Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

Mad_maxx

breezy1985 wrote: »

Was always left leaning. Are we talking about the country that let all its schools be run by the church and locked up young girls for having pre marital sex only allowed divorce and condoms in the 90s because of religious conservatism.

a country can be socially - religously conservative and left leaning at the same time

irish people like the government to do stuff for them , always have

fly_agaric

Donald Trump wrote: »

It was only added to the constitution in the late 90's and was an entirely unintended consequence of the Good Friday agreement. The purpose of the referendum was only to remove it as a constitutional right. That allows it to be controlled by legislation. Children of people who are in the country legally generally obtain citizenship.

It is not about "accepting migrants" as you say, because if the migrant is "accepted" then their child will get citizenship! It is a completely different point.


Other countries which have Jus soli generally do not have the associated benefits extending to the family the same as in Ireland/Europe. If you moved to the US for a year or two to work and had a child then that child is a US citizen. If your work and visa finishes then you have to leave the country. The child is always a citizen. It generally confers no real rights to you - despite the usage of the "anchor baby" term. When the child is 18 it could go back to the US and petition for you to join it. But there is no such thing as landing off a boat to the US, straight to hospital, have a baby and leave the hospital and be put into accommodation and welfare supports. There are wealthy Chinese women who do take advantage of the US system but it is just so their baby has the citizenship. They fly in, go to an expensive hospital, then return to China afterwards. What we had were wealthy (relative to their peers), generally African, woman who saw a loophole and were able to exploit it and then get on the pigs back for a relatively handy life in Europe.



You also need to remember that Irish citizenship is European citizenship. We cannot be the only outlier and leaving a back door open. It was crazy at the time. Maternity hospitals were literally being packed with woman who had only entered the country to give birth. Plenty were coming off the boat from the UK etc. just as they were about to pop!

Thanks for that trip down memory lane. Your points about difference between what was happening here at that time and what happens in US with their birth citizenship were key to the argument.
I also remember Michael McDowell (justice minister I think) being caricatured as some sort of Nazi gaulieter by those opposed to the referendum + the "disappointment" with us all by the likes of the Irish Times when it was (unsurprisingly!) overwhelmingly passed.
It was a completely crazy situation as you say with people showing up to have their Irish/EU baby; wanting to go back to that regime would be even madder. Labour should have more sense IMO if they want people to vote for them again. It doesn't matter if a lot of their party members are still sore over it.

Wibbs

breezy1985 wrote: »

Was always left leaning. Are we talking about the country that let all its schools be run by the church and locked up young girls for having pre marital sex only allowed divorce and condoms in the 90s because of religious conservatism.

As MM notes there's a difference between socially and politically. Yes Ireland and her politics were conservative, on the other hand do you think subsidised by tax free education, health, housing and social welfare are right wing? These were in play from very early on in an independent Ireland.

Galwayguy35

Howlins brain is as small as the rest of him it seems.

Anyone who wants to bring back automatic citizenship is an idiot.

Yurt2

biko wrote: »

In one high-profile case, Eric Zhi Ying Xue – a nine-year-old from Bray, Co Wicklow – faced removal from the state despite having been here for his entire life.

Asked whether they were considering an amnesty for any of those affected by the citizenship referendum, the Department of Justice said that the EU had said cases would be dealt with on a case-by-case approach as opposed to any “mass regularisation”.

https://www.thejournal.ie/citizenship-rights-irish-born-children-4475530-Feb2019/

Deportation order against him was lifted last year
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1217/1101717-deportation-order-against-wicklow-schoolboy-lifted/

Indeed, I'm aware the deportation order was lifted. However, the offense that the mother committed was an extremely serious one in my book, that of passport fraud. She was lucky she didn't serve time and she can't have any complaints about her deportation order. In any other country she would have been dealt the same hand on foot of that behaviour. That her child was caught up in it was unfortunate but I still think the deportation should have been carried out. There was all sorts of guff floating around that he was stateless, which was and is a falsehood. She could waltz in to the Chinese embassy and get a passport for her son tomorrow if she wished. Also conspicuous by his absence in the story is the father of the child, who is doubtless an overstayer living under the radar in Ireland.

mikemac2

Did my leaving cert at 17 and started in a local factory and joined SIPTU and the Labour Party

Young stupid me believed the Labour Party supported workers

More fool me, they care more about right-on fashionable causes and workers who have established rights and can pay regular dues than workers who need support

Mary Harney did more for low waged workers than the Labour Party ever did

Galwayguy35

Its a far cry from the party Jim Larkin founded.

