PUP fraud €183k, should the guilty be stripped of citizenship?

Peregrinus

This is a republic. We have a constitutional principle of equality before the law. We don't have second-class citizenship. End of.

Ireland is not like the UK (or Canada). The UK is a monarchy. The rights and duties of citizenship are conferred on subjects by the sovereign, and the sovereign can confer different classes of citizenship on different people, and take away rights and duties previously conferred, as it may please the sovereign. The individuals affected have no cause for complaint because they never had any right to citizenship in the first place; it was given to them by the sovereign.

In Ireland the people are sovereign. The government or the President do not confer citizenship on us; rather we confer authority on them. So citizenship is not something created by political authority; political authority is something created by citizens. That's a fundamental reversal of the flow of authority and legitimacy which has profound implications for what citizenship in Ireland is, as opposed to citizenship in countries with, lets face it, a lesser view of citizenship. That's why the idea of a minister depriving you of Irish citizenship because he thinks you are insufficiently virtuous is fundamentally incongruous in a way that's not true in the UK (or, for all I know, in Canada).

Plus, constitutional theory aside, nobody is even pretending to offer a pragmatic argument as to why it's necessary or desirable to punish citizens by naturalisation more severely than citizens by birth or descent. There's no connection at all between the nature of your citizenship and the gravity or consequences of your crime. If we can accommodate some citizens retaining their citizenship after committing a crime, why the pressing need to deprive others of their citizenship after committing the exact same crime? Unequal punishment is fundamentally objectionable. At the very least, you need a compelling justification for it. And none is being offered.

I hate to say it, but the motivation for this seems to be primarily racism. The examples offered by those who advocate this treatment invariably involve people of colour. Instances where it has been done in other countries that are lauded also invariably involve people of colour. I struggle to think that this is a coincidence, especially when no other reason for depriving some people but not others of citizenship is offered.

For what it's worth, the rule in the UK is not that naturalised citizens can be deprived; it's that any citizen cab be deprived, so long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that they have an entitlement to some other nationality. I still consider this objectionable— the UK still has second-class citizens; they are just defining the class slightly differently. But that's not my point here; my point is that this power, while not explicitly racially-based, is applied in a racially-biased way, and that is very much what its supporters want and expect.

We can see this in the case of Shamima Begum, a British Citizen by birth, who has been deprived despite never having been charged with, much less convicted of, any offence committed anywhere. By contrast there are numerous white British Citizens with dual nationality who have been convicted of serious terrorist offences committed in and against the UK who retain their British citizenship. No minister has ever moved to deprive them of it, and I don't see the people who applaud the deprivation of Begum clamouring for White convicted terrorists to be treated in the same way. I think I know why.

Potential-Monke

Ya know what? Yeah, fuk it. I would willingly discriminate against people who cause this country harm.

Edit: To add, before someone has an orgasm at the thought of someone admitting discrimination, I would discriminate in the same way I would discriminate against a pedo, a murderer, a career burglar, etc. Horrible people of no benefit. Just seems like there's an easy way to get rid of some. But like a lot of problems in Ireland, protected by bleeding hearts.

Signed, My Opinion.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116301#Comment_118116301

Well, my opinion is you can fcuk off with the faux patriotism.

Too many people on here only talk positive about the country when it's a conduit to complaining about other nationalities or cultures.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116301#Comment_118116301

But that's the thing. You're not advocating discrimination against people who cause this country harm; you're advocating discrimination between people who cause this country harm. Some of them would get deprived of citizenship; others not. No good reason is offered as to why this is desirable. And the decision is made on criteria which means that it will disproportionately impact offenders from racial and ethnic minorities. This may not be your motivation, but at the very least we can say that it doesn't seem to bother you. But you can see, can't you, why it would bother others? And you accept, don't you, that in urging this you are togging out with a bunch of people who are motivated by racism?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116245#Comment_118116245

Totally false.

Shemima Begum joined a terrorist organisation - and openly admitted doing so. She absolutely committed a crime and deserved to be stripped of her citizenship.

The same principle applied to Jack Letts, who isn't black, and who also joined ISIS.

You want this to become a racial issue because it's an easy conclusion to draw that the principle itself must somehow be wrong.

