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

Irish referendum on right to citizenship

samsham

We had a referendum a few years ago on the rights of people with Irish born kids to live in Ireland. Shamefully we vote as our Government wanted. We ended the right of people with Irish Born kids to live in Ireland. My wife is Asian I am Irish, My child is Irish. Recently I had a health scare and this vote came back to haunt me. Obviously I voted for the rights of parents to stay in Ireland. But because the majority in Ireland voted with the Government, this means if I died my wife and kid can legally be kicked out of Ireland. I was married in 2007 so my wife is not a citizen yet. But were my health to fade and I died, my wife and child who obviously would stay with its mother can be kicked out of Ireland. I just wondered if Irish people knew this when voting. Because to me this referendum was nothing but pure racism. The government acknowledges in order to pay for our growing senior citizens pension we need population growth. So would someone who voted for this please explain what the hell they were thinking of?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LostinKildare

samsham, I feel for you. Things have changed radically in the past couple of years.

I'm an American married to an Irishman. Both our child (born in U.S.) and I have dual U.S./Irish citizenship. I got my Irish citizenship by post-nuptial declaration, squeaking in under the November 2005 deadline. That was ridiculously easy -- a one-page form, copy of my residency card, passport photo and about 100 euros. It took something like 4 months to process. There was no residency requirement for citizenship by post-nuptial declaration -- we have a friend back in NYC, an Irishman who has lived in the US for 25 years (with US citizenship) whose Brazilian wife applied from abroad (it's handy to have US, Brazilian, and EU passports!)

Having endured the cruel bureaucracy of U.S. immigration when we were getting my husband sorted out for a green card, I was pleased by how laidback the Irish system was when we moved to Ireland in 2002. Like your wife, I had to present myself at the garda station, be photographed, and get that residency ID card (I think that's BS about keeping it on you at all times), but it was much less onerous than what the U.S. requires of its applicants for legal residency -- countless legal forms, fees, many headshots and fingerprints, AIDs test, TB test, affidavits from third parties, hostile interviews, etc.

The uncertainty of your situation stinks. I believe that the minister can waive the three-year waiting period (as well as other conditions) at his discretion. Especially if your illness continues to be a concern, you might consider requesting that -- ask the Immigrant Council how to do it. It seems like you would have a very strong case, especially with the Irish citizen child.

Otherwise, try not to worry. I can't see the Irish government deporting the grieving widow of an Irish citizen with an Irish citizen child in tow.

samsham

LostinKildare wrote: »

samsham, I feel for you. Things have changed radically in the past couple of years.

I'm an American married to an Irishman. Both our child (born in U.S.) and I have dual U.S./Irish citizenship. I got my Irish citizenship by post-nuptial declaration, squeaking in under the November 2005 deadline. That was ridiculously easy -- a one-page form, copy of my residency card, passport photo and about 100 euros. It took something like 4 months to process. There was no residency requirement for citizenship by post-nuptial declaration -- we have a friend back in NYC, an Irishman who has lived in the US for 25 years (with US citizenship) whose Brazilian wife applied from abroad (it's handy to have US, Brazilian, and EU passports!)

Having endured the cruel bureaucracy of U.S. immigration when we were getting my husband sorted out for a green card, I was pleased by how laidback the Irish system was when we moved to Ireland in 2002. Like your wife, I had to present myself at the garda station, be photographed, and get that residency ID card (I think that's BS about keeping it on you at all times), but it was much less onerous than what the U.S. requires of its applicants for legal residency -- countless legal forms, fees, many headshots and fingerprints, AIDs test, TB test, affidavits from third parties, hostile interviews, etc.

The uncertainty of your situation stinks. I believe that the minister can waive the three-year waiting period (as well as other conditions) at his discretion. Especially if your illness continues to be a concern, you might consider requesting that -- ask the Immigrant Council how to do it. It seems like you would have a very strong case, especially with the Irish citizen child.

Otherwise, try not to worry. I can't see the Irish government deporting the grieving widow of an Irish citizen with an Irish citizen child in tow.

