Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

Mad_maxx

seamus wrote: »

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.

its ok to be ideologically opposed to something but you should admit your position is ideologically driven because its certainly not driven by logic

all the post 2004 referendum data shows the change had a very significant effect

biko

weldoninhio wrote: »

Again, Labour do not want another referendum. They want the Dail to change the law. There was a vote on this last year. SF was another party who voted in favour of changing the law. Thankfully it was voted down.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/vote/dail/32/2019-01-24/12/

It sounds like Labour tried to overturn a referendum decision.
Or rather TD Paul Murphy

The Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Restoration of Birthright Citizenship) Bill 2017, brought by Solidarity TD Paul Murphy, would repeal sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as inserted by section 4 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004.
https://irishlegal.com/article/government-to-block-birthright-citizenship-bill-by-refusing-money-message

Fringe left tries their wily ways again.

WhenPigsCry

timmyntc wrote: »

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.

Being an EU citizen in Ireland is NOT being resident without restriction.

"It's not that difficult to comprehend."

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/rights_of_residence_in_ireland/residence_rights_eu_national.html

WhenPigsCry

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

I already said it's not just about deportation. If you can't read the posts don't reply to them.

timmyntc

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Being an EU citizen in Ireland is NOT being resident without restriction.

"It's not that difficult to comprehend."

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/rights_of_residence_in_ireland/residence_rights_eu_national.html

After 5 years of residency here you get permanent residency "without restriction".
If a couple is settled here in Ireland "a long time" one would assume they've gotten their residency?

Also, if you are here on a work permit and are in Ireland for 3 of 4 years prior to birth of your child, said child is entitled to Irish citizenship. Regardless of EEA status - can be from anywhere.

The parent(s) must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This will be evidenced by one parent having 3 out of the previous 4 years reckonable residence in the island of Ireland immediately before the birth of the child. On proof of a genuine link to Ireland their child will be entitled to Irish citizenship and they can apply for an Irish passport for their child

Now, can you tell me any circumstances that are not covered in this legislation, that we need to introduce blanket birthright citizenship for?

seamus

Mad_maxx wrote: »

all the post 2004 referendum data shows the change had a very significant effect

"The change was necessary because it created change"

timmyntc

seamus wrote: »

"The change was necessary because it created change"

The change was necessary because we had an abnormally large number of asylum applications from pregnant women looking to give birth here to get citizenship for their child - the change worked to rectify this, because after the change, we no longer had an abnormally large number of asylum applications from pregnant women looking to give birth on Irish soil to get citizenship for their child & residency for themselves as parents.

What part can't you wrap your head around?

Galwayguy35

There's a reason that apart from the US and Canada the other countries who offer birthright citizenship are places few would want to live in anyway.

Citizenship of a country is a privilege, it was a ridiculous situation in the past when women were showing up at Dublin airport when they were about to pop out a kid and they knew once it was born they were here for life.

And what fine upstanding citizens these anchor babies became going by the trouble black gangs are causing in the capital city.

FG and FF need to hold the line on this and make sure no changes are made to the referendum.

Not sure what the SF position on this is, they may well become the second biggest party in the future and they lean to the left so they might be in favour of a change to it.

Wibbs

timmyntc wrote: »

What part can't you wrap your head around?

Because an ideological position won't always respond to reason and evidence and instead will just dig the heels in. Fingers in ears a bonus. This goes for any ideology, but the multicultural diversity credo is particularly prone to it as seems to be the case here.

Wibbs

Again from the previously linked governmental study:

However, recent trends have indicated that the scale of the problem is even greater outside of the asylum seeker framework, with very large numbers of non-EEA nationals now coming to Ireland to give birth. The Minister has been informed of the growing concern among health care professionals about the rate of non-nationals coming to Ireland to give birth and the strains which this is placing on services. Data supplied by the Masters of the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals show that those hospitals alone have had 2,816 births to non-nationals in the first six months of last year. The total figure for births to non-nationals for the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals for 2003 was 4,824. The percentage of such births was between 20% and 25% of the total number of births in public hospitals in the Dublin area. The Minister has been informed that this trend has not substantially abated since the Supreme Court decision in the L&O cases. When births in other hospitals, in particular, Drogheda, are taken into account, the national figures are likely to be even higher. The Dublin maternity hospitals estimate that two thirds of the births to non-nationals last year will have been to persons other than asylum seekers, many of whom follow the pattern of a very late arrival in the State to give birth.

