nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/labour/status/1325858794920939520

I'm not quite old enough to remember fully but I do recall reading about so-called "boat babies" in the late 90's being a serious issue for the asylum system in this country. Not only people arriving pregnant but apparently some literally giving birth on ferries in Irish waters.

Also just looking at the replies and seen this...

EmZs1bxXUAIGozV?format=jpg&name=medium

The law was changed by referendum in 2004 (in fact looks like the big decline arrivals started actually in 2003).

I think Irish people might have questions about going back to such a regime.

Anyhow Labour want to do just that.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, I don't know but i'd have concerns because I think we are lax enough to be perfectly honest.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

L1011

Yurt! wrote: »

Privately, and people often don't answer honestly in polls for psycholgical reasons (see shy-Tory effect), I guarantee that a majority of Irish are opposed to jus soli. In the quiet privacy of a polling booth in 2004, people made their true opinions known.

We had people making exactly the same pronouncements before the SSM and Repeal referendums here.

It didn't happen.

We do not have a Shy Tory effect in Ireland - people are very vocal with their viewpoints.

I'm not going to say "I guarantee" you're wrong, but I'm fairly certain. Because I've seen this level of confidence before.

Threads on this forum and its predecessors are not even vaguely close to taking the temperature of the nation despite many posters thinking that to be the case.

Donald Trump

L1011 wrote: »

We had people making exactly the same pronouncements before the SSM and Repeal referendums here.

It didn't happen.

We do not have a Shy Tory effect in Ireland - people are very vocal with their viewpoints.

I'm not going to say "I guarantee" you're wrong, but I'm fairly certain. Because I've seen this level of confidence before.

Threads on this forum and its predecessors are not even vaguely close to taking the temperature of the nation despite many posters thinking that to be the case.

Be realistic.

It was only put into the constitution in the late 90's. It was overwhelmingly removed a few years later once the unintended consequences became known. We're not talking about something that happened in the 1950's

It would be stupid to put it back into the constitution. Let them legislate for it. If they wanted to pass a law granting birthright citizenship then they can. And if everything is well and good then happy days. If they pass that law and there is an immediate and unsafe spike in chancers coming in and taking the piss, then they can pass a different law the next day to fix it.

Once it is in the constitution then it takes a long time to go through the logistics of changing it back. If it were done on a legislative basis for a few years and wasn't been abused then maybe you might get the people happy to put elevate it back to the constitution but it would be idiotic to go straight to that. Realistically though, I strongly suspect that if it was put into law tomorrow - we'd start to see the uptick in people coming off the boat ready to pop in as little as a few weeks.

L1011

What was put in to the constitution in 1999 reflected the prior law.

I don't see any suggestion of holding a further referendum, primarily because its not required.

[Deleted User]

L1011 wrote: »

I'm not going to say "I guarantee" you're wrong, but I'm fairly certain. Because I've seen this level of confidence before.

On what basis can you assert that you’re fairly certain? How have the conditions changed vs. 2004 when 80% of the electorate voted to enact the 27th amendment?

If anything, the general public is significantly more aware of inward migration than was the case in 2004. The changing demographics were pretty early stage back then. The Celtic tiger was still roaring and unemployment was negligible.

Despite the air of confidence and the sense that our economy was bullet proof, the overwhelming majority of the electorate decided to remove jus soli. I don’t believe that you can claim with any degree of confidence that the mindset of Irish public has done a 180 on this issue.

Anecdotally, I was 22 and in my final year of university when the referendum was happening. Predictably, the left-leaning student union types attacked it as an unnecessary racist contrivance. I distinctly remember a class mate of mine being lambasted for daring to suggest that he was voting in favor. Naturally, many others just kept their opinions to themselves, only revealing their true intent in the privacy of the polling station.

Re-introducing jus soli is lunacy. It would bring Ireland out of step with virtually every developed nation and ensure that we are flooded with chancers, until it is inevitably revoked yet again a couple of years down the track. We’re already stuck with the social consequences of the unintended loophole between ‘99 and ‘04. There is no reason to suggest that there is any appetite to revisit that scenario.

[Deleted User]

Donald Trump wrote: »

Realistically though, I strongly suspect that if it was put into law tomorrow - we'd start to see the uptick in people coming off the boat ready to pop in as little as a few weeks.