I know its unlikely , but in my view it should not be possible. but my point being there are thousands of people like you and me in marriages of different nationalities. But from here and elsewhere I get the opinion people don't seem to be concerned about you and me, there problems seem limited to Africans, Nigerians in particular. Ireland biggest emigration comes from within Europe. If like people are saying here there only concern is protecting our services and our population. Why are we been dragged screaming into Lisbon 2 which opens the door to new accession states and eventual freedom of movement within Euro States. My friend was similar to you got citizenship under the old policy. Its makes life easier, just simple things like going on a holiday are almost impossible. In fact my wife can not travel to N.Ireland with me, she can be arrested and deported. Her re-entry visa is for Ireland only. If people realized the difficulties it caused they might think again.

johnnyskeleton

PaulieD wrote: »

I disagree, recent proposals by the government that the married couple needed to reside in another EU country for three years before entering Ireland was very welcome. Ireland is seen as a soft touch. We need to send a message, scammers not welcome.

Charity starts at home.

So to send the message that scammers are not welcome, we should refuse genuine cases?

SeanW

I really don't understand the OPs problem with the citizenship referendum.

All that was about, was to close a loophole where a woman could come into Ireland 7 or 8 months up the pole, have the baby, claim citizenship for the child, and thusly circumnavigate the whole asylum and immigration processes.

A Constitutional amendment was needed because that loophole was created in the Constitution, by Irelands signing of the Good Friday Agreement which allowed anyone born on the Island, without further provisions of any kind, to claim Irish citizenship. I'm not sure what the original provisions were to accomplish. I stupidly voted against it because I felt it would give Ian Paisely and the DUP, who were then anti-agreement, more ammo against the GFA, but fortunately the wisdom of my fellow electors overruled such sentiment.

The citizenship referendum has no bearing on the OPs family life. I recognise that the situation his wife faces may not be the best but the citizenship referendum had nothing to do with it i.e. (unless there were provisions in the Constitutional amendments that I don't know about)

Before the Good Friday Agreement, his child has claim to Irish citizenship based on his/her fathers' citizenship.
This was not changed in the GFA, which added the whole "born on the Island of Ireland" thing.
The citizenship referendum tightened up the rules but still left the way clear for people who have an Irish citizen parent (or a parent who is entitled to Irish citizenship) to claim citizenship.

So what, specifically, is the OPs problem with the citizenship referendum?

opo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it? Foreigners don't bother me; I live with one.

Guess that makes me some sort of weirdo.

Normal people don't tend to self-stereotype a personal situation into anything like a blueprint for national policy or smear those in entirely different personal circumstances as xenophobic.

On balance, I guess you are right.

jhegarty

samsham wrote: »

Why are we been dragged screaming into Lisbon 2 which opens the door to new accession states and eventual freedom of movement within Euro States.

Ireland was one of very few countries to welcome in the last group of accession states without restrictions.

samsham

jhegarty wrote: »

Ireland was one of very few countries to welcome in the last group of accession states without restrictions.

exactly my point, everyone is welcome as long as your not from Africa it seems.

samsham

Tom Parlon recently warned that his members were facing serious difficulties , from former workers who are now on social welfare and are working in the black economy and undercutting legitimate builders. Mary Harney recently warned about the growing welfare assistance giving to lone parents and cast doubt how ligitimate there claims were.

Right! no irish people would ever screw the state its all those Africans.

Lockstep

I don't really understand Irish citizenship requirements.

Seems strange that because you are entitled to get citizenship purely because grandma came from Ballina.

samsham

SeanW wrote: »

I really don't understand the OPs problem with the citizenship referendum.

All that was about, was to close a loophole where a woman could come into Ireland 7 or 8 months up the pole, have the baby, claim citizenship for the child, and thusly circumnavigate the whole asylum and immigration processes.

A Constitutional amendment was needed because that loophole was created in the Constitution, by Irelands signing of the Good Friday Agreement which allowed anyone born on the Island, without further provisions of any kind, to claim Irish citizenship. I'm not sure what the original provisions were to accomplish. I stupidly voted against it because I felt it would give Ian Paisely and the DUP, who were then anti-agreement, more ammo against the GFA, but fortunately the wisdom of my fellow electors overruled such sentiment.

The citizenship referendum has no bearing on the OPs family life. I recognise that the situation his wife faces may not be the best but the citizenship referendum had nothing to do with it i.e. (unless there were provisions in the Constitutional amendments that I don't know about)
Before the Good Friday Agreement, his child has claim to Irish citizenship based on his/her fathers' citizenship.

