A discussion on citizenship

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

what nationality do you consider people from the six counties to be

Northern Irish, or a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage

article 2

And what has that to do with the desires of any of the parties currently sitting in government?

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

Northern Irish, or a citizen of the United Kingdom.

united kingdom is not a nationality

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

And what has that to do with the desires of any of the parties currently sitting in government?

sorry meant to post article 3 as well

It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

united kingdom is not a nationality

That's why I said "Northern Irish".

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

sorry meant to post article 3 as well

It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

Again, let me ask you. What has that to do with the desires of any of the mainstream parties currently sitting in the Dail? I think it's clear that none of the Irish parties, SF excepted are actively seeking the destruction of this country.

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

That's why I said "Northern Irish".

do you see the second word in there IRISH they are just as Irish as anyone born in the 26 counties

as you reminded us we changed our constitution and the overwhelming majority of people of the 26 counties accepted it

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation

Sleepy

cdebru, there was also a first word there: "Northern". Distinctly put there to distinguish between two very different things.

Anyone growing up in Northern Ireland has had a distinctly different life than someone from the Republic. To say that someone living in part of the United Kingdom, who earns and pays taxes in Sterling, more than likely works for the British Government, sat A Levels instead of the Leaving Cert, has grown up in a country where no matter what your religeon or politics you can be killed by crossing one of your fellow countrymen that plays an active part in one of the many terrorist groups (or in fact, to belong to one of those groups yourself), etc. etc. etc. The cultural differences are staggering. Most Northern Irish people have far more cultural similarities to the Scottish than to those of us living in the Republic of Ireland.

Different country. Different culture. Different nationality.

Sleepy

cdebru wrote:

as you reminded us we changed our constitution and the overwhelming majority of people of the 26 counties accepted it

Tell you what, I'll accept that part of our law if you accept the part that says that we have no claim to Northern Ireland or it's governance.

Under our current legislation my cousins who have never spent longer than a fortnight in this country hold Irish passports instead of the Australian one's that imho they should. This doesn't make them Irish. It makes them Australians that have Irish citizenship through their emmigrant parents.

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

Tell you what, I'll accept that part of our law if you accept the part that says that we have no claim to Northern Ireland or it's governance.

Under our current legislation my cousins who have never spent longer than a fortnight in this country hold Irish passports instead of the Australian one's that imho they should. This doesn't make them Irish. It makes them Australians that have Irish citizenship through their emmigrant parents.

the constitution does not lay claim to the six counties it does however say it is the firm wish of the irish people to unite all the people of the Island

if your cousins are children of irish emigrants of course they are irish

it seems you want the best of both worlds people born here not of irish parents are not irish and people born elsewhere of irish parents are not irish

you have a very narrow definition of what you believe an irish person to be

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

cdebru, there was also a first word there: "Northern". Distinctly put there to distinguish between two very different things.

Anyone growing up in Northern Ireland has had a distinctly different life than someone from the Republic. To say that someone living in part of the United Kingdom, who earns and pays taxes in Sterling, more than likely works for the British Government, sat A Levels instead of the Leaving Cert, has grown up in a country where no matter what your religeon or politics you can be killed by crossing one of your fellow countrymen that plays an active part in one of the many terrorist groups (or in fact, to belong to one of those groups yourself), etc. etc. etc. The cultural differences are staggering. Most Northern Irish people have far more cultural similarities to the Scottish than to those of us living in the Republic of Ireland.

Different country. Different culture. Different nationality.

so your definition of ireland is the euro a currency we share with 11 countries
and the leaving cert

yes how could we ever live together having sat two different exams


seriously what about sport a shared history culture arts religion language music television and with at least 40% odd of the population of the 6 counties a shared Irish identity and loyalty

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Well I am currently a resident of the UK and could go for UK citizenship now but I choose not to. Am I less Irish because I am not paying taxes in the Republic and have lived there for nearly 12 years?

Absolutely not, you're as Irish as I am, Bob Geldof or Terry Wogan, all 4 of us have Irish passports afaik.

You are defining Irishness with the Republic. I do not see it that way at all. I have never paid tax in the Republic, I have not voted in an Irish Election since the early '90s... am I less Irish?
Nobody has even questioned that. Yet you are suggesting that someone from NI who feels they are Irish and who is entitled to be Irish should not because it would be insulting to some anonymous person in the Republic

Sleepy or anyone can suggest that Irishness or citizenship extends to just the 26 counties all they like, they are entitled to that view but it is not the position by law.
In other words their view has no basis in law.
We do have a peculiar set up though.I know of a man down the road from me whose father died recently.All that family are Irish, proud to be and claim to be with the passports etc.
However some of them hail from the north and were born and bred there,the mans uncle and first cousins come down to Wexford every summer.
They are British, have UK passports and are paid up members of their local Ulster unionist party.
The peculiarity is exampled by the fact that when in Wexford and when they go to Church on Sunday,the local minister always asks the congregation to pray for the President and the government of the Country[ie Mary Robinson and Bertie Ahern] where as when they meet up North it's for the Queen and Tony Blair.

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Defining Irishness within the confines of the Republic.... why?

And the whole discussion ends up back at the age-old chestnut of "how dare you define Irishness in a manner differently to me".

Personally, I don't get how either side of the discussion can so readily blur the distinction between a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and what being Irish means.

If you believe they are the same, then the only distinction in the current discussion is whether or not you are a citizen. The US-born-and-bred, Irish-passport-holding grandchild of an Irish-born son of Japanese parents who were on holidays here in the 50s is, according to this stance, every single bit as "Irish" as anyone born and bred on the island with a family tree stretching back to whenever which is all based on the island, as is the foreigner who acquired the passport for a large brown envelope or other considerations

Conversely, if you believe they are different, then can you use one as a benchmark for what the other should entail? Surely if you define Irishness differently to citizenship then being Irish ceases to have be an issue of law. You can be Irish without being a citizen, or you can be a citizen without being Irish. After all...when we were under British rule...did that stop people being Irish? If so, how did we become Irish once more?

And finally...if you believe Irishnses is seperate to citizenship, then what is the big deal with the North being subject to a foreign government and part of a foreign nation? It doesn't effect how Irish the people up there are.

jc

cdebru

MT wrote:

And under UK law they’re just as British as anyone born in Scotland, Wales or England is. In reality, in one case they are potential citizens and in the other de facto and de jure citizens. Which caries the most weight as far as some ones day to day life is concerned? The latter, of course.
.

actually that is factually incorrect they are not british and never have been

they are UK subjects not british
british although often used as a shorthand for UK actually only refers to england scotland and wales those nations making up the island of britain


they are not potential citizens they are citizens by right it is their choice wether to take up that right many nationalist in the north do

MT wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, citizenship is much more important than merely a name or description. It’s about actively participating in your state/democracy. Citizenship carries with it a responsibility to fulfil certain duties such as payment of taxes, abiding the laws of the land and choosing through voting those who govern. So while people in the US or Northern Ireland may well be entitled to an Irish passport or to call themselves Irish, I feel it cheapens the status of citizenship to draw a parity of status between these people and those who actually live, work and pay taxes in the Irish Republic.
.

living working and paying taxes here does not make you irish no more than living working and paying taxes in glasgow makes Dub in Glasgow scottish
so do citizens who choose to live and work abroad or are forced to give up their right to citizenship
the responsibilities you give to citizenship pertain if you live within the jurisdiction of the state if you do not live within the borders of the state for whatever reason does not limit your right to citizenship

MT wrote:

Take myself, for example. I was born and live in Northern Ireland. To consider me as much of an Irish citizen as someone such as, say, Sleepy, would I feel be something of an insult. I’ve never paid a penny in tax to the Irish government. I’ve never once participated in choosing the Irish government by voting. There’s probably a list of things as long as your arm that I haven’t fulfilled when compared to a real citizen of the Irish Republic. So to turn around and say, ‘there you are MT, you’re just as much of an Irish citizen as Sleepy’ completely degrades the value of that status.

