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

To get to another million people people by 2050 we're looking at a million more people not descended from people here in 2000. That'll be a good 1/3 of the total population. So in the Irish context I can see where the "replacement" theory gets some legs.

Senior leaders of 2 of the parties in government have already spouted the notion that Ireland is well capable of having 10,000,000 people on our small island. And they were not talking about 10 million Irish people. We can take Eamon Ryan with a grain of salt, but Simon Coveney is another matter. He comes from the Peter Sutherland school of philosophy surrounding migration and the homogeneity of European countries. Sutherland declared that we are too homogenous (aka too white), so now we have a multitude of political parties, NGOs, academics, and most importantly, industrialists, all now trying to achieve the same goal; albeit for completely different reasons.

I'm thinking about the famous phrase "To Hell or to Connacht". If some in this country get their way, Connacht will not even be an option for many of us. The replacement theory? Maybe it is our destiny to be replaced in Ireland ....... by our own hands, with the only option remaining for future Irish generations is to be scattered to the many corners of the world.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK would have every right to revoke the cta agreement as an Irish reintroduction of birthright citizenship is a threat to the Uk border security.

This also has a knock on effect on the good Friday agreement

EU border security also would be affected by Ireland reintroducing birthright citizenship.

The above has already been mentioned by senior government ministers.

2020 is much different than even 2004. The number of people these days who would seek to have a child born in a country with access to the entire EU and the UK would be crazy.

Bonniedog

Deleted User wrote: »

2020 is much different than even 2004. The number of people these days who would seek to have a child born in a country with access to the entire EU and the UK would be crazy.

Which is why they will amend it to facilitate a birthright citizenship that will exclude the EU and Britain from taking our scammers - Brits might very well restrict any Irish citizen - so we will become a target for welfare migrants as their last stop.

What fun it shall be. Get the fk out of Dublin would be my advice.

titan18

Bonniedog wrote: »

Which is why they will amend it to facilitate a birthright citizenship that will exclude the EU and Britain from taking our scammers - Brits might very well restrict any Irish citizen - so we will become a target for welfare migrants as their last stop.

What fun it shall be. Get the fk out of Dublin would be my advice.

I don't see how that would be legal. You can't create two classes of citizens with one set of Irish citizens able to travel and work freely and others can't.

Eric Cartman

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK would have every right to revoke the cta agreement as an Irish reintroduction of birthright citizenship is a threat to the Uk border security.

This also has a knock on effect on the good Friday agreement

EU border security also would be affected by Ireland reintroducing birthright citizenship.

The above has already been mentioned by senior government ministers.

id only hope they'd put in a hard border to save themselves.

between the new rosslare to France ferry coming in and this , could you imagine all the calais truck jumpers just buying a pedestrian ticket , its going to become the Somalia to EU citizenship express. they'll need a midwife on the ferry just incase.

November Golf

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hold on. The Oireachtas work FOR the people. They are not there to make or amend laws “as they see fit”. Their JOB is to follow the will of the people who EMPLOY them.

That depends on which people you are talking about.

Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Labour and Sinn Fein don't work for me, although I would agree and disagree with each of them on some issues. Laws are made and amended by a majority vote in the Oireachtas in which the members of the house cast their ballot as they see fit.

A general election gives the people the chance to decide who get the most say in the Dail but people don't generally vote for a party or person because they support them on everything.

Bonniedog

titan18 wrote: »

I don't see how that would be legal. You can't create two classes of citizens with one set of Irish citizens able to travel and work freely and others can't.

I wouldn't have thought so either, and thought that this would scupper the Bill, but seemingly this is the task they have set themselves.

One argument is that Government are going to let it run and then produce legal arguments such as the above to claim that it is impossible to have birthright citizenship in one member state that does not extend EU rights in all of them.

I don't buy that. They could have killed this bill today and it would have been forgotten about. The fact that they have facilitated it going into full committee and then presumably the Dáil means that like the assisted suicide bill from the trots, they will accept it in amended form.

Be interesting to see what happens next. Also would not rule out a constitutional challenge if it is passed.

Macu17ab

There'd be a Brazillion new citizens 9 months later

Eric Cartman

Bonniedog wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought so either, and thought that this would scupper the Bill, but seemingly this is the task they have set themselves.

One argument is that Government are going to let it run and then produce legal arguments such as the above to claim that it is impossible to have birthright citizenship in one member state that does not extend EU rights in all of them.

I don't buy that. They could have killed this bill today and it would have been forgotten about. The fact that they have facilitated it going into full committee and then presumably the Dáil means that like the assisted suicide bill from the trots, they will accept it in amended form.

Be interesting to see what happens next. Also would not rule out a constitutional challenge if it is passed.

Its all coming together for them, Britain goes bye bye , the ferry routes open up to countries who want rid of these people, hate speech laws to stop you condemning them, increased pressure to build social housing which might translate into a giant building boom.

we're going to end up with an Ireland like east London.

the worst part is, with so little political will to do anything , next election we could very well end up with some sort of SF/NP coalition the people vote for purely to stop the madness.

people have been playing chicken little screaming about fascists in europe since 2016, this perfect storm is how you make it seem reasonable to elect actual fascists.

ExMachina1000

The biggest issue is what happens to the status of the parents.
If a child is born here and is given automatic citizenship but the parents are illegal or their visa expires what is likely to happen?

Has anyone even bothered to ask her?
Is it taken as a given that the parents can then just stay?

Eric Cartman

Macu17ab wrote: »

There'd be a Brazillion new citizens 9 months later

ohh you best believe all those 'language students' aren't leaving. They won't have to pretend to love some lowly Irish men anymore though, just get the ride a few times.

Macu17ab

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ohh you best believe all those 'language students' aren't leaving. They won't have to pretend to love some lowly Irish men anymore though, just get the ride a few times.

Ah to be fair the Brazilians are a great wave of immigrants, they work hard and have great attitudes towards integrating here.

Eric Cartman

Macu17ab wrote: »

Ah to be fair the Brazilians are a great wave of immigrants, they work hard and have great attitudes towards integrating here.

50/50 , they're also responsible for a lot of the inner city drug trade and regularly invent slums by putting multiple bunk beds in apartments , earning money off fellow brazillians and leaving landlords out of pocket who only discover the slum when they're 6 months late on rent and they knock on the door to find 6-10 people who thought they were paying rent to the landlord but it was just a scam.

but in general I would prefer them over almost any group from arab or African nations. Their women are also quite visually appealing.

dominatinMC

As a casual follower of this item, what are the actual chances of this bill being passed? There was an overwhelming majority (>80%) against it last time. Without delving into hyperbole, how likely is this really expected to change? Bearing in mind that a lot of people, regardless of how they might present themselves or wish to be perceived, will probably be more self serving post-pandemic.

Macu17ab

Eric Cartman wrote: »

50/50 , they're also responsible for a lot of the inner city drug trade and regularly invent slums by putting multiple bunk beds in apartments , earning money off fellow brazillians and leaving landlords out of pocket who only discover the slum when they're 6 months late on rent and they knock on the door to find 6-10 people who thought they were paying rent to the landlord but it was just a scam.

but in genera, I would prefer them over almost any group from arab or African nations. Their women are also quite visually appealing.

That's bollox. The landlords are the ones putting 4-6 beds per room and charging them 400 each, they aren't setting up like a hive in a well-intentioned landlord's property - they are being exploited as the landlords know they have no recourse or alternative.

As for the drug trade, that was around long before the Brazilians - You're obviously going to get the worst of people who can't get a taxable job falling into that.

50/50, come on.