This was not changed in the GFA, which added the whole "born on the Island of Ireland" thing.

The citizenship referendum tightened up the rules but still left the way clear for people who have an Irish citizen parent (or a parent who is entitled to Irish citizenship) to claim citizenship.

So what, specifically, is the OPs problem with the citizenship referendum?

try reading the posts. this new situation means if anything happened the Irish husband of a foreign national. ( as in died) That women even having children in this state has no right to continue to remain in the country

EastWallGirl

Funny how you can get a passport if you granny was born in Ballina (who is now dead) but if you are married (and alive) with a subsisting genuine relationship, it is still assumed as false.

It should not take up to 3 years to process citizenship papers for those that can apply via Marriage and their residency. I do not think people mind the waiting time but the department should not be sitting on their hands for 3 years, after you have 'served' your waiting time.

The Directive that is being discussed is Directive 2004/38/EC which allows free moevment of EU citizens and their families, it is not directed at Ireland per se but at all of Europe and is part of free movement, of people, goods and capital.

I and the OH are using it to go to Italy.

And in the height of hypocrasy, which challenges the unique right of the family in the constitution, the Irish government now allows defacto visas, obviously so people do not take up all their rights under marriage.

My OH and I married so that I did not go home, it was the only way to circuimvent the problem, we would of loved a defacto visa, at the time.

By the way who sold Ireland to the Nigerians? The Irish working in Nigeria. Nigeria has nearly been destroyed and privatised by Shell, who is the Manageing Director of Shell? An Irish man. Now you know what it is like when the empire comes back to bite you in the arse.

As other countries have found out Immmigrants (if allowed to work) are some of the hardest working folk around and are a net benefit.

I think most people came here becasue they believed the hype of th eland of 1000 welcomes, not for the welfare.

esharknz

I'm pretty certain that the Department of Justice would examine her case and give her the right to stay on in any unfortunate event given that she has been in a subsisting marriage with an Irishman and her child is an Irish Citizen.

Unfortunate thing is this could take awhile. I hear the same occurs in the situation of a separation between an Irish Citizen and non-EU citizen.

Another thing, I heard you mention somewhere that you had to go in each year to renew (or am I wrong?). I'll be registering as the spouse of an Irish citizen later this year and was told that by the Garda dealing with Wicklow that I'd get 5 years stamp 4 as spouses of EU nationals would tend to get this.

All the best for your future!

esharknz

To be quite honest though, I know what you mean about the citizenship referendum. My country has done something similar in that it's not giving citizenship to children if one of the parents does not have the right to remain permanently in the country. We had a problem with tourists coming in and giving birth to avail of subsidised schooling and to make future immigration easier for the parents.

Unfortunately I know of people who are working, paying taxes etc who have had a child who doesn't qualify for citizenship (although I believe the child has dual Irish/British citizenship by descent). I get annoyed that this child isn't eligible for citizenship as his parents weren't trying to deceive the government just to get the boy a kiwi passport! So they have to apply for visas etc for this boy to stay on.

sovtek

seamus wrote: »

Shamsham, you only need to be married for three years before she can apply for citizenship, assuming that you've both been resident here for those three years.

I would imagine your situation is quite rare - that is, health scare early on in a marriage *and* a child in the marriage.

However, an Irish spouse dying before their foreign spouse applied for citizenship has surely occured before. I'm sure there's some rule in place. If you're really concerned, you could contact the INIS and ask them.

In any case, since deportations are usually decided upon by a judge, the odds of your wife being sent home based on the facts of her case would be minimal.

This is not correct. The non-Irish spouse needs only to have been resident for 2 of the past 4 years and had one year's continuous residence before applying for residency. You also need to be married for at least three years. So theoretically one could apply for citizenship within two years of arriving in Ireland, assuming you'd been married for at least a year before arriving here.

It takes three years for citizenship application to be processed.

sovtek

PaulieD wrote: »

Citizenship should not be awarded just for giving birth on Irish soil. To say otherwise is absurd. Citizenship has to be earned, it is the greatest gift and compliment the Irish state can bestow on a non national. The Irish people voted in their droves(79%) to change it, if you dont like it I am sorry, but that is democracy. Its a beautiful thing.