.

no it doesn't and I don't feel that my status as an irish citizen is in any way degraded by accepting that people born of irish parents abroad are irish or that people born in the six counties are irish it is a simple statement of fact

MT wrote:

Such reflections could be deployed just as easily to make the case for maintaining NI’s place with the UK. The people of NI and GB have a very similar interest in sport, watch the same TV and furthermore the latest survey (ERSI) states that 87% of Protestants there wish to remain in the UK while more than 20% of Catholics do so likewise. So a clear majority prefer the constitutional status quo. So if the qualifications you refer to were what’s required for nationality such indicators would suggest the place should be British and not Irish.
.

i see so gaelic games are as popular amonst the english scottish and welsh as they are in the north and rte is as widely watched in GB as in the north and the irish language and irish music etc etc


even if you accept fully the esri you post it to suit your self it could be equally said that 13 % of protestants and 80% of catholics are unhappy with the current situation






.[/QUOTE]

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

No as this situation has nothing to do with global trouble spots

I’m afraid that it’s on the globe and is a trouble spot. So it fits the definition of a global trouble spot as well as any other. You implied that the Irish government shouldn’t ignore the problem across the border. I’ve simply extended this logic to other troubled parts beyond the borders of the Irish Republic. Why should it discriminate in choosing which to sort out?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

And nobody here made the claim that they are not.. did they?

Where did I say anyone did?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

We are talking about the view that some people hold that anybody outside of the Republics border are somehow less Irish or not Irish at all.

It’s a view I share. As I’ve said, I am less of an Irish citizen than someone who has paid tax, voted and who has contributed to society, in the Irish Republic. Indeed, I’d go further and say that until someone such as myself moves to or contributes to that country then I shouldn’t be eligible for Irish citizenship at all.

As for the ethnic term Irish, well, its definition is much more subjective. What should matter to a state are its actual citizens. They’re the ones who pay its taxes, will be called upon to die for it in times of national peril etc. This thread is beginning to wander into the territory of civic nationalism v. ethnic nationalism. An interesting question that reflects this divide is who’s more Irish, someone that emigrates from South Korea acquires Irish citizenship and works in and pays taxes to Ireland’s government for the rest of their life or a Liverpudlian with Irish grandparents?

Should Ireland be an entirely civic state like Canada or one with more of an ethnic identity such as Germany?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Well I am currently a resident of the UK and could go for UK citizenship now but I choose not to. Am I less Irish because I am not paying taxes in the Republic and have lived there for nearly 12 years?

In my opinion, yes. Citizenship and nationality, if they are to be truly worth the name, must carry with them duties as well as rights. The payment of taxes, amongst other things, is a key responsibility of citizenship. As you and I have paid no taxes - instead supplying them to another state - we are less Irish than those that do. Furthermore, while both of us remain outside the Irish Republic thereby not contributing to its society by voting and such, then I’d suggest we’ve no right to consider ourselves Irish at all. We simply haven’t met the duties that such a nationality involves. I don’t believe that saying you’re Irish while living abroad and playing no part in its society is a good enough qualification.

If you’re an ethnic nationalist you might view things differently but I don’t put much store in the ideology. Look what strong ‘blood’ nationalism enabled Hitler to do. Furthermore, if someone’s claims to be Irish are based solely upon their ancestral birthplace then George W Bush may as well be considered English.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why? I would not be insulted at all.

Well naturally. If you’re telling all and sundry that you’re as Irish as they come while paying no taxes to the Irish government and living abroad - contributing instead to another society - its most likely comforting to believe that no one enduring the full responsibilities of Irish citizenship would be in any way peeved by your claims to equal status. I, on the other hand - as someone in a similar position to yourself - realise the folly of such a state of affairs whereby those that haven’t contributed, despite being able to, can claim the benefits of those that have.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Who would be insulted?

Oh, let me see now. Those that pay taxes to the Irish government. Those that vote in Ireland’s elections. Those that must abide by its rules. Those that happen to live in the place.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You are defining Irishness with the Republic.

Is there a better alternative? As I’ve stated previously, you could go down the route of ethnic nationalism but think where that leads. People emigrating from all over the world to Ireland at the moment would never really consider themselves Irish. Ethnic identity formed the justification for Germany’s invasion of the Sudatenland in the Second World War. Likewise, ethnicity is the backbone of China’s territorial claim over Taiwan. There could well be a war over it in the coming decades. No, in my view citizenship works best when based upon the ideals of civic nationalism and not racially based ethnic nationalism.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You have the choice, have you chosen the Irish path?

Indeed, I do. If I up sticks and move to the Irish Republic and participate fully in its society (taxes, voting etc.) then I will be able to justifiably claim Irish citizenship. Again, without fulfilling the duties, I would never countenance cheapening such a status by an unwarranted claim carrying with it no responsibility. As for the ‘Irish path’, you’ll have to clarify that comment. I’m at a loss as to what it means.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I don't really know, it is not me who is putting a tiered level of Irishness to all this. Others are.

You’re certainly right there. Seemly, you’d have it that a nationality cherished dearly by those who’ve actually contributed to the nation would be available free of responsibility to goodness knows how many. In my view, it’s much more black and white than tiered. Some it seems would prefer a veritable free-for-all. Shame the 70 million plus across the globe that claim Irishness so cheaply wouldn’t throw some tax Dublin’s way.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Defining Irishness within the confines of the Republic.... why?

Because, as I’ve stated, there’s no better or fairer way.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nobody has even questioned that. Yet you are suggesting that someone from NI who feels they are Irish and who is entitled to be Irish should not because it would be insulting to some anonymous person in the Republic

I never said anybody had questioned the Britishness of people in NI. Instead, I merely highlighted the way in which certain cultural traits could be construed as British just as much or more so than they could be viewed as Irish. As for your second sentence I hadn’t suggested in my previous post but am now. I believe that it should be insulting to people in the Irish Republic that those north of the border can claim a citizenship of equal standing despite having contributed little or nothing to the Irish state. Such a situation is completely unjust and diminishes the value of Irish citizenship.

Oh, and clever attempt at downgrading the feelings of those in the Republic with the use of the description ‘anonymous’. Sure, the ‘someone’ from NI is equally anonymous.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

And the whole discussion ends up back at the age-old chestnut of "how dare you define Irishness in a manner differently to me".