Contrary to Seamus' belief that the supreme court ruling changed things and it didn't need a referendum, the actual facts show this to be a nonsense.

weldoninhio

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

There's a reason that apart from the US and Canada the other countries who offer birthright citizenship are places few would want to live in anyway.

Citizenship of a country is a privilege, it was a ridiculous situation in the past when women were showing up at Dublin airport when they were about to pop out a kid and they knew once it was born they were here for life.

And what fine upstanding citizens these anchor babies became going by the trouble black gangs are causing in the capital city.

FG and FF need to hold the line on this and make sure no changes are made to the referendum.

Not sure what the SF position on this is, they may well become the second biggest party in the future and they lean to the left so they might be in favour of a change to it.

SF voted in favour of auto-birthright citizenship.

Galwayguy35

weldoninhio wrote: »

SF voted in favour of auto-birthright citizenship.

No great surprise there, I wonder how many of their supporters know that.

BeefeaterHat

Nabber wrote: »

Such hypocrisy with this. Populist in Ireland wag their finger at other countries for not accepting migrants. Particularly when it comes to USA Mexico border. We don't have such issues, but what we do is make sure that any child born here doesn't have automatic citizenship and can be deported back to a country that is not their birth place.

The rule almost always impacts African, Asian, S.America and Middle East.
We as a nation voted this in by 80%, then we should shut our mouth when other countries maintain/protect their citizenship and borders.

I'd expect nothing else from this bigoted little rock. We've never truly left the middle ages as a nation

suicide_circus

mohawk wrote: »

Do we need a right leaning party? Just because a person supports controlled immigration doesn’t mean they are right wing.

Strictly controlled immigration was a left wing position up until about 5 minutes ago.

Large scale immigration of people with low skills and/or who do not speak the language well, put downward pressure wages, increased competition for resources, housing etc.

But the thing is, it's not everyone who experiences the negative impact of this. The bourgeois academic or NGO executive are immune, it's the much maligned and parodied true blue taxi driver for example who is out under pressure.

What's happened is, someone has cleverly conflated RACISM (dun dun duuuuuun!!) with a desire to control immigration. So now anyone who thinks a country should be err on the side of caution when it comes to immigration policy is a de facto racist.

Sir Oxman

Wibbs wrote: »

The joke is G in all of the referenda I've voted on since I was able to vote back in the late 80's I've voted for the "progressive" side. Divorce, repeal the 8th, marriage rights. Given I support social welfare, social healthcare and education, Gay rights etc I'm actually very "left wing". I'd be a damned commie liberal to some. I looked at the facts and looked at the possible positives and negatives for our country and culture and people and even when I might have had some misgivings at times I figured they were all overall very much positives for Ireland and voted accordingly. However when I looked more at the multiculturalist/diversity politic, a politic I like most once thought sounded overall game ball, even a good goal, I was genuinely surprised to find it stood up to remarkably little critique, was much more about some misguided exoticism and emotionals and then I looked at the rest of Europe...

In the 2004 vote I voted with the 80%, because again I looked at the facts and the experiences of other nations struggling with the multiculturalist politic and though I thought and still do think it was too little too late to save us from that nonsense in many ways, it was at least something to try and reduce the negatives going forward.

Snap.
Exact same as myself.

suicide_circus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

talk about a way to lose votes. Birthright citizenship is a nightmare for any country with a welfare state. Encourages anchor children. Keep it illegal.

I think this is an important point.

You can have a strong and generous welfare state OR you can have auto birthright citizenship.

You can't have both.

This would explain why you find it in the Americas but not in Europe.

Sir Oxman

breezy1985 wrote: »

It's not their priority it's a tweet. They send out a ton of them every week. I'm sure it's not going to be a red line for government formation for them

It's (like most sh1tty ideas and performative activism) starting/spreading like a dose of herpes in colleges and unis across the country. Now, thankfully that's not the majority of students/lecturers but the biggest mouths with the least activity between their ears.

As some other poster said, this is politicking/governing by NGO/critical theory and 100% this is part of the US critical theory infection in Ireland which has already made inroads here with really bad legislation.

