Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

seamus · 10-11-2020 12:08pm

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

But a change back seems like it would be equally unnecessary. I'd love to know what the specific issues are that are trying to be fixed?

I know there's a specific blind spot in regards to citizenship for people who've been here a long time in direct provision or otherwise without an official visa. Children especially. But that seems to me to be easily solved with legislation rather than a modification to the consitution.

antimatterx wrote: »

Yeah, I would not vote for this. It should be based off where your parent are from, not where you are born.

Personally I think that's too simplistic. Citizenship or "belonging" to a country is more than where your parents are from or on what soil you were born.

I'm happy with an open enough regime that allows people to gain citizenship without reguiring archaic tests of lineage or knowlede, but that doesn't just throw it out like confetti.

For example, an automatic right for anyone to apply for citizenship if they have been in residence for ten years or more, regardless of whether that residence is legal or not. This would include a general analysis of the individual's circumstances; convictions would disqualify them, but further education and/or a solid record of employment/self-employment (legal or otherwise) would help them.

For children, granting automatic citizenship to any child over 3 that has been in continuous residence for 2 years before the age of six, 5 years before they turn ten, or 8 years before they turn 18. Any child who has been here that long, knows no other place as "home". It is cruel and spiteful to deny them the right to live here for life.

Eric Cartman · 10-11-2020 12:14pm

seamus wrote: »

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

But a change back seems like it would be equally unnecessary. I'd love to know what the specific issues are that are trying to be fixed?

I know there's a specific blind spot in regards to citizenship for people who've been here a long time in direct provision or otherwise without an official visa. Children especially. But that seems to me to be easily solved with legislation rather than a modification to the consitution.

Personally I think that's too simplistic. Citizenship or "belonging" to a country is more than where your parents are from or on what soil you were born.

I'm happy with an open enough regime that allows people to gain citizenship without reguiring archaic tests of lineage or knowlede, but that doesn't just throw it out like confetti.

For example, an automatic right for anyone to apply for citizenship if they have been in residence for ten years or more, regardless of whether that residence is legal or not. This would include a general analysis of the individual's circumstances; convictions would disqualify them, but further education and/or a solid record of employment/self-employment (legal or otherwise) would help them.

For children, granting automatic citizenship to any child over 3 that has been in continuous residence for 2 years before the age of six, 5 years before they turn ten, or 8 years before they turn 18. Any child who has been here that long, knows no other place as "home". It is cruel and spiteful to deny them the right to live here for life.

It was pushed by mainstream political parties to protect our country. The amount of people coming from Nigeria fell off a cliff afterwards. The unemployment rate of Nigerians here absolutely suggest it was necessary and is still necessary. If they ran the referendum again, Im pretty sure we would gladly keep it.

Gatling · 10-11-2020 12:26pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It was pushed by mainstream political parties to protect our country. The amount of people coming from Nigeria fell off a cliff afterwards. The unemployment rate of Nigerians here absolutely suggest it was necessary and is still necessary. If they ran the referendum again, Im pretty sure we would gladly keep it.

It didn't take long for sure it's all fake news posts

donaghs · 10-11-2020 12:29pm

Same problem as the Labour Party in UK. Totally captured by the Middle Class block (former student trotskyists and marxists) and their concerns. The idea of helping the lower social classes in their own country takes a back seat.
More interesting in posturing and signaling they're up to date on the latest trends.

As UK Labour Andrew Adonis says: "Labour, dominated recently by posturing middle-class leftists who regard the ability to wield a placard (or social media post) as a great feat".

John Hutton · 10-11-2020 12:40pm

seamus wrote: »

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

But a change back seems like it would be equally unnecessary. I'd love to know what the specific issues are that are trying to be fixed?

I know there's a specific blind spot in regards to citizenship for people who've been here a long time in direct provision or otherwise without an official visa. Children especially. But that seems to me to be easily solved with legislation rather than a modification to the consitution.

Personally I think that's too simplistic. Citizenship or "belonging" to a country is more than where your parents are from or on what soil you were born.

I'm happy with an open enough regime that allows people to gain citizenship without reguiring archaic tests of lineage or knowlede, but that doesn't just throw it out like confetti.