In the absence of a definitive definition (maybe our constitution is definitive?) It is not a question of how dare you, it is a question of why and what assumptions have been made to alter from the accepted norm (maybe our consitution is the accepted norm?)

Personally, I don't get how either side of the discussion can so readily blur the distinction between a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, and what being Irish means.

If you believe they are the same, then the only distinction in the current discussion is whether or not you are a citizen. The US-born-and-bred, Irish-passport-holding grandchild of an Irish-born son of Japanese parents who were on holidays here in the 50s is, according to this stance, every single bit as "Irish" as anyone born and bred on the island with a family tree stretching back to whenever which is all based on the island, as is the foreigner who acquired the passport for a large brown envelope or other considerations

Conversely, if you believe they are different, then can you use one as a benchmark for what the other should entail? Surely if you define Irishness differently to citizenship then being Irish ceases to have be an issue of law. You can be Irish without being a citizen, or you can be a citizen without being Irish. After all...when we were under British rule...did that stop people being Irish? If so, how did we become Irish once more?

We are all citizens of the EU anyway. The whole issue of citizenship, nationality (native and naturalised, blood line or territory acquired) is a complex subject especially when dealing with a colonial situation. I do not pretend to have all the answers.

And finally...if you believe Irishnses is seperate to citizenship, then what is the big deal with the North being subject to a foreign government and part of a foreign nation? It doesn't effect how Irish the people up there are.

Apart from the obvious question of oppression of the minority

cdebru

MT wrote:

I believe that it should be insulting to people in the Irish Republic that those north of the border can claim a citizenship of equal standing despite having contributed little or nothing to the Irish state. Such a situation is completely unjust and diminishes the value of Irish citizenship.

.

you can believe that it should be insulting if you want it does not make it insulting

the 26 counties has set out in its constitution and laws who is entitled to be a citizen why would people in the 26 counties feel insulted that people had such rights
what i find insulting is if we tried to deny the irishness of people who through not fault of their own happen to be born ouside the jurisdiction of the 26 counties to suggest that they would have to move into the 26 counties before they could be really consider themselves to be irsh is riducolous it smacks of some attempt at ethnic cleansing

citizenship does not have lesser standings all citizens are equal wether they are in dublin or derry or timbuktu

what citizenship would people have under your idea for example if someone was living abroad but not entitled to citizenship in the country in which they reside as most immigrants in ireland for example would they become stateless

if they got in to trouble in the state that they lived in should their original country wash their hands of them as they are no longer proper citizens

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

actually that is factually incorrect they are not british and never have been

Unless they revoke it, they are factually UK Nationals.
If you are a UK passport holder does the document state that you are a British/UK citizen or a British/UK national? That would be pertinent here.
Also legally as a result of the British Nationality act of jan1 1983 taken from here

You will also be a British citizen if:

* you were born in the United Kingdom after 31 December 1982 and one of your parents was then a British citizen or legally settled in the United Kingdom
* you were born outside the United Kingdom after 31 December 1982 and at the time of your birth one parent was a British citizen other than by descent (for example, by naturalisation, registration or birth), or
* you were registered or naturalised as a British citizen after 31 December 1982.

So basically anyone born in NI after the 1st of january 1983 is by law a British citizen unless they revoke it, just like by the Republics laws they are entitled to Irish citizenship
In fact iirc dual nationality is tolerated here.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Unless they revoke it, they are factually UK Nationals.
If you are a UK passport holder does the document state that you are a British/UK citizen or a British/UK national? That would be pertinent here.


.

not being a holder of a UK passport i believe it says subject

although i could be wrong

Eoghan-psych

Sleepy wrote:

Different country. Different culture. Different nationality.

The simple fact is that it doesn't matter.

British and Irish law contains so many special reciprocal entitlements that whether one is "British" or "Irish" doesn't actually matter.

Two examples:
Irish citizens have full voting rights in the UK, based solely on residency. Same for British citizens in the Republic.

Irish citizens have special access rights to the UK armed forces, over and above those available to other nations [residency requirements etc].

These sorts of arrangements, coupled to the various EU entitlements, pretty much negate the issue, at least in "on paper" terms.


When it comes to people's own interpretations - I think that people in the North have as much right as I do to call themselves Irish if that is how they identify culturally. Likewise, if they identify as British that's fine too.

MT

cdebru wrote:

actually that is factually incorrect they are not british and never have been

Actually, it’s entirely factual. UK law states that they have every right to consider themselves British.

cdebru wrote:

they are UK subjects not british
british although often used as a shorthand for UK actually only refers to england scotland and wales those nations making up the island of britain

What you’ve written there is entirely incorrect. Again, UK law states that they have just as much right to British citizenship as anyone else in the UK. Equally, they are just as entitled to refer to themselves as British.

The UK refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The term British applies to all those living in the UK.

cdebru wrote:

they are not potential citizens they are citizens by right it is their choice wether to take up that right many nationalist in the north do

Read my post, I used the phrase in reality. Furthermore, throughout my post I was stating my opinion. In my view, someone living in NI will only ever be a potential citizen of the Irish Republic. They don’t live there, don’t pay its taxes and don’t contribute to its society. It’s a free lunch and is entirely unfair.

cdebru wrote:

living working and paying taxes here does not make you irish no more than living working and paying taxes in glasgow makes Dub in Glasgow scottish

True. But it should be impossible to become a citizen of any country without fulfilling such basic requirements.

cdebru wrote:

so do citizens who choose to live and work abroad or are forced to give up their right to citizenship

Depends on the duration. In my view, if someone chooses to move abroad permanently they should be required to relinquish their right to citizenship. I strongly believe that citizenship is a deeply cherished right that demands certain duties from the holder. One should be a commitment to live in that country in the long run, another is payment of taxes and so on and so forth.

cdebru wrote:

the responsibilities you give to citizenship pertain if you live within the jurisdiction of the state if you do not live within the borders of the state for whatever reason does not limit your right to citizenship

Then you must view such a right as being next to worthless. I place a much higher value upon Irish citizenship. A clear demonstration of commitment to the nation is amongst the most important. Go down your route and you’ll end up with the Sean Connery style of nationality. He’s such a proud Scot he lives in a tax haven to avoid contributing his share to the nations coffers. Wearing a kilt and telling anyone who’ll listen how much of a Scot he is in no way makes up for this woeful failing.

cdebru wrote:

no it doesn't and I don't feel that my status as an irish citizen is in any way degraded by accepting that people born of irish parents abroad are irish or that people born in the six counties are irish it is a simple statement of fact

I feel that a claim by someone such as myself for Irish citizenship should be insulting to those who have fulfilled certain duties to obtain such a right. As I’ve said previously, I would consider it free loading on my part. If you don’t feel similarly, then I’d suggest you’re misguided. Do you see citizenship as a right carrying no responsibilities? That there is absolutely no quid pro quo?

cdebru wrote:

i see so gaelic games are as popular amonst the english scottish and welsh as they are in the north and rte is as widely watched in GB as in the north and the irish language and irish music etc etc

If you’re implying that I claimed people in NI play sports only popular in the rest of the UK, then you’d be wrong. My post merely highlighted that for almost every claim that there’s a cultural overlap between NI and the Republic there’s one equally as valid for NI and GB.

cdebru wrote:

even if you accept fully the esri you post it to suit your self it could be equally said that 13 % of protestants and 80% of catholics are unhappy with the current situation

Hang on there, it was you who first used the 40% figure to suit your argument. Indeed, the figures I quote are much more accurate as the 87% and 20% actually state their preference for continued union. 40% of NI’s population being Catholic does not equate to 40% having a shared ‘loyalty’ to the Irish state. Furthermore, it is you that has used the last set of figures to suit your argument, I merely stated them as they were. For your information of the 13% of protestants that prefer differently only 3-4% would like to see Irish unity. Of the 80% of Catholics, 65% would like to see unity. So there is a clear majority in favour of the status quo. That’s all I was highlighting against your dubious claims of ‘loyalty’ with regard to a figure of 40%.