Gervais08

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Snap.
Exact same as myself.

Quite!!

I’m pro choice, wildly in favour of equal marriage and gay rights, voted and campaigned to repeal the 8th - yet I’m anti mass immigration, think the welfare state is far too generous and that travelers bring most of their “hardships” on themselves.

Ive been called all kinds by both sides!!!

Adhamh

If anyone doubts that 'anchor babies' are even a real strategy to gain a foothold in a Western country, as opposed to a racially-charged stereotype, here it is straight from the horse's mouth, sixth paragraph:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53501799

'The middle classes now try to send their pregnant wives to deliver babies in the United States. They beg, borrow and steal to send their children to universities in the US and UK and encourage the children to stay on after completing school.'

WhenPigsCry

Wibbs wrote: »

Again from the previously linked governmental study:

However, recent trends have indicated that the scale of the problem is even greater outside of the asylum seeker framework, with very large numbers of non-EEA nationals now coming to Ireland to give birth. The Minister has been informed of the growing concern among health care professionals about the rate of non-nationals coming to Ireland to give birth and the strains which this is placing on services. Data supplied by the Masters of the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals show that those hospitals alone have had 2,816 births to non-nationals in the first six months of last year. The total figure for births to non-nationals for the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals for 2003 was 4,824. The percentage of such births was between 20% and 25% of the total number of births in public hospitals in the Dublin area. The Minister has been informed that this trend has not substantially abated since the Supreme Court decision in the L&O cases. When births in other hospitals, in particular, Drogheda, are taken into account, the national figures are likely to be even higher. The Dublin maternity hospitals estimate that two thirds of the births to non-nationals last year will have been to persons other than asylum seekers, many of whom follow the pattern of a very late arrival in the State to give birth.

Contrary to Seamus' belief that the supreme court ruling changed things and it didn't need a referendum, the actual facts show this to be a nonsense.

This what you are quoting from: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/inis/information%20note.pdf/files/information%20note.pdf

That is not a study; it's just an information note, and it doesn't provide citations.

And notice the slippery language. In the above extract, it goes from talking about "very large numbers of non-EEA nationals" to giving figures from births to "non-nationals." Non-nationals presumably means non-Irish, and there is nothing surprising about most non-Irish births in Irish maternity wards being to non-asylum seekers. Why does it not give figures for non-EEA nationals? If those are the figures for non-EEA nationals, why does it variously refer to them as non-EEA nationals and non-nationals?

Elsewhere it admits that figures haven't been collected systematically:
"3.2 Births to non-nationals in the State Statistics on the nationality of mothers of children born in the State have not been collected in a
systematic way in the past. However, maternity hospitals have begun to collect such data. Data collected by the Reception and Integration Agency from the Dublin maternity hospitals recently showed that an average of 1 out of every 5 children now born in Dublin has a non-EU national
mother. It is clear that the citizenship entitlements of children born in Ireland and the resulting claims to residence by their parents has been the single most important factor in bringing non-EU nationals to Ireland to give birth."

Here we at least do get a claim about number of non-EU nationals: an average of 1 in every 5 births. Is this number going up or down or staying the same? Dunno, we haven't collected the stats before. Are these mothers living in Ireland beforehand? Is there an Irish or EU national father involved? Dunno, doesn't say. Then we get the non-sequitur "It is clear that the citizenship entitlements of children born in Ireland and the resulting claims to residence by their parents has been the single most important factor in bringing non-EU nationals to Ireland to give birth."

Hey but anecdotes about mothers arriving from the UK late in pregnancy and guesses at numbers by a maternity hospital are a solid basis for changing the constitution.

Mad_maxx

suicide_circus wrote: »

Strictly controlled immigration was a left wing position up until about 5 minutes ago.

Large scale immigration of people with low skills and/or who do not speak the language well, put downward pressure wages, increased competition for resources, housing etc.

But the thing is, it's not everyone who experiences the negative impact of this. The bourgeois academic or NGO executive are immune, it's the much maligned and parodied true blue taxi driver for example who is out under pressure.