Its not a beautiful thing when a vote is based on ignorance like your own...read on.

The system was being abused by people having anchor babies and gaining citizenship. It is unfortunate that legitimate cases like yourself are being hurt by the change in legislation.

Like your dickhead ex MoJ this is punishing everyone for the sins of a few. Lenihan tried to get it passed that he had to authorize marriage to non eu nationals to supposedly prevent the non EU marrying EU nationals just for the visa. His evidence to support this to John Bowman...."everybody knows this".

Just to put some perspective on the scale of abuse, a recent article on immigration understates the problem with Nigerian immigration and social welfare benefits.
According to the Department of Trades records, 332 work permits were granted to Nigerians over the years while fewer than 150 were granted refugee status during the same period by the minister for justice.

Stated Government policy and Irish immigration law prohibits the payment of welfare benefits to non-EU nationals, other than those granted refugee status. That, in effect, means the maximum number of Nigerians eligible to claim welfare benefits here is 150.

Nope not true.
Anyone who is working for at least two years is entitled to claim. This is said ignorance. Unfortunately the Irish government seeks to pit foreignors and natives against each other to take attention away from the **** they've gotten everyone into. Unfortunately it seems to be working.

A massive number of Nigerians have immigrated to Ireland. The previous Minister for Justice stated that no amnesty was to be granted to these people, yet a scheme was designed to allow them remain in Ireland called the IBC/05 scheme.

This scheme granted the right of full welfare benefits to these immigrants.

Those who came to Ireland may, if they so choose, claim unemployment and rental accommodation payments and all other welfare benefits including medical cards.

In effect, the scheme created a new category of immigrant, one that has no lawful basis. Thousands of Nigerian immigrants have never worked in Ireland, yet the Irish taxpayer has to pay for them for the rest of their natural lives.

More said ignorance!
They have a lawful basis as they were lawful before the referendum and this scheme seeks to take care of those caught up in the referendums implications. It's also renewed every three years and requires them to report their finances...not "for their natural lives".
You should probably read a bit

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/33x6%20Irish%20Born%20Child.pdf/Files/33x6%20Irish%20Born%20Child.pdf

The IBC/05 scheme was grafted on to existing immigration law, even though no legislation for the provision of welfare benefits to illegal immigrants exists. No Bill to accommodate it was brought before the Oireachtas and no vote on this scheme was ever taken even though it requires a massive diversion of publicly raised funds destined for other purposes and voted on by Dail Eireann.

It's called "minister discretion". I'm all for getting rid of that as a rake of them seem to have no power of reasonable discretion nor a sense of fairness or competency to be bestowed this power.

The scheme was implemented in January 2005. More illegal immigrants were granted leave to remain here under this scheme then than the combined total of legal immigrants granted work permits from non-EU countries over the past four years.

Some 23,178 Nigerians are registered with the Department of social welfare. How is this number possible?

Extrapolating from the figures published last week Nigerians alone are receiving a minimum of €100m in benefits per year. This figure is likely much higher.

The scale of the problem is apparent to ordinary Irish people.

If the 79% of people that voted for the referendum have the same powers of analysis then they are apparently wrong.

Oh and by the way nobody was given an invitation by the Irish people to come here, they choose to off their own free will. Stop peddling lies.

Actually the IDA invited loads of people to come here only to be screwed by INIS when they were deceived about the timelines involved in gaining residency and citizenship.
The one who is peddling is you.

oscarBravo

opo wrote: »

Normal people don't tend to self-stereotype a personal situation into anything like a blueprint for national policy or smear those in entirely different personal circumstances as xenophobic.

I was responding to the suggestion that an irrational dislike of foreigners is somehow a perfectly natural and acceptable attitude. I guess you can interpret that as a smear, if it suits your argument to do so.

I don't recall suggesting that everyone should be required to live with a foreigner as a matter of national policy. I do think that the attitude of automatic hostility towards non-Irish people should be held up to question every time it is presented as a perfectly rational and understandable phenomenon.

sovtek

PaulieD wrote: »

Already in place. The OP is a bit over the top. He demands his wife given citizenship now. She will get it, but it takes time. Citizenship is a privilege not a right.