The rule isn't about making second-class citizens, it's about ensuring that we have the right citizens in our country. Shemima Begum isn't a second-class UK citizen; she's just not a British citizen anymore.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116454#Comment_118116454

it's not false. You're pointing to one white British dual national who was stripped of British citizenship after being accused (but not charged or convicted) of terrorist acts, but you continue to ignore the very large number of white British dual nationals who have been not just accused but charged and convicted of terrorist offences, and whose continued British citizenship has never been questioned - not least, by you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116222#Comment_118116222

I think you have racist views that are influencing your position on this topic.

I think people have been conditioned to expect certain behaviors from particular nations or continents. Take yourself, for example. You referred to Africa, taking the position that the reference refers solely to Black people, but Africa contains a wide variety of races as natives. The assumption is made that Africans are Black but the reality is different.

So... your perspective above could be considered racist.

We all have biases. For decades now, I've heard of Nigerian scammers even though I've never been scammed by one. I've received the emails, but that doesn't amount to much... but the association is there nonetheless, because of the limited exposure to that nationality, and the reputation that they have internationally. Their stereotype, which in itself, is racist, but... it's a common viewpoint in many countries. I've heard that dirty laugh come out in many conversations when Nigerians are used as an example of scamming or negative behavior, and it's been with people from many different national backgrounds, so the perception exists for many people. We treat people as individuals, but there will always be an element of hesitation due to the reputation of that nationality, or the history of your own experience of them (direct or indirect).

People who throw out the racism accusation rarely seem to examine their own behavior, and fail to recognise that under the expanded definition of racism, that they are just as guilty as others.

That other poster has biased views, just as you do. As do we all.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116506#Comment_118116506

The UK and Ireland have had a common travel area since 1920 or thereabouts given all the links etc and both countries are of the same standard.

That's very different to giving a new life to a Nigerian from a very disadvantaged part of the country, only for that Nigerian to slap us in the face with egregious levels of fraud.

Gatling

@Peregrinus I hate to say it, but the motivation for this seems to be primarily racism.

Unless your suggesting only Africans commit crimes here then that could be viewed as Racist ,

But as it stands close to 17% of the prison population here are foreign nationals,from all over the world ,

I personally have been saying it for years it you come here to commit crimes you should be removed it doesn't matter if your American , Canadian , European , eastern European ,Asia and Africa,

If you cannot live within our society and our laws then you don't deserve to stay here , other countries including in Europe deport foreign criminals we don't ,but tax payers then have to fund their welfare , legal bills and prison stays ,

Get yourself a prison sentence and face immediate deportation on completion or several years in .it's as simple as that ,it's has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour

Any non-native Irish person with citizenship who commits a serious crime should have their citizenship status revoked, serve their time in prison as a foreign national, and be deported the day of their release. Those who gain citizenship retain their original citizenship under the dual status, so they've something to fall back on.

We want good/decent people to come to Ireland to contribute to its success. Each person to takes citizenship is practically taking the place of someone else. Its not like there are going to be an unlimited number of Irish citizens (at least I hope not).

Citizenship should have value. An important status that people aspire to obtain, and keep.

Anywhere in the world you go, citizens are treated better than foreign groups. That's reality. Obtaining citizenship is a desire to level the playing field somewhat (even though in most cases, you'll always be considered a foreigner)... and as with anything that is in demand, the punishment of losing it should be available for those who break the laws of that nation.

osarusan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116237#Comment_118116237

Any form of citizenship outside of being born here is granted, and as such should also be able to be revoked. Yes, it's a much bigger issue, but the point stands.

As I asked you yesterday - my daughter was born ourside Ireland, while my son was born inside Ireland. They both have dual citizenship - Irish and the country where my daughter was born (and where her mother is from). Do you really think that my daughter's citizenship should be revocable while my son's should not?

And take two Irish-born people who have a child in say London, then move back to Ireland and have another child in say Dublin. Do you really think that the London-born child and the Dublin-born child should have effectively different levels of citizenship (in terms of revocability of that citizenship)?

If so, what distinction do you make between the two to justify this different treatment? Is it based on anything other than the place of birth?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116706#Comment_118116706

These are false equivalences.

In both cases, we are talking about either one or both native Irish parents. That changes the metrics.