Hydroquinone

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Two examples:
Irish citizens have full voting rights in the UK, based solely on residency. Same for British citizens in the Republic.

Irish citizens have special access rights to the UK armed forces, over and above those available to other nations [residency requirements etc].

I agree with the overall sentiments in your post, but I'll have to pull you up here on a fact. British citizens who are resident in Ireland do not have full voting rights in Ireland.
You absolutely must be an Irish citizen to vote in an Irish constitutional referendum. British citizens resident here do not get a vote for those.

As per the instructions when I split this from the "enough already" thread...
Keep this to the topic of citizenship,Irishness or Britishness please.
If you want to discuss whether NI is worth the Irish govts time /energy and why then go to the "enough already" thread.

BuffyBot

Irish citizens have full voting rights in the UK

You can vote in local and European elections, but I'm not so sure about General elections.

A Dub in Glasgo

Irish people have full voting rights in the UK. I have been voting in UK General Elections since I came over here.

Do you know if you will have a vote in the UK referenendum on the E.U constitution? given that UK citizens cant vote in constitutional referenda here.

Eoghan-psych

Hydroquinone wrote:

I agree with the overall sentiments in your post, but I'll have to pull you up here on a fact. British citizens who are resident in Ireland do not have full voting rights in Ireland.
You absolutely must be an Irish citizen to vote in an Irish constitutional referendum. British citizens resident here do not get a vote for those.

Yes, I should have included that caveat - I wasn't thinking of referenda as being relevant, as the constitution pertains exclusively to Irish citizens. But yes, they do certainly come under 'voting'. A symptom of too much typing, not enough coffee.

The problem has since been rectified and I'm now firing on all cylinders.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Do you know if you will have a vote in the UK referenendum on the E.U constitution? given that UK citizens cant vote in constitutional referenda here.

I have no idea on that one. I'll find out soon enough though

Sleepy

A_Dub_In_Glasgow wrote:

Well I am currently a resident of the UK and could go for UK citizenship now but I choose not to. Am I less Irish because I am not paying taxes in the Republic and have lived there for nearly 12 years?

Frankly, yes you are. You can no longer legitimately claim to father Irish children. You don't live here, you don't pay taxes here, you don't vote here. You may hold an Irish passport but to all intents and purposes you've become British.

To be honest, your attitude reminds me of all the ignorant Americans who believe that because their great-great-great-grandmother on their father's side was Irish that they somehow are too despite never having set foot out of Boston.

MT

cdebru wrote:

you can believe that it should be insulting if you want it does not make it insulting

Hence, the use of the word ‘believe’. I’m not in the habit of passing off my opinions as fact so don’t imply that I have.

cdebru wrote:

the 26 counties has set out in its constitution and laws who is entitled to be a citizen why would people in the 26 counties feel insulted that people had such rights

And I’ve stated, I disagree with these laws. I think I’m right in believing that we’re allowed to express differing opinions at boards. I believe that people who contribute to the Irish state should feel insulted that someone like myself is entitled to equal citizenship without enduring any such burden of responsibility. As I’ve said previously, such a state of affairs devalues the worth of the citizenship they hold.

cdebru wrote:

what i find insulting is if we tried to deny the irishness of people who through not fault of their own happen to be born ouside the jurisdiction of the 26 counties to suggest that they would have to move into the 26 counties before they could be really consider themselves to be irsh is riducolous it smacks of some attempt at ethnic cleansing

So your saying that anyone born outside the 26 counties of the Irish Republic should be entitled to Irish citizenship. So, in your view Ireland has a potential population of roughly 6 billion. Furthermore, you believe it would amount to ethnic cleansing if the people of China, Africa, Brazil etc. were denied this right. I’m sorry, but who’s views are the more ridiculous?

Again, I’ll reiterate my view: Irish citizenship should require a commitment to the Irish state. This would surely best be made by residing there and contributing to society through payment of taxes, voting, abiding by the laws, etc. How denying citizenship to those living abroad, making no contribution to Irish society amounts to ethnic cleansing I’ll never know. Do you feel ‘ethnically cleansed’ by all the nations that haven’t offered you citizenship?

cdebru wrote:

citizenship does not have lesser standings all citizens are equal wether they are in dublin or derry or timbuktu

I’m afraid they’re not. A ‘citizen’ living in Timbuktu contributes nothing to the Irish government in the form of tax. If Ireland were threatened by a hostile nation, what guarantee would there be that such a ‘citizen’ would return to aid the nation’s defence. In relation to this example, is the status of someone like Sean Connery. I would view his Scottishness in a very dim light while he resides in a tax haven, abdicating his responsibility to pay tax to the nation he claims to be a national of. Citizenship should come with a price or it becomes a worthless status.

cdebru wrote:

what citizenship would people have under your idea for example if someone was living abroad but not entitled to citizenship in the country in which they reside as most immigrants in ireland for example would they become stateless

People would have a citizenship that actually meant something: one that required commitment and sacrifice. For as long as Irish citizenship is cheapened by being passed out willy nilly to those who may never set foot in the country the concept of the responsible citizen is undermined. Citizenship should be seen as a bond between those who govern and those who are governed. The price should be a financial contribution and an active interest in how government is constituted. Handing out citizenship to those who don’t live under and contribute to the nation’s government cheapens it status to the point of being a mere token. ‘Oh look, I acquired Irish citizenship today, it’ll go on the shelf next to the Dutch clogs and the chopsticks from Japan’.

If people choose to leave their country for another then they should have no qualms about relinquishing the status that reflects their former bond with their previous society and government. Having left, they’re no longer a share-holder if you like. By moving to another country they’ve indicated their commitment to another state and I’d suggest they should consolidate that bond by acquiring citizenship in their new land.

cdebru wrote:

if they got in to trouble in the state that they lived in should their original country wash their hands of them as they are no longer proper citizens

Dare I say it, they’ve made their bed… If they break the law in their new home they should be punished accordingly. Why should a country they’ve turned their backs on feel obliged to intervene? No one asked those who’ve emigrated to continue paying tax so why should they receive any benefits from the government and society they’ve forsaken?

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

Frankly, yes you are. You can no longer legitimately claim to father Irish children. You don't live here, you don't pay taxes here, you don't vote here. You may hold an Irish passport but to all intents and purposes you've become British.

To be honest, your attitude reminds me of all the ignorant Americans who believe that because their great-great-great-grandmother on their father's side was Irish that they somehow are too despite never having set foot out of Boston.

lol

I have 2 lovely children both born in Glasgow and both of them as Irish as you and I. Take a chill pill.