He has a right to choose whom he wants to partner with and your own High Court states that his spouse has the right to a timely answer to her application.
It's just like the MoJ denying spouses of EU nationals residency before residing in another state. The government did everything it possibly could to prevent the ECJ from ruling on this and when it finally did the government was found denying people their right to freedom of movement with their family.
Other than that everyone has the right to expect the government to honor their own guidelines on citizenship timelines, to act in a timely manner and to act in good faith. No one who knows anything about the current situation can honestly say that the government is doing any of this.

ilkhanid

markopantelic wrote: »

imo over the next 20 years ireland should try to organise a controlled population growth, we should aim for a population of about 10 million by 2025 and none of that 'right to return' stuff that mcwilliams thinks we should do.

Considering the mess that a population of 4+ million have caused in the Republic (traffic chaos,promotion of private over public transport pollution of lakes and rivers, bad planning,one-off housing,suburban sprawl,waste disposal problems, littering,CO2 emissions,illegal quarries,and the general irresponsibility of the population) I'd hate to see Ireland with a population of ten million.

sovtek

samsham wrote: »

hang on now sham marraiges has never been reported a problem in Ireland.
America yes, but never heard of girls rushing to Ireland to marry us, maybe wishful thinking there.

That's true and even though Lenihan claimed this was a problem, and took action that punished everyone instead of any actual individuals, he could only say "eveyone knows this" on Q and A.

Boston

Where's the blame for those who abused the previous system and brought about the change?

asdasd

Where's the blame for those who abused the previous system and brought about the change?

Come now. This is a Blame The Racist Irish thread.

Of course the citizenship referendum made sense. It put us in line with Europe for one thing.

The OP's problem is simple. Get citizenship for his wife. That would be the situation in every single country in the world including the US ( which does still allow citizenship by birth). In the OP's case, in fact, the thing has nothing to do with the referendum.

His son is of Irish descent and gets to be a citizen. Was on birth. Born here to one Irish parent. Job done. I really have no idea what anybody else is arguing about.

There is nowhere in the world where this would not be an issue. Marry an American, have a kid in America, and dont petition for citizenship and you dont get it. You could be deported on the death of your spouse.

The OP's problem - totally unrealted to the citizenship referendum - is that the system for giving his wife citizenship is a bit slow. I ahve no idea why the referendum was even brought up.

asdasd

hang on now sham marraiges has never been reported a problem in Ireland.
America yes, but never heard of girls rushing to Ireland to marry us, maybe wishful thinking there.

Utter nonsense. There was a BBC program on the problem in the North - produced by BBC Northern Ireland. It mentioned the South a lot. There was clear organisation to the thing. The PSNI member was scathing about the Southern response. Judges in the North would deport, or declare the marriage null and void, the South - perfectly bound by political correctness from the top down - did nothing.

aS for why people would do it -easy - get EU citizenship.

sovtek

PaulieD wrote: »

It was taken to the ECJ,in the meantime since, july 2008 four irish cases were referred to europe and the ecj ruled that regualtion 3.2 is illegal. so yes as of now, illegals pretty much have a free reign. although i would imagine that state ask for plenty of details to be happy that the relationship prior to marriage and marriage itself are legit. eg letters from Private tenancy board and landlord, bank details etc

so its back to the drawing boards, be interesting to see how busy (or not) the family law courts will be in 2-5 years. europe itself needs to change the law, uk and denmark seem to ally ireland on this

*I am just answering questions about sham marriages, I did not bring it up*

Actually the courts were filling up with people that were suing the government for denying their right to move about freely with their non eu spouse within the EU. Something that fortunately Irish people haven't encountered from other EU governments so far. The government basically plea bargained with all those who brought cases except for one where the comlaintant was "illegal" in hopes that the ECJ would not set a precendent so the government could continue to deny people their rights while not actually filtering out sham marriages. You seem to support this.
Incidentally the INIS already requests evidence of a true relationship.

sovtek

asdasd wrote: »

Utter nonsense. There was a BBC program on the problem in the North - produced by BBC Northern Ireland. It mentioned the South a lot. There was clear organisation to the thing. The PSNI member was scathing about the Southern response. Judges in the North would deport, or declare the marriage null and void, the South - perfectly bound by political correctness from the top down - did nothing.

aS for why people would do it -easy - get EU citizenship.