What we are talking about here is very specific. If you are from a disadvantaged country, Somalia to take an example, and you've been given an opportunity in this country and have been awarded citizenship, only to then defraud the state - then yes, you should be deported and have citizenship revoked. In fact, it doesn't always have to be from a disadvantaged background. If an American came here and did the same thing, he should be deported too!

If you have gone abroad to join a terrorist organisation, you aren't welcome back and your citizenship is also revoked.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116636#Comment_118116636

Read the thread. I didn't introduce Africa.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116841#Comment_118116841

I did read the thread, and I didn't say that you did introduce Africa.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116841#Comment_118116841

The fraud was committed by two Nigerians. Africa was introduced from the very inception of the thread, the story itself.

The argument is that, in cases such as this, citizenship should be revoked.

Why on Earth would we want to keep criminals like this inside our country?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117122#Comment_118117122

Why on Earth would we want to keep criminals like this inside our country?

Because, as has been pointed out several times, having a system where we treat people differently for the same offence is discrimination.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117615#Comment_118117615

That's "claimed " to be discrimination claimed is the key word

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117739#Comment_118117739

It literally couldn't be more cut and dried discrimination.

• Two persons guilty of illegal activity.
• Person A - Fine/custody etc
• Person B - Fine/custody.... loss of citizenship

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118116245#Comment_118116245

*Applause*

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117986#Comment_118117986

Deportation

mikethecop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117986#Comment_118117986

i think most people would be happy if criminals like this were stripped of assets up to the value of their frauds then deported , no need to burden us the cost of jailing them.

the same should apply to irish criminals abroad , traveller gangs in europe , drug gangs in spain or dubi etc

is a condition of being in Ireland not to abide by its laws , and reference made to the same in the oath of citizenship ?

you can keep your race card in your pocket pal , as usual no need for it here

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118198#Comment_118118198

OK, if he still has his previous citizenship, but if he hasn't, where do you deport an effectively stateless person to?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117615#Comment_118117615

We could just change the criminal penalty for everybody to banishment.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117615#Comment_118117615

Except, we do treat people differently in terms of how punishment is applied once charged/proven guilty. It's well documented that women often receive less harsh sentencing (although sometimes heavier) depending on the crime involved.

In any case, discrimination would be where the process of proving guilt was different for foreigners vs native people... which is not what has been suggested. Revoking citizenship from those foreigners who have received it, and have since been proven to commit a crime is not any kind of discrimination.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118786#Comment_118118786

Very few countries revoke a prior citizenship on gaining a new one with another country. The vast majority of countries allow the use of dual citizenship.

In any case, the idea would be to revoke citizenship, and treat them the same as any other person whose visa has expired, and they're no longer wanted in the country. They're free to choose where they want to go... as long as it doesn't involve staying in Ireland. Send them anywhere in the world where they have access for 30 days, and the target nation will get rid of them quick enough based on their own laws regarding transient travelers.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107090#Comment_118107090

i think 100% it should be conditional..

if I go to my local pub, cause trouble or rob the place... I’ll be barred. For the safety, security of the owners, staff and patrons, kicked out and denied re-entry.

same in this case, citizenship should be conditional... you bite the hand that feeds you, you attack / steal from the state and it’s people , you loose what’s been afforded you... we can afford that help to others who will be appreciative of it and not go out of their way to rob us as a measure of thanks.

for minor offenses no but serious ones yes.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118786#Comment_118118786

Where would there original citizenship go exactly,

Did it get lost coming off the plane ?

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118119070#Comment_118119070

Some countries allow dual citizenship, some don't. So if this guy's former country does not allow it he would be stateless if his Irish citizenship were revoked.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118118367#Comment_118118367

you can keep your race card in your pocket pal , as usual no need for it here

Lol.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118119135#Comment_118119135

In this case Nigeria does allow dual citizenship .

So......

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118119135#Comment_118119135

There are also parts of the world not governed or claimed by any state. for example : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/welcome-to-the-land-that-no-country-wants-bir-tawil. A potential place for the "stateless"?

MrMusician18

Don't new citizens have to swear fidelity to the nation? Surely engaging in a massive defrauding of the State is a breach of this?

What makes us responsible for them?

They have chosen to break our laws, and to show themselves unworthy of being citizens of Ireland. Why should we care whether they retain citizenship elsewhere? Why should we care whether they have somewhere to go to? The simple fact is that people can travel just about anywhere for short periods, and if they have the qualifications or skills required, can get longer visas to live and work elsewhere.