What's happened is, someone has cleverly conflated RACISM (dun dun duuuuuun!!) with a desire to control immigration. So now anyone who thinks a country should be err on the side of caution when it comes to immigration policy is a de facto racist.

its incredibly dishonest , in truth if we invited in a hundred thousand pasty white danes tomorrow , the housing situation would still be in a far worse state due to a surge in immigration

the only issue with race is cultural incompatibility and that doesnt apply to most who arrive , i would prefer see a thousand christians from zimbabwe ( provided they possessed skills helpful to this country ) arrive than a hundred chechens who while white , would be more likely to want to live an islamic life

Wibbs

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

I'd expect nothing else from this bigoted little rock. We've never truly left the middle ages as a nation

More Irish self hating nonsense. We've become one of the most socially progressive nations in the EU.

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Hey but anecdotes about mothers arriving from the UK late in pregnancy and guesses at numbers by a maternity hospital are a solid basis for changing the constitution.

When was the peak of the greatest number of non EU migrants coming to Ireland? When did this trend start? When did it taper right off? Would that have been right between the GFA and this loophole opening up and the closing of this loophole? Oh wait, it was.

Never mind that we were the only European nation with this Jui solis legislation(and one of the very few on the planet and they come with more provisos). Are the rest all anti multicultural too?

Never mind that 80% of the Irish electorate voted to close that loophole, higher than any majority in recent referenda. Even in areas like South Dublin where such things tend to go over better they still rejected it by over 70%. The majority didn't want it then and I'd bet the farm the majority still don't, but these Labour muppets want to circumvent democracy regardless. Note they aren't calling for another democratic vote on it. They well know the result.

fly_agaric

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

I'd expect nothing else from this bigoted little rock. We've never truly left the middle ages as a nation

That is a bit of a joke (when it comes to subject matter of the thread anyway!).
We are very liberal with doling out passports here compared to other EU countries if that is "leaving the middle ages".
We allow multiple citizenships. We give hand out "granny" citizenships to people with no links to this country who never lived here (and probably never will). We allow people to effectively buy their citizenship with investments. As part of Good Friday Agreement, Ireland gives > 1 million citizenships to people in another country.

WhenPigsCry

Wibbs wrote: »

More Irish self hating nonsense. We've become one of the most socially progressive nations in the EU.

When was the peak of the greatest number of non EU migrants coming to Ireland? When did this trend start? When did it taper right off? Would that have been right between the GFA and this loophole opening up and the closing of this loophole? Oh wait, it was.

Never mind that we were the only European nation with this Jui solis legislation(and one of the very few on the planet and they come with more provisos). Are the rest all anti multicultural too?

Never mind that 80% of the Irish electorate voted to close that loophole, higher than any majority in recent referenda. Even in areas like South Dublin where such things tend to go over better they still rejected it by over 70%. The majority didn't want it then and I'd bet the farm the majority still don't, but these Labour muppets want to circumvent democracy regardless. Note they aren't calling for another democratic vote on it. They well know the result.

Now you're talking about other stuff. If what was linked above was the government's case for changing the Constitution, it was a weak one.

I don't know the peak non-EU migration figures, but even if it was higher in that period, it still wouldn't prove that it was linked to Ireland's citizenship conditions, as we'd have to know how many of those migrants were pregnant, and what stage of pregnancy they were at, whether they were joining family or a partner here, etc.

I didn't say anything about Ireland or anywhere being multicultural.

A large majority voted for it, true, but that was nearly 20 years ago. The Eight Amendment passed resoundingly too, but opinion went the other way eventually. I believe opinion polls have found strong levels of support for reversing this. That may change if on foot of a campaign, but there is nothing undemocratic about proposing that we revisit this.

mohawk

suicide_circus wrote: »

Strictly controlled immigration was a left wing position up until about 5 minutes ago.

Large scale immigration of people with low skills and/or who do not speak the language well, put downward pressure wages, increased competition for resources, housing etc.

But the thing is, it's not everyone who experiences the negative impact of this. The bourgeois academic or NGO executive are immune, it's the much maligned and parodied true blue taxi driver for example who is out under pressure.

What's happened is, someone has cleverly conflated RACISM (dun dun duuuuuun!!) with a desire to control immigration. So now anyone who thinks a country should be err on the side of caution when it comes to immigration policy is a de facto racist.