For example, an automatic right for anyone to apply for citizenship if they have been in residence for ten years or more, regardless of whether that residence is legal or not. This would include a general analysis of the individual's circumstances; convictions would disqualify them, but further education and/or a solid record of employment/self-employment (legal or otherwise) would help them.

For children, granting automatic citizenship to any child over 3 that has been in continuous residence for 2 years before the age of six, 5 years before they turn ten, or 8 years before they turn 18. Any child who has been here that long, knows no other place as "home". It is cruel and spiteful to deny them the right to live here for life.

Blind spot? The reason there are so many is because the system is overwhelmed and false asylum seekers are incentivized to drag it out as long as possible with judicial reviews etc. It is telling that when the sob stories hit the media they are usually something along the line of "I've lived here for ages and have a life/school/university etc." Not "I'll definitely be murdered if I go back home, which is why I left home and passed through many other safe nations before reaching Ireland. Here is strong evidence."

But you propose further incentivizing them dragging out the process even more with an effective guarantee of citizenship after x amount of years, or even less if they have a kid? Madness, absolute madness. Couple this with the proposal to do away with direct provision (i.e. give them HAP or a council house) and we have a recipe for disaster.

This is more nonsense from the well heeled, more determined to feel "right on" than to actually address inequality and social deprecation in Ireland. They say that the Greens are FG on bikes, Labour are FG for people who want to feel righteous - unfortunately for them FG are no longer socially conservative, hence labours irrelevance and need to reach for extremes like this proposal.

Wibbs · 10-11-2020 12:51pm

seamus wrote: »

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland.

Yeah the mainstream parties were racist. And 80% of Irish people.

There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

Nonsense. Here's a link from that renowned right wing nazi mouthpiece wikipedia...

The first significant mass-migration of Nigerians to Ireland comprised Nigerians from the United Kingdom. Most came only with the intention of extending their UK visas and then returning, but the ones who failed settled down in Ireland as illegal immigrants.[4] After the landmark High Court case Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice, which prohibited deportation of parents of Irish-born children, more Nigerians began coming to Ireland.[5] Then, from around 1996, during Ireland's "Celtic Tiger" period of rapid economic expansion, they came seeking either opportunities for jobs, benefits or to set up niche businesses aimed at other African migrants providing goods and services which they expected would not otherwise be available in the Irish market.[6] Between 2002 and 2006, the population of Nigerian citizens in Ireland grew by 81.7%, according to census figures, making them the country's fourth-largest migrant group at the time.[7] Many recent migrants are asylum-seekers.[8] However, from 2002 to 2009 the number of Nigerian applicants for asylum fell sharply, dropping from a peak of 4,050 to just 569.[9] The sharp drop in Nigerian asylum applicants was due to the obtaining residency via parentage of Irish citizen children or marriage to Irish and EU spouses and due to the high failure rates in the granting of asylum and the granting of leave to remain.

Yeah the ease of entry and gaining of citizenship had bugger all to do with it. And that's just from one non EU source. Interestingly or worryingly further down that page under Langauge we have this snippet: However, they are strongly likely to feel that they do not have many values in common with Irish people.[36] Oh yeah, that's the kinda demographic we need. :rolleyes:

DelaneyIn · 10-11-2020 12:51pm

seamus wrote: »

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

It wasn’t unnecessary at all. In the years prior to the referendum, 58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon making their application for asylum.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/information%20note.pdf/Files/information%20note.pdf

kildare lad · 10-11-2020 1:01pm

Ah sure what could go wrong ??? We didn't really get the best and brightest when that birthright law was in place. We got a load of tax dependant , work shy immigrants who are still milking the system 20 odd years later. Nothing against immigrants but what ever happened to going to another country , getting set up ina job, working hard then when you're financially sound then start a family . It's seems to be the opposite here, get pregnant as soon as you can , head down the social welfare office and try and get a gaf, have more kids so we can pay you more money . We don't need that type of immigrant anymore, they've been nothing but a burden on taxpayers since they got here.

kildare lad · 10-11-2020 1:03pm

DelaneyIn wrote: »

It wasn’t unnecessary at all. In the years prior to the referendum, 58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon making their application for asylum.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/information%20note.pdf/Files/information%20note.pdf

There was a stage here that 1 in 4 babies born in Ireland was to foreigners. The land of milk and honey to spongers/ work shy

Wibbs · 10-11-2020 1:03pm

DelaneyIn wrote: »

It wasn’t unnecessary at all. In the years prior to the referendum, 58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon making their application for asylum.