Why do we need to bow our heads to the bleeding hearts who feel we need to provide for everyone, regardless of their lack of value to our own nation? This is why multiculturalism has failed across Europe. This is why the US is splintering over cultural divisions (and no, not just the African Americans or the Native Indians). It is these short sighted feel good beliefs which has caused problems in Denmark, France, Germany, etc. This is why assimilation was pushed aside as being "unwanted", and replaced with a vague idea of integration that few can quantify or prove to be any kind of success. This is why an underclass of the uneducated, unskilled, or the criminal have established themselves in all countries where this kind of immigration has been encouraged to happen.

When are we going to wise up, and start placing the future of our nation first, before the supposed needs of people who will not respect our laws or cultural norms? Yes, we should be happy to encourage skilled immigration, or people who are happy to settle in western nations, who want to live here because of our low corruption, low crime, high standards of living, etc. But do we really need to be so cheap? Do we really need to value our citizenship so low that we don't have standards that apply for those wanting to join us?

It's ridiculous.

Ha Long Bay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118120978#Comment_118120978

Are you living in Ireland?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118120899#Comment_118120899

Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental duties of all citizens - Bunreacht, Art 9.3. No distinction is made between citizens by birth, descent or naturalisation. If you view financial fraud on the state as a violation of the requirement of loyalty which warrants revocation of citizenship, then you have to revoke the citizenship of citizens by birth and descent as well as of citizens by naturalisation. Doing so only the case of citizens by naturalisation would infringe the requirement that all citizens be held equal before the law - Bunreacht, Art 40.3.

Like I say, you either take the founding principles of the republic seriously, or you betray then in order to victimise people of a different race or ethnicity. Your call.

joeysoap

I’d lay any money false banking accounts didn’t involve applying for a mortgage. Easy come, easy go except it’s easy come, easy come.

probably retrofitted house(s) too. As for property tax.............

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117615#Comment_118117615

It’s not discriminatory...

Asylum seekers have 13 obligations they must meet..We don’t have the same, or the same consequences.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121246#Comment_118121246

Strumms, do you own a dictionary?

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121258#Comment_118121258

I do yes, I also understand discrimination as an ‘unjustified distinction’... the dictionary agrees.... making fair and correct distinction is ok.

thats why people with certain illnesses can’t drive, why people with a poor grasp of English can’t fly an aircraft...are they being discriminated against ? Is is discriminatory ? Not in the eyes of the dictionary or the law.

Peregrinus

Discriminate: To differentiate; to distinguish; to treat differently. From the Latin discrimen, a distinction or difference.

Discrimination in itself is neither good nor bad. To choose an icecream based on flavour is to discriminate between e.g. chocolate and strawberry; it's a morally neutral act. It can be positive: a rule forbidding men from the women's changing room and vice versa obviously discriminates between men and women, but most people would agree that this is a wise and desirable discrimination to make. To say that someone is a sound judge of whiskey is a compliment; it means that he has the discriminating taste that can distinguish between the bad stuff and the good.

But there are certain forms of discrimination that we think are generally wrong - discrimination between men and women in the workplace, for example. Even in those case there are exceptions - e.g. you can hire an actress rather than an actor to play a female role - but the general principle is that we shouldn't discriminate between men and women in the workplace, and any exception requires scrutiny and needs to be justified. Hiring the actress over the actor is still discrimination, obviously; we are treating male and female applicants for the job differently. It's just not unlawful discrimination.

Right. When it comes to citizenship, the general principle is that we treat all citizens equally. That's the principle of equality before the law. As already noted, it's constitutionally enshrined in Ireland (and many other countries). It's also generally recognised as a fundamental of modern republican political theory. (If you disagree with that principle, now is a good time to say so, explicitly. The conversation will not go well if you don't believe in equality before the law, but pretend that you do.)

Given that principle, a suggestion that two people who commit the same crime should be differently punished depending on the circumstances in which they acquired their citizenship is definitely discrimination, and definitely requires a compelling justification. It's the creation of first- and second-class citizenship, so as to discriminate between citizens. I've pointed out the need for a justification several times in this thread. I've yet to see a compelling justification offered.