My attitude is nothing like what you describe

Sleepy

How can your kids be Irish if they were born in Glasgow, raised in Glasgow and I assume schooled in Glasgow? They can claim to be of Irish descent but that's hardly the same as being Irish.

cdebru

MT wrote:

Actually, it’s entirely factual. UK law states that they have every right to consider themselves British.


What you’ve written there is entirely incorrect. Again, UK law states that they have just as much right to British citizenship as anyone else in the UK. Equally, they are just as entitled to refer to themselves as British.

The UK refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.The term British applies to all those living in the UK .

so some one born on the island of Ireland in your view should not have an automatic right to be an Irish citizen if they are in the 6 counties but even though not born in britain are automatically British

the right under UK law to british citizenship or any of the other types of britishness does not actually mean a person is british
ie from britain
it could actually mean they are from kenya or some other current or former colony

MT wrote:

The term British applies to all those living in the UK .

no it does not

MT wrote:

Hang on there, it was you who first used the 40% figure to suit your argument. Indeed, the figures I quote are much more accurate as the 87% and 20% actually state their preference for continued union. 40% of NI’s population being Catholic does not equate to 40% having a shared ‘loyalty’ to the Irish state. Furthermore, it is you that has used the last set of figures to suit your argument, I merely stated them as they were. For your information of the 13% of protestants that prefer differently only 3-4% would like to see Irish unity. Of the 80% of Catholics, 65% would like to see unity. So there is a clear majority in favour of the status quo. That’s all I was highlighting against your dubious claims of ‘loyalty’ with regard to a figure of 40%.

you choose to accept the ESRI poll rather than how people actually vote
ie over 42% of the people who voted in the european election voted for the SDLP and SF both parties whose proclaim to want a united Ireland

but i suppose you and the ESRI know more about it

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

How can your kids be Irish if they were born in Glasgow, raised in Glasgow and I assume schooled in Glasgow? They can claim to be of Irish descent but that's hardly the same as being Irish.

do you really believe that
can i ask how you voted in the citizenship referendum last year

MT

From reading his last post, I think A Dub in Glasgo may be an ethnic nationalist. This sort of thinking deems Irishness as something of the blood. It's in stark contrast to civic nationalism whereby citizenship involves civic responsibility and support for the nation's institutions. It’s something that carryies no racial qualifications.

Ethnic nationalism also poses severe problems when attempting to integrate immigrants. Just look at the contrast between the integration of immigrants into the US - a nation based upon the ideals of civic nationalism - and the German experience - a nation leaning much more in the direction of ethnic nationalism. Emigrants from the likes of Italy can feel fully American as there is no ethnic bar placed upon Americaness. Compare this to the Turkish experience in Germany were they have been continually denied citizenship, granted the now derogatory description 'guest worker' instead. Germans have long been reluctant to relinquish their beliefs of racial purity.

With this clash of nationalisms in mind there are questions I'd pose to someone like A Dub in Glasgo. How does he feel about bringing his children up in Scotland with an Irish identity? Will they always be Irish as far as he's concerned or can they ever become Scottish? Is a person's nationality always determined by the birth place of their ancestors?

Clearly, if ethnic nationalism prevails the future for Ireland is bleak. Immigrants - not being Irish of the blood - will under such thinking never be seen as true citizens. Will the descendants of Polish immigrants always be viewed as Poles, and not properly Irish? I hope for Ireland's sake the civic nationalism found in countries such as the US and Canada becomes the dominant ideology.

Certainly, if I moved to another country any children I’d have would be brought up as citizens of it, not as some foreigners abroad viewing home as a place I’d left behind. I mean, talk about giving your kids an identity crisis.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

cdebru

MT wrote:

From reading his last post, I think A Dub in Glasgo may be an ethnic nationalist. This sort of thinking deems Irishness as something of the blood. It's in stark contrast to civic nationalism whereby citizenship involves civic responsibility and support for the nation's institutions. It’s something that carryies no racial qualifications.

Ethnic nationalism also poses severe problems when attempting to integrate immigrants. Just look at the contrast between the integration of immigrants into the US - a nation based upon the ideals of civic nationalism - and the German experience - a nation leaning much more in the direction of ethnic nationalism. Emigrants from the likes of Italy can feel fully American as there is no ethnic bar placed upon Americaness. Compare this to the Turkish experience in Germany were they have been continually denied citizenship, granted the now derogatory description 'guest worker' instead. Germans have long been reluctant to relinquish their beliefs of racial purity.

With this clash of nationalisms in mind there are questions I'd pose to someone like A Dub in Glasgo. How does he feel about bringing his children up in Scotland with an Irish identity? Will they always be Irish as far as he's concerned or can they ever become Scottish? Is a person's nationality always determined by the birth place of their ancestors?

Clearly, if ethnic nationalism prevails the future for Ireland is bleak. Immigrants - not being Irish of the blood - will under such thinking never be seen as true citizens. Will the descendants of Polish immigrants always be viewed as Poles, and not properly Irish? I hope for Ireland's sake the civic nationalism found in countries such as the US and Canada becomes the dominant ideology.

Certainly, if I moved to another country any children I’d have would be brought up as citizens of it, not as some foreigners abroad viewing home as a place I’d left behind. I mean, talk about giving your kids an identity crisis.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

the only difference is the USA and canada have a longer history of immigration



also US citizens can and do travel and work around the world ( often uninvited) without any suggestion that they are less american in fact they even maintain the right to vote even though not directly contributing anything to the US in taxes etc also children born to US citizens abroad automatically become US citizens if anything the situation is worse from your point of view in the US as foreign domained citizens can decide on a government of a country they no longer live in or pay taxes in nevermind claim citizenship

all nationalities are based on blood they also allow for the naturalisation of people who are not entitled to nationality as a birthright once they become citizens they have the exact same rights and entitlements as any other citizen that situation is the same here as it is in the US or Canada


and of course you completely gloss over the US treatment of mexican and latin american immigrants which is very similar to that of turks in germany

of course if you moved abroad not all countries would allow you to raise your children as citizens depends on the country you went to

paulcr

cdebru wrote:

and of course you completely gloss over the US treatment of mexican and latin american immigrants which is very similar to that of turks in germany

It may be similar and yet they are different.

Yes its true the people that have been disenfranchised by NAFTA's policy of shipping jobs to other countries and allowing day workers to cross the border are deeply resentful of Mexican workers.

But honestly we are talking about menial labor jobs. The jobs most people wouldn't do themselves.

So much like Hilter's germany they have to find someone to blame.

The difference is that much of the US was once Mexico. And even many of the states names are spanish as are many of the cities. LA has the largerest mexican population next to Mexico City. There are many towns in Texas where you needn't speak english at all.

Europeans came and conquered/stole US from Natives which include Mexicans. So there is a difference.

Maybe its a constant reminder of how our country works. Case in point Iraq.

IN THE US WE LOVE EVERYTHING MEXICAN...EXCEPT OUR NEIGHBORS!

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

How can your kids be Irish if they were born in Glasgow, raised in Glasgow and I assume schooled in Glasgow? They can claim to be of Irish descent but that's hardly the same as being Irish.