Wow, seeking asylum must increase fertility remarkably well...

Reading that study comes up with this:

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

But oh no, no way were chancers firing out kids for passports. :rolleyes: If this legislation were reversed you can be sure that the near 100% that are currently rejected from places like Nigeria, Georgia and Ukraine would again become remarkably fecund in due course.

Eric Cartman · 10-11-2020 1:04pm

kildare lad wrote: »

Ah sure what could go wrong ??? We didn't really get the best and brightest when that birthright law was in place. We got a load of tax dependant , work shy immigrants who are still milking the system 20 odd years later. Nothing against immigrants but what ever happened to going to another country , getting set up ina job, working hard then when you're financially sound then start a family . It's seems to be the opposite here, get pregnant as soon as you can , head down the social welfare office and try and get a gaf, have more kids so we can pay you more money . We don't need that type of immigrant anymore, they've been nothing but a burden on taxpayers since they got here.

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

Gervais08 · 10-11-2020 1:10pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah the mainstream parties were racist. And 80% of Irish people.
Nonsense. Here's a link from that renowned right wing nazi mouthpiece wikipedia...

The first significant mass-migration of Nigerians to Ireland comprised Nigerians from the United Kingdom. Most came only with the intention of extending their UK visas and then returning, but the ones who failed settled down in Ireland as illegal immigrants.[4] After the landmark High Court case Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice, which prohibited deportation of parents of Irish-born children, more Nigerians began coming to Ireland.[5] Then, from around 1996, during Ireland's "Celtic Tiger" period of rapid economic expansion, they came seeking either opportunities for jobs, benefits or to set up niche businesses aimed at other African migrants providing goods and services which they expected would not otherwise be available in the Irish market.[6] Between 2002 and 2006, the population of Nigerian citizens in Ireland grew by 81.7%, according to census figures, making them the country's fourth-largest migrant group at the time.[7] Many recent migrants are asylum-seekers.[8] However, from 2002 to 2009 the number of Nigerian applicants for asylum fell sharply, dropping from a peak of 4,050 to just 569.[9] The sharp drop in Nigerian asylum applicants was due to the obtaining residency via parentage of Irish citizen children or marriage to Irish and EU spouses and due to the high failure rates in the granting of asylum and the granting of leave to remain.

Yeah the ease of entry and gaining of citizenship had bugger all to do with it. And that's just from one non EU source. Interestingly or worryingly further down that page under Langauge we have this snippet: However, they are strongly likely to feel that they do not have many values in common with Irish people.[36] Oh yeah, that's the kinda demographic we need. :rolleyes:

How absolutely DARE you counter bollocks with calm, rational facts you monster!!!! ðŸ˜‰ðŸ˜‰ðŸ˜‰ðŸ˜‰

Grab All Association · 10-11-2020 1:16pm

He’s labour youth? Jesus Christ, Young Fine Gael get criticised for having members approaching their 30s, he must at least 65

suicide_circus · 10-11-2020 1:20pm

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

timmyntc · 10-11-2020 1:24pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

New voters for the Labour Party?

Wibbs · 10-11-2020 1:25pm

Gervais08 wrote: »

How absolutely DARE you counter bollocks with calm, rational facts you monster!!!!

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

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

Wibbs · 10-11-2020 1:26pm

timmyntc wrote: »

New voters for the Labour Party?

That was one of my first thoughts on it too. A hail mary hope to get more of the "New Irish" vote, with a side order of the leafy suburban "liberals".

Wibbs · 10-11-2020 1:29pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

"Diversity", pensions, insert some other waffle here, appeal to charity a bonus, mention The Irish Were Immigrants Once for full effect.

breezy1985 · 10-11-2020 1:30pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats what their priority is? Jaysis, read the room lads.

.

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

kildare lad · 10-11-2020 1:36pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

More Nigerian taxi drivers in Dublin ?

breezy1985 · 10-11-2020 1:39pm

kildare lad wrote: »

More Nigerian taxi drivers in Dublin ?