100% guaranteed. The number of women arriving to Ireland in late stage pregnancy increased dramatically within months of the loophole being introduced. The numbers declined equally swiftly post 2004.

One can imagine how much that phenomenon would be amplified in 2020 with word spreading almost instantly via social media and Brexit imminent. Frankly, I can’t understand why anybody with any sense of logic can even countenance this.

Wibbs

L1011 wrote: »

I'd be fairly certain there'll be future (imminent, probably) polling on this issue; as multiple parties are proposing or supporting it now.

I'd be very surprised if there is less than 50% support for reinstatement even now at a distance to any hard case examples.

Oh I'm quite sure there'll be polling and I'd be equally surprised as yourself to find anything less than support, but the same "multiple parties" won't risk putting it to the Irish electorate in a vote, because I suspect they know the actual result would be different, or a much closer run thing.

As for the SSM and Repeal the 8th votes, they passed and that's good(well I would say that as I supported them), but with a smaller majority than the 04 jus soli vote. In that vote and as Hamachi points out held at the height of confidence in the celtic tiger when people are more likely to be charitable and ah sure what's the harm not a single constituency came close to a 50/50 split on the matter. Unlike say the 8th vote where a few came out against repeal, or SSM where a one was against and a fair number were close to 50/50. Hell even the repeal of blasphemy vote was 64%. In the 04 vote not a single constituency was below 71%. It's one of the clearest results of any referendum of the last 30 years. Yet that one alone is apparently in need of review, but not by the Irish electorate?

Oh and I'd get shot of the Irish granny loophole too.

Hamachi wrote: »

Re-introducing jus soli is lunacy. It would bring Ireland out of step with virtually every developed nation

This is the part I simply don't get. It was sloppy legislation and some want to bring it back? I can't see the EU being happy about it either as no other member has similar and it will leave a door open into the EU.

We’re already stuck with the social consequences of the unintended loophole between ‘99 and ‘04.

Oh you can't really say that, even though it's factual.

There is no reason to suggest that there is any appetite to revisit that scenario

Oh the appetite is there, but only among a small number of political mostly also rans looking for attention. Though the "diversity is our strength(so long as it's the right kind)" NGO's will jump on it, as will the "we need more people, cos pensions" crowd. Cue the usual PR of Appeals to Feels(c)* and questionable polls, but an actual vote? No.

*Appeals to Feels runs on both sides of course. On the one hand "we'll be replaced!!!", a nonsense, on the other face of crying child and rainbows, an equal nonsense, both appealing to the thick.

Galwayguy35

The Government aren't able to manage the issue of illegal economic immigration as it is now, imagine the mess its going to be if auto birthright citizenship is given the green light.

Galwayguy35

L1011 wrote: »

But there is almost certainly public support for changing from the current system despite an exceptionally one-sided thread on here.

Really?

What are you basing that on, A Sunday Times poll or an Aodhan O Riordan interview on RTE which is about as left leaning and woke as it possible to be.

I'd be interested to know who the likes of the ST/IT and The Journal call for these polls they come up with, wealthy middle class areas in South Dublin, over here in Galway and down in Cork will have a very different opinion to the rest of the country because what they are agreeing with won't affect them one bit.

Who do you think will be fighting for the housing needed if this happens, it won't be these good folks because the Government will be pushing most of the new arrivals into poorer areas.

Donald Trump

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and I'd get shot of the Irish granny loophole too.

"Granny loophole" is a completely different thing and I wouldn't mix it in here at all.

I have no issues with children and grandchildren of people who like *had* to emigrate, being entitled to get Irish citizenship. Given the historical necessity for people born here to emigrate, then it would be wholly unfair to remove the rights of their children and grandchildren to obtain citizenship

The "loophole" is somewhat tighter these days as it now has to be an unbroken chain of citizenship at the time of birth. I think that that is good enough.

Gervais08

Donald Trump wrote: »

"Granny loophole" is a completely different thing and I wouldn't mix it in here at all.

I have no issues with children and grandchildren of people who like *had* to emigrate, being entitled to get Irish citizenship. Given the historical necessity for people born here to emigrate, then it would be wholly unfair to remove the rights of their children and grandchildren to obtain citizenship

The "loophole" is somewhat tighter these days as it now has to be an unbroken chain of citizenship at the time of birth. I think that that is good enough.