Irish parents, raised in Glasgow (75%) and Dublin (25%). If I go back to Ireland next week to live, I cannot call my children Irish according to you. That is good to know :rolleyes:

cdebru

i meant it is similar in regards that they are let in long enough to do the menial jobs tha US citizens are not interested in doing they are used as a cheap source of labour they are not offered citizen ship and are forced to return or deported when the work is done especially in the agriculture industry

they are not offered the american civic nationalism that MT believes exists

paulcr

Its definitely hard for an American to point to any ethnic roots. We are after all mongrels...alot of race mixing etc.

Jews and Catholics, Catholics and Protestants, Blacks and Whites, Cat and Dogs.

The only thing we can point to now a days is color of skin or accent of speach.

We do (US) let a large number of immigrants become citizens (we need to keep our menial labor force intact). However, it doesn't mean they will experience the same America that those being born and raise americans will.

But in time...the largest minority group in the US is hispanic.

God only knows what our US will be in another 20 - 40 years. We'll all have a year round tan.

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

From reading his last post, I think A Dub in Glasgo may be an ethnic nationalist.

I will obviously have to read into the mechanics of the difference but if that is the term applied to the Irishness in the Irish constitution, I suppose I am.

It's in stark contrast to civic nationalism whereby citizenship involves civic responsibility and support for the nation's institutions. It’s something that carryies no racial qualifications.

What if I agree with this as well, surely I can be both?

With this clash of nationalisms in mind there are questions I'd pose to someone like A Dub in Glasgo. How does he feel about bringing his children up in Scotland with an Irish identity?

Apart from the current overtones to everything Irish in Scotland, I have absolutely no problem.

Will they always be Irish as far as he's concerned or can they ever become Scottish?

Once they hit 16, it is their choice and I will respect that

Is a person's nationality always determined by the birth place of their ancestors?

Of course not, it is then choice.

Clearly, if ethnic nationalism prevails the future for Ireland is bleak. Immigrants - not being Irish of the blood - will under such thinking never be seen as true citizens.

I will view them as Irish (if that is their wish) and I have no hangups with Ireland becoming multi-cultural.

Will the descendants of Polish immigrants always be viewed as Poles, and not properly Irish? I hope for Ireland's sake the civic nationalism found in countries such as the US and Canada becomes the dominant ideology.

Again, if that is their choice, I will view them as Irish. No problems for me.

Certainly, if I moved to another country any children I’d have would be brought up as citizens of it, not as some foreigners abroad viewing home as a place I’d left behind. I mean, talk about giving your kids an identity crisis.

That will be your choice, my choice differs. Yet I am the one being told that my children are not Irish.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

If that is how you view SFs view on nationality so be it. I certainly do not view their policies as exclusively that type.

cdebru

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Irish parents, raised in Glasgow (75%) and Dublin (25%). If I go back to Ireland next week to live, I cannot call my children Irish according to you. That is good to know :rolleyes:

i wouldn't worry about it according to sleepy mary mcaleese is not irish so your kids are in good company

everyone born in the six counties
everyone who had to emigrate or chose to emigrate
including i would presume the entire republic of ireland soccer squad
perhaps even the gardai and army on UN duty abroad maybe even Irish diplomatic staff
and of course for two weeks of the year those people who leave to go on holidays

all leave their irishness at the departures lounge

so has this changed your views now that according to sleepy you are in fact british along with your children have you started humming god save the queen or rule brittania yet

MT

MT wrote:

So your saying that anyone born outside the 26 counties of the Irish Republic should be entitled to Irish citizenship. So, in your view Ireland has a potential population of roughly 6 billion. Furthermore, you believe it would amount to ethnic cleansing if the people of China, Africa, Brazil etc. were denied this right. I’m sorry, but who’s views are the more ridiculous?

In this case, yours I'd say for suggesting that Cdebru wasn't only talking about people born outside of this island but with family connections to it, as well as the other existing qualifications.

A strong belief in ethnic nationalism is again one of the reasons I see the rise of Sinn Féin as detrimental to Ireland’s future.

Well if you want to pick the entire Irish soccer team from Bray wanderers, you go right ahead, but I think your views on this are out of step with reality.
Many countries if not a majority of countries factor some lineage into the qualifications for nationality outside of their own country, we are not alone in that.

By the Way leave SF out of this thanks, this is a discussion about citizenship.

MT

cdebru wrote:

so some one born on the island of Ireland in your view should not have an automatic right to be an Irish citizen if they are in the 6 counties but even though not born in britain are automatically British

Citizenship should be an honour that requires commitment to certain responsibilities. In a way it should be earned. Conditions such as living in the state and contributing to its society through the payment of taxes, etc. are essential duties in exchange for such a right. Otherwise, if you grant automatic citizenship to those beyond the state, who need not obey its laws, uphold its values, fund its government and so on, the covenant that it should represent becomes next to worthless. Why should an Irish citizen living in Dublin pay his taxes when an ‘Irish citizen’ living in Manchester is free of any financial contributions to the maintenance of the Irish state?

Furthermore, think of the implication that arises from granting automatic citizenship to people residing in Northern Ireland. Such a policy involves at worst racial and at best geographic discrimination. If people beyond the state’s borders in one direction are to be given the right to automatic citizenship then why not those in another? Why should people living in France not be granted such a right also? Indeed, to be fair and just, no one beyond the borders of the Irish state should be discriminated against when handing out citizenship. But such a scenario would be ludicrous, so the only fair way to grant Irish citizenship is to those that reside in and contribute to the Irish state. They are the ones who have a real commitment to the nation. The folly of ethnic nationalism should be dispensed with grounding citizenship instead in the values of civic nationalism. An Ireland formed from its laws and institutions, its rights and responsibilities. Not an Ireland of blood race and geographic fixations.

cdebru wrote:

the right under UK law to british citizenship or any of the other types of britishness does not actually mean a person is british
ie from britain

I’m afraid in the modern day UK it does. Under the laws of the country the term British refers to anyone of UK nationality. That nationality extends to anywhere in the UK. It’s no longer tied to an island. That may be a difficult concept to grasp if your idea of Irish nationality is fixated upon this island. My view is that nationalities are not fixed to island boundaries – they can lie within them or move beyond them.

cdebru wrote:

it could actually mean they are from kenya or some other current or former colony

So let me get this straight: British citizenship does not mean a person is British, which solely means you are from the island of Britain, but can cover a person in Kenya. Eh? I think you should consult the UK statute books. For as they’ll reveal the term British applies to anyone that is a citizen of the UK. Not the people of Kenya – surely referring to Kenyans as British would be a form of imperialism? The term is no longer the exclusive preserve of the population of the island of Great Britain. A Falkland islander has as much right to the term as someone from Islington.

cdebru wrote:

no it does not

Altogether now, ‘oh, yes it does’.

cdebru wrote:

you choose to accept the ESRI poll rather than how people actually vote
ie over 42% of the people who voted in the european election voted for the SDLP and SF both parties whose proclaim to want a united Ireland

Yes, I do choose to accept the ESRI survey over voting patterns in relation to this issue. The latter is simply not a reliable guide to trends on the constitutional question. As I’m sure you well know those that vote for a party rarely agree with its every stance. Voters in the north are no different. I know many people who vote for the SDLP that do not desire a united Ireland. Equally, I know people who vote unionist while being cool on the union. I even know a good number that remain indifferent/apathetic on the subject of the border and yet, remarkable though you might find it, vote SF. This is clearly demonstrated by the ESRI survey. Only 65% of Catholics desire a united Ireland and yet almost 100% of Catholics vote for parties proposing such a constitutional settlement. Believe it or not, in the deluded world of northern political debate the two tribes have found many reasons besides the constitutional issue to continue voting for their respective sectarian blocks. Lack of an alternative being foremost amongst them.

cdebru

MT wrote:

.