Gervais08

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Its a far cry from the party Jim Larkin founded.

From the same neck of the woods as my dear sainted mother was Big Jim.

Both old school Labour who would shudder what the party was now.

Francie Barrett

Historically, I would have given Labour a second preference in elections, after reading this, never again.

L1011

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Historically, I would have given Labour a second preference in elections, after reading this, never again.

Even though its an entirely unchanged position since the original referendum?

screamer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is why our nation should be basically closed to anyone outside the EU coming here without work sponsorship and a 10 year social welfare ban.

If we don’t cop on to how over generous and under funded our welfare system is going to become soon, with less workers propping up more recipients, there’ll be nothing much for anyone.

kildare lad

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Historically, I would have given Labour a second preference in elections, after reading this, never again.

What about when they tried to force the water charges on the Irish people ???

Francie Barrett

seamus wrote: »

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland. There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

This is not true though.

Support for racist organisations back in 2004 was non-existent. The biggest movement in favour at the time was the Immigration Control Platform. They ran in elections, they got no votes. They organised rallies, no one attended. That organisation folded after a few years due to a complete lack of interest, nothing replaced it.

The 2004 referendum that was proposed by FF/PD's and was due to an organic groundswell of popular opinion that our citizenship laws were being taken advantage of. While there was certainly some hysteria and wild claims, the number of asylum applications did bear that out the concerns of the people.

To call the amendment "unnecessary" is also untrue. The chart plotting the collapse in asylum cases in the aftermath of the referendum is testament to that. The amendment looks like a simple and popular change that did what it needed to do.

Richard Hillman

Remember the days when the media actually covered things like anchor babies? If it was happening now, there would be a blind eye turned to it and anyone that raised it would be a Far-Right Neo Fascist.

We are Governed by NGOs now. When Labour got into power everyone thought it was going to be the workers unions that would be better off. It was actually the NGOs that got the abundance of funding. Now the NGOs dictate policy and government align their policy with some biased "studies" or research that the NGOs create.

Mad_maxx

kildare lad wrote: »

What about when they tried to force the water charges on the Irish people ???

That was a sound position, government should have held the line

Mad_maxx

Francie Barrett wrote: »

This is not true though.

Support for racist organisations back in 2004 was non-existent. The biggest movement in favour at the time was the Immigration Control Platform. They ran in elections, they got no votes. They organised rallies, no one attended. That organisation folded after a few years due to a complete lack of interest, nothing replaced it.

The 2004 referendum that was proposed by FF/PD's and was due to an organic groundswell of popular opinion that our citizenship laws were being taken advantage of. While there was certainly some hysteria and wild claims, the number of asylum applications did bear that out the concerns of the people.

To call the amendment "unnecessary" is also untrue. The chart plotting the collapse in asylum cases in the aftermath of the referendum is testament to that. The amendment looks like a simple and popular change that did what it needed to do.

Good post but one thing I'd point out

Support for racist orgs is non existent today too

Yamanoto

seamus wrote: »

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland. There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

All three masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals made strong representations for there to be a change in the law.

They were alarmed by the increasing numbers of mothers presenting in late stages of pregnancy, with associated heightened risk to the health of the mother and neonates and the considerable burden such arrivals placed on staff and services to provide appropriate levels of care.

Mad_maxx

Yamanoto wrote: »

All three masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals made strong representations for there to be a change in the law.

They were alarmed by the increasing numbers of mothers presenting in late stages of pregnancy, with associated heightened risk to the health of the mother and neonates and the considerable burden such arrivals placed on staff and services to provide appropriate levels of care.

adherence to the creed of political correctness demands the adherent be wilfully blind to certain realties and all negatives when it relates to minority groups

some examples

1. travellers are victims of settled peoples prejudice

2. everyone in DP left their home country to escape war and famine

3. an increase in the immigrant population has no correlation with increased housing demand or service demand

4. the birth right rule had no effect on people arriving on a plane and heading straight to the rotunda

WhenPigsCry

Personally I'm sceptical about these claims that plane loads of pregnant women were an issue, and it will take much more compelling evidence than one online media report from the time that cites no source other than these Mater guys to persuade me otherwise.

But leaving that aside, the current clause is very restrictive. People keep going on about heavily pregnant women arriving in Ireland for the first time. What about children born non-Irish citizens ordinarily resident in Ireland? If say a Polish couple settled in Ireland years have a child, surely that child should be granted Irish citizenship?