To get citizenship they would have to be born here and so would they not be Irish taxi drivers

seamus · 10-11-2020 1:40pm

DelaneyIn wrote: »

It wasn’t unnecessary at all. In the years prior to the referendum, 58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon making their application for asylum.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/information%20note.pdf/Files/information%20note.pdf

And?

Your own link shows that the numbers were massively declining after the Supreme Court ruling.

In any case, there is no indication that this was a major issue in need of solving through constitutional amendment.

road_high · 10-11-2020 1:44pm

This has Aodhan O’Riordain paw prints allover it. Virtue signalling nonsense. It’s very obvious the 2004 referendum was the correct course of action. And even more so going forward facing reduced budgets budgets for public services..

kildare lad · 10-11-2020 1:44pm

seamus wrote: »

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

It didn't take long for the auld racism card being brought out. I voted in 2004 and I didn't remember any racist groups pushing any agenda. You might be surprised to know some people live in the real world and see what's really going on instead of this far left multicultural utopian bubble they're so desperately trying to achieve .

Donald Trump · 10-11-2020 1:58pm

seamus wrote: »

And?

Your own link shows that the numbers were massively declining after the Supreme Court ruling.

In any case, there is no indication that this was a major issue in need of solving through constitutional amendment.

Of course it needed constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment put it in there in the late 90's and once they realised the unintended consequences, they needed another one to take it out. The constitutional right was only there for a few years. You can't legislate contrary to the constitution so they had to fix that to fix the situation.

25% of children being born in the state were to non-nationals. Many of whom were literally coming in off boats and straight to the maternity hospitals. Others would land pregnant and declare that they were seeking asylum, knowing full well that that process would allow them to remain for long enough to give birth.

It was a danger to all involved. The only way to remove the attraction was to remove the constitutional right to it. Removing the right did not mean that children of foreigners could not get citizenship - it just meant that they could not take the piss

breezy1985 · 10-11-2020 2:00pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Of course it needed constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment put it in there in the late 90's and once they realised the unintended consequences, they needed another one to take it out. The constitutional right was only there for a few years. You can't legislate contrary to the constitution so they had to fix that to fix the situation.

25% of children being born in the state were to non-nationals. Many of whom were literally coming in off boats and straight to the maternity hospitals. Others would land pregnant and declare that they were seeking asylum, knowing full well that that process would allow them to remain for long enough to give birth.

It was a danger to all involved. The only way to remove the attraction was to remove the constitutional right to it. Removing the right did not mean that children of foreigners could not get citizenship - it just meant that they could not take the piss

25% of children born in Ireland were non nationals? That sounds very high where are you getting the figure from

jones · 10-11-2020 2:06pm

Absolute bonkers stuff by labour - what world are they living in. Not only would it mean automatic Irish citizenship it would also be EU citizenship just for being born on the tarmac of Dublin airport (to make an extreme example).

Will never happen and to me this just looks like virtue signalling at its finest but can you imagine it did? The country would be swamped by non EU migrants and who'd blame them.

Donald Trump · 10-11-2020 2:07pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

25% of children born in Ireland were non nationals? That sounds very high where are you getting the figure from

It was well known at the time. Hospitals were being put under severe pressure. If you know anyone who had a kid in a public hospital around that time, they would tell you about being surrounded by beds of foreign women.

It is also in the Department of Justice document someone posted earlier http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/information%20note.pdf/Files/information%20note.pdf . Paragraph 12

Wibbs · 10-11-2020 2:08pm

seamus wrote: »

And?

Your own link shows that the numbers were massively declining after the Supreme Court ruling.

So chancers were using this legislation to enter the country? So it seems we do agree. And the numbers fell off a cliff after the referendum was passed. If it were reversed the chancers would be back again. The same chancers that are almost entirely rejected by current immigration depts.

In any case, there is no indication that this was a major issue in need of solving through constitutional amendment.

The only country in Europe that had this legislation. Legislation that was on the back of a peace agreement and not intended for non EU chancers. Legislation that grew our non EU population by a considerable amount in the late 90's and early 00's. A population that even two decades on has higher than background reliance on social welfare. Then again Diversity(of the correct sort) Is Our Strength types are remarkably blinkered towards anything that goes against this credo so things are never major issues.

kildare lad · 10-11-2020 2:10pm

If my mam gives birth to me while they're on holidays in china , does that make me chinese ?

Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

Comments