Depends on the duration. In my view, if someone chooses to move abroad permanently they should be required to relinquish their right to citizenship. I strongly believe that citizenship is a deeply cherished right that demands certain duties from the holder. One should be a commitment to live in that country in the long run, another is payment of taxes and so on and so forth.
.

what is permanently 5 years 10,20 what about someone with a disability who can not earn or pay tax should they be force to give up their citizenship as they have let down their country

MT wrote:

.
Then you must view such a right as being next to worthless. I place a much higher value upon Irish citizenship. A clear demonstration of commitment to the nation is amongst the most important. Go down your route and you’ll end up with the Sean Connery style of nationality. He’s such a proud Scot he lives in a tax haven to avoid contributing his share to the nations coffers. Wearing a kilt and telling anyone who’ll listen how much of a Scot he is in no way makes up for this woeful failing.
.

No i view it as very important so important that it is not something that you can just remove from someone
BTW we all ready have those type of people here tony oreilly Denis O’Brien etc

i would not strip them of their citizenship i would prevent them from coming here to do business and bid for contracts etc when they are not prepared to pay tax

MT wrote:

.
I feel that a claim by someone such as myself for Irish citizenship should be insulting to those who have fulfilled certain duties to obtain such a right. As I’ve said previously, I would consider it free loading on my part. If you don’t feel similarly, then I’d suggest you’re misguided. Do you see citizenship as a right carrying no responsibilities? That there is absolutely no quid pro quo?
.

what duties have others fulfilled

living here carries responsibilities not just for citizens once a citizen lives here then they have responsibilities i believe that a citizen should have a loyalty and fidelity to the country but that does not mean they have to live within its borders

cdebru

MT wrote:

Yes, that’s my view. Citizenship should be an honour that requires commitment to certain responsibilities. In a way it should be earned. Conditions such as living in the state and contributing to its society through the payment of taxes, etc. are essential duties in exchange for such a right. Otherwise, if you grant automatic citizenship to those beyond the state, who need not obey its laws, uphold its values, fund its government and so on, the covenant that it should represent becomes next to worthless. Why should an Irish citizen living in Dublin pay his taxes when an ‘Irish citizen’ is free of any financial contributions to the maintenance of the Irish state?.

people beyond the state do not have to uphold the laws of this state they uphold the laws of the state they are in
a citizen living in dublin is directly benefiting from the tax to suggest that irish people living outside the state should pay for services for people living in the state is ridiculous

MT wrote:

Furthermore, think of the implication that arises from granting automatic citizenship to people residing in Northern Ireland. Such a policy involves at worst racial and at best geographic discrimination. If people beyond the state’s borders in one direction are to be given the right to automatic citizenship then why not those in another? Why should people living in France not be granted such a right also? Indeed, to be fair and just, no one beyond the borders of the Irish state should be discriminated against when handing out citizenship. But such a scenario would be ludicrous, so the only fair way to grant Irish citizenship is to those that reside in and contribute to the Irish state. They are the ones who have a real commitment to the nation. The folly of ethnic nationalism should be dispensed with grounding citizenship instead in the values of civic nationalism. An Ireland formed from its laws and institutions, its rights and responsibilities. Not an Ireland of blood race and geographic fixations..

no it involves following the constitution as voted by the people of the 26 counties it does not force citizenship on people it offers it do them as a right
people living in france can be irish citizens if they fulfill the requirements as laid out itn the constitution

the situation that pertains in this country is a result of partition much the same as the partition of germany east germans where automatically entitled to west german citizenship

all countries have citizenship based on blood and geography there is nothing unique in that

MT wrote:

So let me get this straight: British citizenship does not mean a person is British, which solely means you are from the island of Britain, but can cover a person in Kenya. Eh? I think you should consult the UK statute books. For as they’ll reveal the term British applies to anyone that is a citizen of the UK. Not the people of Kenya – surely referring to Kenyans as British would be a form of imperialism? The term is no longer the exclusive preserve of the population of the island of Great Britain. A Falkland islander has as much right to the term as someone from Islington..

http://www.ukpa.gov.uk/textonly/english/t_who_is_eligible.asp
British Overseas Territories Citizen*

These are people who have a connection with a former British colony, for example Kenya, who did not become citizens of that country when it became independent and did not become British citizens.

Please note: Since Tuesday 21 May 2002, most people holding a British Dependent Territories Citizen passport automatically become British Citizens. This is the effect of the commencement of the British Citizenship provision of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which has already re-named British Dependant Territories Citizenship (BDTC) as British Overseas Territories citizenship. The Act provides that BDTCs except those whose BDTC status derives solely from their connection with the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, become British citizens on 21 May. People born in the territories from that date will be both BCs and BDTCs from birth


and of course it is a form of imperialism britain is reknowned for it

MT wrote:

Yes, I do choose to accept the ESRI survey over voting patterns in relation to this issue. The latter is simply not a reliable guide to trends on the constitutional question. As I’m sure you well know those that vote for a party rarely agree with its every stance. Voters in the north are no different. I know many people who vote for the SDLP that do not desire a united Ireland. Equally, I know people who vote unionist while being cool on the union. I even know some that vote SF but who remain indifferent/apathetic on the subject of the border. This is clearly demonstrated by the ESRI survey. Only 65% of Catholics desire a united Ireland and yet almost 100% of Catholics vote for parties proposing such a constitutional settlement. Believe it or not, in the deluded world of northern political debate the two tribes have found many reasons besides the constitutional issue to continue voting for their respective sectarian blocks. Lack of an alternative being foremost amongst them.

i honestlythink how people vote is more of an indication of how people feel than 1000 surveyed by the esri

A Dub in Glasgo

Here is an interesting (well I found it interesting) opinion piece in The Scotsman newspaper*. I have noticed how irrelevant the notion of Britishness is in Scotland and the way England appears embracing Englishness. If Britain disintegrates in the future, where does that leave NI?

* The 2 Scottish broadsheets are The Scotsman which is Edinburgh based and The Herald which is Glasgow based.

MT

Earthman wrote:

In this case, yours I'd say for suggesting that Cdebru wasn't only talking about people born outside of this island but with family connections to it, as well as the other existing qualifications.

I'm not sure I fully grasp what your refering to here. If its cdebru's remarks that automatic citizenship should be given to people born and living outside the Irish state, then what I was questioning was were do you draw the line. To maintain such a policy, discrimination along either grounds of racial identity or geographic identity has to be employed. This, I believe is an unfair and unjust method of awarding citizenship. Furthermore, it not only tarnishes its value with discriminatory overtones but also devalues it by rendering the contributions of those participating within the Irish state as worthless. In terms of the covenant that citizenship should represent between the governed and government, tax paid becomes meaningless while someone having never contributed can also attain citizenship.