Mad_maxx

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

The current clause is very restrictive. People keep going on about heavily pregnant women arriving in Ireland for the first time. What about children born non-Irish citizens ordinarily resident in Ireland? If say a Polish couple settled in Ireland years have a child, surely that child should be granted Irish citizenship?

no one has ever been deported as a consequence but overturning the 2004 referendum would lead to an influx of people

seamus

Francie Barrett wrote: »

To call the amendment "unnecessary" is also untrue. The chart plotting the collapse in asylum cases in the aftermath of the referendum is testament to that. The amendment looks like a simple and popular change that did what it needed to do.

Numbers changing when you do something doesn't mean the change was necessary.

WhenPigsCry

Mad_maxx wrote: »

no one has ever been deported as a consequence but overturning the 2004 referendum would lead to an influx of people

Citizenship confers more than the right to not be deported. Why should a child born in Ireland, to parents long settled and living in Ireland, be denied citizenship at birth?

Mad_maxx

seamus wrote: »

Numbers changing when you do something doesn't mean the change was necessary.

giving yourself plenty of broad scope there

mohawk

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Personally I'm sceptical about these claims that plane loads of pregnant women were an issue, and it will take much more compelling evidence than one online media report from the time that cites no source other than these Mater guys to persuade me otherwise.

But leaving that aside, the current clause is very restrictive. People keep going on about heavily pregnant women arriving in Ireland for the first time. What about children born non-Irish citizens ordinarily resident in Ireland? If say a Polish couple settled in Ireland years have a child, surely that child should be granted Irish citizenship?

If a Polish couple are having a child in Ireland the child is an EU citizen. Also more importantly there is a way to become an Irish citizen which, thousands of people a year go through.

timmyntc

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Citizenship confers more than the right to not be deported. Why should a child born in Ireland, to parents long settled and living in Ireland, be denied citizenship at birth?

See below

A child born in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship if they have a British parent or a parent who is entitled to live in Northern Ireland or the Irish State without restriction on their residency. A child born in Ireland to a parent who has been granted refugee status is also automatically entitled to Irish citizenship.

This is already legislated for - if your parents have residency here & you are born in Ireland, you are entitled to citizenship.
There is no need to go for blanket citizenship for all born here in all circumstances - it is overkill, and the only people it benefits are those who would like to give birth here for an easy path to citizenship.

All the other scenarios are already covered.

WhenPigsCry

mohawk wrote: »

If a Polish couple are having a child in Ireland the child is an EU citizen. Also more importantly there is a way to become an Irish citizen which, thousands of people a year go through.

So what? Why shouldn't she be an Irish citizen? An EU citizen does not enjoy all the same rights as an Irish one.

WhenPigsCry

timmyntc wrote: »

See below


This is already legislated for - if your parents have residency here & you are born in Ireland, you are entitled to citizenship.
There is no need to go for blanket citizenship for all born here in all circumstances - it is overkill, and the only people it benefits are those who would like to give birth here for an easy path to citizenship.

All the other scenarios are already covered.

No, it doesn't cover it. That is just to cover British \ Northern Irish scenarios.

And anyhow, we can expand this to non EU citizens. How about an American or Australian couple who have been living and working here long term?

seamus

Mad_maxx wrote: »

giving yourself plenty of broad scope there

It's called "Begging the question."

"This change was necessary, because it changed things. The fact that things changed, proves that the change was needed."

A constitutional change was unnecessary. But as it was an easy populist win, they went that route instead of introducing legislative changes that would reduce these numbers.

There's a question about whether reducing these numbers was even necessary, but nevertheless if the goal was to reduce these numbers, then a consitutional referendum was unnecessary.

Mad_maxx

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Citizenship confers more than the right to not be deported. Why should a child born in Ireland, to parents long settled and living in Ireland, be denied citizenship at birth?

that child wont be deported , the referendum in 2004 was about preventing citizenship being granted to babies born an extremely short time after their parents arrived and subsequently the parents or parent being granted citizenship as a consequence

timmyntc

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

No, it doesn't cover it. That is just to cover British \ Northern Irish scenarios.

or a parent who is entitled to live in Northern Ireland or the Irish State without restriction on their residency.

If you have no restriction on your residency in Ireland your child can claim Irish citizenship if they're born here.
It's not that difficult to comprehend.