Absolutely - I hate the term “granny rule” - I’m from a large Irish family going back generations. The fact my grandad cane back from the US and met an Irish girl in the north of England doesn’t make me less Irish. I came here as soon as I could to work, never ever considered myself British and my Dad’s ashes are being scattered here, his home.

Granny rule is for journeymen sportsmen who want to get international caps any way they can. Not us loyal citizens.

[Deleted User]

L1011 wrote: »

We do not have a Shy Tory effect in Ireland - people are very vocal with their viewpoints.

How many Trump supporters do you know in Ireland?
How many people do you know who oppose the current lockdown?

They are out there in droves.

QED.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

How many Trump supporters do you know in Ireland?
How many people do you know who oppose the current lockdown?

They are out there in droves.

QED.

They're not. They're in little online enclaves, like Stormfront-lite, sorry Current Affairs here on boards, and the odd Facebook group.

How many do I know in real life? None. How many have I ever encountered? One.

kildare lad

seamus wrote: »

They're not. They're in little online enclaves, like Stormfront-lite, sorry Current Affairs here on boards, and the odd Facebook group.

How many do I know in real life? None. How many have I ever encountered? One.

I know quiet a few , they're the type of blokes you wouldn't want your daughter to date , but they're out there.

kildare lad

I recently can across an article that showed African immigrants to the USA seem to be end up very successful. Now when you compare this to the African immigrants that we took in ,who've by and large not been successful or contributed much here , is america more stricter with the type of immigrant they take in compared to us , who seemed to take in any tom ,, dick or harry before they changed the anchor baby rule . So why are Africans more successful than the ones we've got here ?? Myself I think that when you've a law like the one we had , you don't get the best and brightest . Put it this way , if I emmigrated somewhere to work and start a new life , I wouldn't be having any babies till I had a good job and was financially stable .

https://www.ft.com/content/ca39b445-442a-4845-a07c-0f5dae5f3460

Wibbs

I'll be willing to bet that African folks who came here legally show a similar trend to those in the US. The legally part is the clue. They had wanted skills and education and wanted to come here to contribute and had the means to.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

How many Trump supporters do you know in Ireland?
How many people do you know who oppose the current lockdown?

They are out there in droves.

QED.

They're really not as far as I can see anyway. Certainly not trump supporters. I've yet to meet a single one through work or friends and family who didn't think rolling one's eyes was invented just for him. Some had a certain angle about laughing at "dumb Yanks", but that was about it. Maybe in different circles? I've bumped into a fair number of those against the lockdown to some degree, but with most it was more a case of frustration coming out, or they quite rightly had questions about the confused nature of it at times. A couple of anti mask types in the mix, but all but one were middle aged or older men who tend to go one of two ways; complete adherence to authority, or "I'm not doing that!!", both because it requires no thinking outside of the box.

Of the subject at hand? Down the years I would say that there can be quite the resistance to the recent diversity. There can also be a gender bias to it, as I've noted women are more likely to be for it, but for the usual vague exoticism and charity stuff, men less for it and mostly for similarly simplistic reasons, with the occasional half decent points being raised. That's publicly though. Overall I'd be willing to bet if it was put to the vote again, maybe it would be a closer run thing, maybe it wouldn't, but it would be rejected like before. The swing that got choice across the line was a much smaller one than would be required to get this legislation back on the books. Like I said earlier it was one of the most decisive referendum votes in the last few decades.

mohawk

kildare lad wrote: »

I recently can across an article that showed African immigrants to the USA seem to be end up very successful. Now when you compare this to the African immigrants that we took in ,who've by and large not been successful or contributed much here , is america more stricter with the type of immigrant they take in compared to us , who seemed to take in any tom ,, dick or harry before they changed the anchor baby rule . So why are Africans more successful than the ones we've got here ?? Myself I think that when you've a law like the one we had , you don't get the best and brightest . Put it this way , if I emmigrated somewhere to work and start a new life , I wouldn't be having any babies till I had a good job and was financially stable .

https://www.ft.com/content/ca39b445-442a-4845-a07c-0f5dae5f3460

Yes I wouldn’t be surprised by Africans doing well in US with the way their immigration system is set up. They only want the best.
If similar research was done here I would also expect that African immigrants that come here legally with high skills would also be successful. I have definitely worked with a few that are going to do great things.

TomTomTim

seamus wrote: »

They're not. They're in little online enclaves, like Stormfront-lite, sorry Current Affairs here on boards, and the odd Facebook group.