Earthman wrote:

Well if you want to pick the entire Irish soccer team from Bray wanderers, you go right ahead, but I think your views on this are out of step with reality.

I accept they may well be but surely if a politics forum is to be worth the name it should be place for debate and the expression of differing opinions, not uniform conformity.

Earthman wrote:

Many countries if not a majority of countries factor some lineage into the qualifications for nationality outside of their own country, we are not alone in that.

Ireland may not be alone in basing citizenship in the realm of ethnic nationalism but that doesn't mean such an approach is just or right. I believe it is neither.

Earthman wrote:

By the Way leave SF out of this thanks, this is a discussion about citizenship.

You're the mod, so it's your call. But their ethnically based views of Irish identity are very relevant to a discussion over Irish citizenship.

MT

cdebru wrote:

people beyond the state do not have to uphold the laws of this state they uphold the laws of the state they are in

And, other than stating the obvious, your point is? This of course supports my argument concerning civic nationalism as the basis of citizenship. If you live abroad you will not have to live by Ireland’s laws therefore you’ll have little or no interest in whether such laws are maintained or altered. You are not participating in the covenant between the people and those that govern them. Granting such ‘absentee stakeholders’ citizenship devalues its meaning.

cdebru wrote:

a citizen living in dublin is directly benefiting from the tax to suggest that irish people living outside the state should pay for services for people living in the state is ridiculous

My sentiments entirely. Hence, why I believe those with no long term commitment to residency in the state should have no right to its citizenship. Of course it’s ludicrous to ask people not living in the nation or availing of its services to pay its taxes, where have I claimed otherwise? But it is equally ludicrous to grant such people citizenship. As I’ve stated previously, such a state of affairs undermines the incentive for someone living in Dublin to fulfil the responsibilities citizenship involves. How can it be just to those residing in the Irish state that someone living abroad, free from their commitments, can acquire a citizenship of no lesser standing.

cdebru wrote:

no it involves following the constitution as voted by the people of the 26 counties it does not force citizenship on people it offers it do them as a right
people living in france can be irish citizens if they fulfill the requirements as laid out itn the constitution

Don’t you realise that this is a debate in a politics forum and accordingly I am not required to agree with the contents of every law or article of the constitution? The whole point of a discussion is to express differing viewpoints not to establish conformity. I disagree with the constitution in this area. I feel it is incorrect. And where have I said the constitution forces citizenship on anyone? My contention throughout this thread is that the right of citizenship should be accompanied by certain responsibilities. It should not be handed out to those not required to perform the duties any right, for that matter, demands in return. People living in Northern Ireland, France or anywhere beyond the nation’s boundaries should not be offered Irish citizenship. They simply cannot fulfil the responsibilities such a covenant requires while apart from the state.

cdebru wrote:

the situation that pertains in this country is a result of partition much the same as the partition of germany east germans where automatically entitled to west german citizenship

What are you really debating in this thread – citizenship or your desire for a all-island state?

The automatic granting of citizenship to East Germans was one of the most blatant examples of ethnic nationalism in action that you could find. Turks who emigrated to the FRG, participated in society and paid their taxes were denied citizenship because they were deemed not to be true Germans. In other words, the ethnic barrier was raised. And yet, East Germans while contributing nothing to the FRG were granted this right as they were Germans of the blood. The spirit of Hitler lived on ensuring such untermenschen as the Turks were deemed to hold a much lower standing than 'real' Germans in the East.

Equally, I see no reason why I should be given a right to citizenship on a par with an immigrant to the Irish Republic from Nigerian. If they play their part and pay their taxes then they are infinitely more deserving than I. Any other approach smacks of the racist approach of the FRG.

cdebru wrote:

all countries have citizenship based on blood and geography there is nothing unique in tha

That’s debatable. You should back up such sweeping statements with some evidence. However, whether they do or don’t does not validate such an approach as one that is just or right. As far as I can see there tends to be a scale. I would prefer that Ireland move towards the just and democratic end that a civic identity represents and away from the racialism and inevitable discrimination that are consequences of ethnic nationalism.

cdebru wrote:

These are people who have a connection with a former British colony, for example Kenya, who did not become citizens of that country when it became independent and did not become British citizens.

Please note: Since Tuesday 21 May 2002, most people holding a British Dependent Territories Citizen passport automatically become British Citizens. This is the effect of the commencement of the British Citizenship provision of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which has already re-named British Dependant Territories Citizenship (BDTC) as British Overseas Territories citizenship. The Act provides that BDTCs except those whose BDTC status derives solely from their connection with the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, become British citizens on 21 May. People born in the territories from that date will be both BCs and BDTCs from birth

All of this reinforces my comments on the extent of British citizenship. Furthermore, Britain is not exerting a neo-imperialist claim over the people of its former colonies. It’s merely offering those excluded by the current arrangements a status. Equally, the dependant territories do not represent colonialism as far as I’m aware they have the right through a vote to break the link with Britain. Having said all this, it doesn’t mean I’m entirely content with these arrangements. In my view, these people should not be granted their citizenship until they move to Britain or the territories in which they reside become fully constituent parts of the UK, with all the accompanying voting and taxation responsibilities.

cdebru wrote:

and of course it is a form of imperialism britain is reknowned for it

How is it?

cdebru wrote:

i honestlythink how people vote is more of an indication of how people feel than 1000 surveyed by the esri

You wouldn’t, to paraphrase your words, be using the figures that most suit your own argument?

MT

MT wrote:

I'm not sure I fully grasp what your refering to here. If its cdebru's remarks that automatic citizenship should be given to people born and living outside the Irish state, then what I was questioning was were do you draw the line.

Well from what I read, you were creating an extreme and ridiculous line for him-were you expecting him to agree that, that was his position,I doubt that you were.

I accept they may well be but surely if a politics forum is to be worth the name it should be place for debate and the expression of differing opinions, not uniform conformity.

I expressed an opinion just like you.

You're the mod, so it's your call. But their ethnically based views of Irish identity are very relevant to a discussion over Irish citizenship.

Mentioning SF's views and theirs alone on citizenship in this thread was mischievous, (given that the thread it was split from was involving NI and SF and this thread was for a discussion on citizenship)if you want to do it again, open a thread titled SF's views on citizenship.
But in here if you are only mentioning one parties policy critically without reference to the others,I'll have to view it as mischievous given that I'm aware of your overall views on SF from other threads.

Zombrex

"Irish" doesn't mean anything apart from your own personal interpritation of what it means for yourself. If someone believes themselves to be Irish then I have no problem with that, be they born and bread in the Republic or a Japanise person who has lived in Northern Ireland for 5 years. What nation you feel you best describe as your home is something that should be a personal decision for yourself and family.

There is a difference between being "Irish" and being a Citizen of the Republic of Ireland. The latter is a distinction by law, allowing you the protection and rights of the government and state of the republic. But the vast majority of the worlds citizens who call themselves "Irish" are not citizens of the Republic.