Any stats to show that its a problem in Ireland? Oh and the government did "do something". It denied every EU national married to a non EU national the right to move freely within the EU and filled up your courts (and cost the taxpayers a few yo yos) because people had to sue the government to get those rights recognized. The government then plea bargained with everyone except for four cases that it thought it could win. Then the ECJ rightly ruled against the Irish government. Still the government has yet to produce figures that show that sham marriages are a problem nor how their illegal policy prevented sham marriages.
To me this means that sham marriages weren't the aim. Put their actions in the context of their other actions such as taking 2/3 years to process LTR and citizenship applications and now the new work permit scheme and it just looks like they are trying to get rid of as many non eu nationals (and where they can EU nationals) as they can in the blinkered belief that we are somehow a burden on the state instead of a huge net contributor.

sovtek

asdasd wrote: »

The OP's problem is simple. Get citizenship for his wife. That would be the situation in every single country in the world including the US ( which does still allow citizenship by birth). In the OP's case, in fact, the thing has nothing to do with the referendum.

His son is of Irish descent and gets to be a citizen. Was on birth. Born here to one Irish parent. Job done. I really have no idea what anybody else is arguing about.

There is nowhere in the world where this would not be an issue. Marry an American, have a kid in America, and dont petition for citizenship and you dont get it. You could be deported on the death of your spouse.

The OP's problem - totally unrealted to the citizenship referendum - is that the system for giving his wife citizenship is a bit slow. I ahve no idea why the referendum was even brought up.

Its not simple. His health is in danger and may not live the 3 years it takes for his wife to get citizenship. Thats not a "bit slow" its criminally slow when you consider the hardship it bestows on thousands of people like him and others who have to wait for so long for citizenship applications to be processed. You brought up America. Whilst I'm not going to defend the American immigration system but at least when they realized that it was taking seven months to process citizenship applications INS hired more people to bring it down to (IIRC) six weeks. No one from the DoJ tried to excuse it or blame the victim unlike a series of your MoJ's.

asdasd

To me this means that sham marriages weren't the aim. Put their actions in the context of their other actions such as taking 2/3 years to process LTR and citizenship applications and now the new work permit scheme and it just looks like they are trying to get rid of as many non eu nationals (and where they can EU nationals) as they can in the blinkered belief that we are somehow a burden on the state instead of a huge net contributor.

I dont have stats. neither did the BBC program. It did show the police arresting the leader of a ring involved in sham marriages.

Now it would make sense, would it not, for people who wanted EU passports to organise something like this. Are you saying that it never went on? That an Irish government which is generally pro-immigreation ( the opening of the border to accession states for isntance) was somehow making stuff up?

The scary Irish surround you.

Maybe we mostly act in good faith, until our generosity - a generosity on immigration which exceeds most of the worlds - is taken advantage of, and then we change.

Hence unique in Europe we allowed birth citizenship. The system was abused and we removed it. The government in this case is probably acting on good information, however unless we legaly prove that a marriage is an actual sham ( in court) the figure, necessarily will not be available.

So not a terrible irish RACIST conspiracy against you and yours, a generous people, taken advantage of once again, reacting to this and defending the integrity of its citizenship.

sovtek

johnathan woss wrote: »

I don't mean to be offensive but what are you talking about ?

No society, anywhere, ever, has come close to welcoming visitors on the scale that Western Europe has in the last 50 years.

I guess you aren't aware of a country known as "a nation of immigrants".

asdasd

I guess you aren't aware of a country known as "a nation of immigrants".

Ok, no country where the indigenous populations were not wiped out.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

Maybe we mostly act in good faith, until our generosity - a generosity on immigration which exceeds most of the worlds - is taken advantage of, and then we change..

O what holy martyrs we are......

asdasd wrote: »

Ok, no country where the indigenous populations were not wiped out. .

Scare mongering nonsense.

asdasd

Scare mongering nonsense.

Wheres the scare. I was responding to the "I guess you aren't aware of a country known as "a nation of immigrants" claim.

Did we not hear of it? Sure, but it is not the same. The nation of immigrants was not asked in by it's indigenous population, so the immigration was - from their point of view - an immigrant takeover.

Where the indigenous population of the US controls space - on reservations - it controls migration.