I can’t get my head around their position. If you believe in a welfare state then you know that you need there to be more people paying for it then those who are receiving.

Bringing in immigrants that don’t have the skills or education to support themselves and pay taxes means the state will have to step in and help with things like housing. Controlled immigration of those who will have jobs they can fully support themselves with and pay taxes means we can pay for things like pensions.

If we don’t have enough taxpayers who give more to the state then they receive then we can’t have a welfare state.

marieholmfan

fly_agaric wrote: »

That is a bit of a joke (when it comes to subject matter of the thread anyway!).
We are very liberal with doling out passports here compared to other EU countries if that is "leaving the middle ages".
We allow multiple citizenships. We give hand out "granny" citizenships to people with no links to this country who never lived here (and probably never will). We allow people to effectively buy their citizenship with investments. As part of Good Friday Agreement, Ireland gives > 1 million citizenships to people in another country.

The state is not the nation.

Gervais08

marieholmfan wrote: »

The state is not the nation.

Yes it is. Ffs.

Wibbs

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Now you're talking about other stuff. If what was linked above was the government's case for changing the Constitution, it was a weak one.

I don't know the peak non-EU migration figures, but even if it was higher in that period, it still wouldn't prove that it was linked to Ireland's citizenship conditions, as we'd have to know how many of those migrants were pregnant, and what stage of pregnancy they were at, whether they were joining family or a partner here, etc.

The fact remains the number of non EU migrants fell off a cliff after the change. The idea to change it didn't come out of thin air either. It was quite obvious that Ireland which had been low down on the migration list suddenly became very popular with the loophole opening up. And again a loophole that no other EU nation has. The other EU nations would likely have questions about this being changed back. Plus of those country's migrants who were most likely to come here pre 04, the vast majority, nearly 100% of same are rejected today by the immigration authorities.

A large majority voted for it, true, but that was nearly 20 years ago. The Eight Amendment passed resoundingly too, but opinion went the other way eventually. I believe opinion polls have found strong levels of support for reversing this. That may change if on foot of a campaign, but there is nothing undemocratic about proposing that we revisit this.

There was a huge shift in age demographics and attitudes to the church between 1983 and 2013. One of the biggest cultural shifts in Irish history. We went from very socially conservaite to very socially progressive across the board. Even with that shift the 04 vote was not within an ass's roar of close run thing. The repeal vote was passed by a lower majority than the jui solis referendum(66 V 79%) too. Opinion polls on such matters as this tend to be vague. They were in 04. And yes there is certainly nothing undemocratic about revisiting it, however there is if it's not put to a vote of the Irish people which is the angle the Labour crowd are looking at. If the gra for this was so large and there were such strong levels of support for overturning this among Irish voters they would be looking to put it to the vote. There's a reason why they're not.

timmyntc

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Now you're talking about other stuff. If what was linked above was the government's case for changing the Constitution, it was a weak one.

I don't know the peak non-EU migration figures, but even if it was higher in that period, it still wouldn't prove that it was linked to Ireland's citizenship conditions, as we'd have to know how many of those migrants were pregnant, and what stage of pregnancy they were at, whether they were joining family or a partner here, etc.

I didn't say anything about Ireland or anywhere being multicultural.

A large majority voted for it, true, but that was nearly 20 years ago. The Eight Amendment passed resoundingly too, but opinion went the other way eventually. I believe opinion polls have found strong levels of support for reversing this. That may change if on foot of a campaign, but there is nothing undemocratic about proposing that we revisit this.

So you criticise the other guys argument because the evidence is "weak" - and to counter that you present no evidence whatsoever, just hearsay and what you believe opinion polls say.
:rolleyes:

WhenPigsCry

timmyntc wrote: »

So you criticise the other guys argument because the evidence is "weak" - and to counter that you present no evidence whatsoever, just hearsay and what you believe opinion polls say.
:rolleyes:

Yes, I hold an official government document, purporting to outline the evidence for why a constitutional change is necessary, to a far higher standard than some post on a poxy message board.

And actually, it was what I know at least one opinion poll found
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-citizenship-2-4345852-Nov2018/

Of course this was conducted in an atmosphere where people were considering the harsh reality of a kid potentially being deported from the country he was born and raised in, and not just innuendo about planeloads of heavily pregnant brown women.