Most attempts to do so draw attention to the ethnic background of the citizens against whom it is desired to discriminate. But these attempts are dead in the water, frankly; we generally regard discrimination on the grounds of ethnic or national origin just as we regard discrimination on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation; fundamentally objectional. Far from justifying the creation of second-class revocable citizenship for naturalised citizens, these arguments tend to reinforce the view that it is highly offensive.

Other attempts point to the duties of loyalty and fidelity that naturalised citizens owe, but they fail because they are the exact same duties owed by citizens by birth and citizens by descent. They are therefore not the reason for treating these groups differently. (They are possibly a cover for other reasons which people do not wish to acknowledge.)

Attempts to equate naturalised citizens with people who can't speak English or people who can't fly an aircraft also fall over. People who can't fly an aircraft are refused a pilot's licence. There's an obvious connection between the characteristic identified (inability to fly and aircraft) and the disadvantageous treatment imposed (refusal of pilot's licence). But people who acquired their citizenship by naturalisation are punished more severely for crimes than people who acquired it by birth or descent? I'm not seeing the connection here. You might as well suggest punishing brown-eyed people more severely than blue-eyed.

The bottom line here is that we don't strip citizens by birth or citizens by descent - the vast majority of citizens convicted of crimes - of their citizenship in consequence of a criminal conviction. Given this, there's no apparent need to do this to the minority of criminals who are citizens by naturalisation. Discriminating between these groups seems objectionable in principle for the reasons already given, and attempts to justify it do not stand up to even minimal critical scrutiny.

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105221#Comment_118105221

Correct. But less than 5% of those failed applications are ever deported. Ireland is seen as a soft touch internationally

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121384#Comment_118121384

It's even less than that .

We've had 60,000 + come through direct provision ,but that's only one area we've something like 11,000 deportation orders issued

We've deported less than 1500 people over the 30 years ,

So the idea of only 20% get approval is bs where have the tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers gone ,oh yes they went on to get citizenship

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121302#Comment_118121302

Try taking this position to the WRC if you ever find yourself accused of discriminating against someone just because something made sense in your head. It'll be a short hearing.

The examples you list relate to specific scenarios where the risk to others as a consequence of allowing someone to do something outweighs the desirer to allow them to do it. Ones persons desire to do exactly what they want does not outweigh another persons right to stay safe. (Copy and paste this argument for any conversation about masks and 'My rights')

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121448#Comment_118121448

You seem to be assuming that the only possible outcomes of an unsuccessful asylum application are (a) deportation or (b) citizenship - there are no other possible outcomes.

But you'd need to be at a Fr Dougal Maguire-level of stupidity to think that. So I don't think you really do think that. I think you're just pretending to.

Gatling

@Peregrinus You seem to be assuming that the only possible outcomes of an unsuccessful asylum application are (a) deportation or (b) citizenship - there are no other possible outcomes.

Like?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121489#Comment_118121489

Well, voluntary departure, for one. INIS has a strong preference for voluntary departure, and facilitates this wherever possible. That's one of the reasons why the number of deportations carried out is small. This is the kind of thing you would know if you took any real interest in this question, as opposed to leaping to conclusions which are unsupported by evidence but which gratify and confirm your prejudices.

Another possible outcome of an unsuccessful asylum application is a grant of subsidiary protection - the is the outcome where you are found not to qualify for refugee status, but it is not currently safe to return you to your home country. Yet another possible outcome is "permission to remain", which may be granted for humanitarian or other reasons. These are not citizenship and they do not necessarily lead to citizenship.

Again, these are the kind of things you would already know if you cared about these matters.

Gatling

Voluntary departures 😂😂😂

That explains it all .

So yes citizenship arrive ,stay , apply,

Granted easy

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118117615#Comment_118117615

Is one of those fellas a citizen and the other here for 5 years with a child (no mention of citizenship but presuming not here long enough to be naturalised)

I presume then, from your "no discrimination" stance, you wouldn't be in favour of deporting your man who is not a citizen? Would you even be in favour of using it as a reason to deny his application for citizenship or would that be discrimination as well?

Luxembourgo

Yes 100%

But I am sure we will find them a nice job in an NGO instead to "pay off the debt"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118121448#Comment_118121448

We don't need to deport people who leave. That's where the failed asylum seekers go.