How many do I know in real life? None. How many have I ever encountered? One.

Can you try and be a bit more creative? This line has been used by people like you on boards for about 10 years. There's no point in even asking you for evidence of these Nazis, as you won't have any. It's a joke that you can call users Nazis or white supremacists without evidence, yet I can't call you a hysterical idiot.

[Deleted User]

Simi wrote: »

I didn't agree with the referendum in 2004. I wasn't old enough to vote against it at the time. Populist politics at it's worst. I remember the result being celebrated by the KKK.

I don't think they will garner enough support for repeal, but the mood may change in the future.

Well if the KKK celebrated the result it has to be wrong!

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

They're not. They're in little online enclaves, like Stormfront-lite, sorry Current Affairs here on boards, and the odd Facebook group..

Generalize much? That’s a pretty appalling aspersion to cast on people who have legitimate concerns about re-introducing jus soli.

The dogs on the street know that it was widely abused during the five year window, in which the loophole remained open. There’s a reason why almost 80% of the electorate sensibly opted to close that door. The 27th amendment was enacted according to the democratic wishes of the Irish people. Why do you have a problem with that?

Are you really so blinkered by your own ideology that you can’t see that it simply addressed sloppy legislation and reintroduced some degree of credibility into our asylum system? No doubt, you’d prefer to wail about racists and nazis. Carry on..

kildare lad

Oscar Madison wrote: »

Well if the KKK celebrated the result it has to be wrong!

You can always rely on lefties for a laugh . Sure hitler celebrated it the result aswell . Lefties always quick to label people as racists , sexists , homophobes who don't agree with their blinkered view of the world

DelaneyIn

A Dublin family has been forced to split up because their local authority will not allow them live in overcrowded accommodation and is treating them as separate households.

Izzy Okojie, a nurse, and her children Collins (19), Martins (15), Queen (14) and Gift (13) have been designated homeless and are in emergency accommodation in Inchicore, while her husband Amujede Okojie, a security worker, remains in a one-bedroom council flat in their home town of Balbriggan.

The family had been sharing the apartment since April, when Ms Okojie and the children returned from England. Last month however, Fingal County Council said they couldn’t stay and directed them to a city-centre hotel.

The couple came to Ireland seeking asylum in 2004 with one child and were granted leave to remain in 2005. In 2010, then with four children, they were housed in a three-bed home in Balbriggan, under the Rental Accommodation Scheme.

In 2014, unable to find work, they decided to relocate to England. However, as Mr Okojie was on a HSE surgery waiting list they planned he would follow them to England when he had recovered. He was moved by the council into his current apartment in 2015. His surgery, to remove a double-hernia, was finally performed in 2017 and his recovery was protracted.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/family-forced-to-split-due-to-overcrowded-accommodation-1.4409945?mode=amp

The timeline makes it likely that this family got leave to remain after having an Irish born child here during their asylum application.

Now we will not only provide the father with welfare and his own apartment, we shall have to provide the mother and her kids with their own home and welfare too.

All due to our citizenship laws at the time. Anyone who wants more of this is either soft in the head or on the payroll of one of the hundreds of migrant quangos and NGOs operating on this island.

Danzy

Labour's voter base and membership is solidly upper middle class now.

Who are they trying to appeal to with this, or just reinforce the party in leafy South Dublin?

Galwayguy35

DelaneyIn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/family-forced-to-split-due-to-overcrowded-accommodation-1.4409945?mode=amp

The timeline makes it likely that this family got leave to remain after having an Irish born child here during their asylum application.

Now we will not only provide the father with welfare and his own apartment, we shall have to provide the mother and her kids with their own home and welfare too.

All due to our citizenship laws at the time. Anyone who wants more of this is either soft in the head or on the payroll of one of the hundreds of migrant quangos and NGOs operating on this island.

Ah Jaysus I was saying what a one sided article it was until I scrolled up and saw the author.

Donald Trump

DelaneyIn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/family-forced-to-split-due-to-overcrowded-accommodation-1.4409945?mode=amp

The timeline makes it likely that this family got leave to remain after having an Irish born child here during their asylum application.

Now we will not only provide the father with welfare and his own apartment, we shall have to provide the mother and her kids with their own home and welfare too.

All due to our citizenship laws at the time. Anyone who wants more of this is either soft in the head or on the payroll of one of the hundreds of migrant quangos and NGOs operating on this island.

Lets hope that Mr Okojie didn't forget to stop collecting SW for his partner and children and the childrens' allowance after the moved to UK in 2014. ...... I was surprised though to learn that he was moved out of the 3 bed house!

I wonder where the first child was born. Normally you wouldn't speculate but if a person gets a sob-story article written about themselves in a national newspaper then I think it's fair enough to ask.

Edit to add: Just coincidentally, the reference timeline to be naturalised is 9 years. You have to have been here for 365 days continuously and then in the country for 4 years worth of days out of the previous 8 years. So you can get it in 5 years.

Just thought it was coincidence that the 9 years coincided with the time between being grated leave to remain and heading for the UK

sdanseo

America is very significantly harder to access than Ireland. And you need to have a damn good claim to avoid being deported (probably a little too much so under Trump).

Ireland is easy to access, and there was a proven endemic of people arriving here, and having children to gain citizenship and freeload off Ireland. That is FACT and anyone disputing it is wrong. Period. And it's why the country voted overwhelmingly to change the law.

To expand a bit on the problem, and bear with me until the end here please, lest I seem like a Xenophobe:

If you are from a country where you have genuine hardship and need to come to Ireland to seek a better life - that is absolutely fine.
You should however be able to find a job, and support yourself and whatever family you have within a reasonable period of time. If you are not financially stable, you should not expand your family and expect the state to pay for them.

I have no issue with naturalization after 5 years, nor any issue with reasonable state supports for people while they are on that journey. However these supports are designed to be temporary and should be.

If by Year 5 or 6, when you are applying for citizenship, you have not shown that you have made strong progress towards being self sufficient (of course with allowance in the case of something like Covid 19 where you can show that you had, but there has been a recent explicable setback) - then citizenship should be denied and deportation should follow. And these decisions, as well as initial decisions on Asylum, need to be made RAPIDLY. Government needs to take it upon itself to get this done in weeks or months, 6 months absolute tops.
Taking years to do it only means people stagnating in places like direct provision and growing to hate the country and the system. And by the time they come out they're disillusioned, resentful, and in very rare cases even radicalized.

Here's the thing though: the very same expectation should apply to all Irish citizens on any state benefits. Obviously (sadly) we can't deport our own citizens if they don't want to pull their own weight and look after themselves.

But the idea that the state provides EVERYTHING - housing, education, pay, the whole kit and caboodle - to people for more than an emergency period designed to get them back on their feet is ridiculous in a free economy. This is not communist Russia.

By all means generously subsidize housing. And do it properly, in cash to landlords, not with bloody hotels. Or much more preferably, with tax credits.

If we applied this to everyone, including our own, no one would have any issue with sharing such benefits with those who arrive in genuine need because the bill for it all would be a fraction of what it is. But we don't; we doll out money for votes instead. And so the problem is of our own making.

WhenPigsCry

sdanseo wrote: »

America is very significantly harder to access than Ireland. And you need to have a damn good claim to avoid being deported (probably a little too much so under Trump).

It's so hard to access and the chances of deportation are so high, that they have an estimated 10 million undocumented migrants alone.

Blazer

antimatterx wrote: »

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

excellent...Trump will be delighted to hear that. Lets kick all those dreamer kids back to Ireland.
Works both ways yes?

Now I voted no back in the day but not so sure this time around.

timmyntc

Blazer wrote: »

excellent...Trump will be delighted to hear that. Lets kick all those dreamer kids back to Ireland.
Works both ways yes?

Now I voted no back in the day but not so sure this time around.

"dreamer kids" - what a load of marketing ****e.

Their parents shouldn't have overstayed their visas in the first place - granted its not that fair on the kids since they were born into it, but that's their parents fault, not the states.

If you let all those "dreamer kids" stay, then its unfair on all those other children born in other countries whose parents were responsible and didnt overstay their visa, or give birth in a foreign country in an attempt to get a visa.

sdanseo

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

It's so hard to access and the chances of deportation are so high, that they have an estimated 10 million undocumented migrants alone.

Almost all of whom are "dreamers" there since before 9/11 or who hopped over Donald's wall (or cut it open with not much more than a hacksaw). Easier when there's a land border.

None of the migrants who come here would make it into the US without some elaborate trafficking.