Eligibility Rules, Okay

[Not Brazil]

Im still not sure that entitlement to irish citizenship infers acquiring new nationality though. Any citizen born on the Island of Ireland including you EG is entitled to Irish citizenship, as per Box A. As is anyone with a grandparent born on the Island of Ireland.

I am automatically a Citizen of the Republic Of Ireland - it's my birthright.


If you were born in Ireland and your parent(s) were Irish citizens, then you are also an Irish citizen.


If either of your parents was an Irish citizen at the time of your birth, then you are automatically an Irish citizen, irrespective of your place of birth.

Not so, if your claim is via grandparent(s).

[Stuttgart88]

Is there any ambiguity relating to the requirement to have a biological parent born on the territory (notwithstanding the Alex Bruce precedent / interpretation) or a (no mention of biological) grandparent born on the territory.

So, for example, Tony Cascarino would not be eligible under today's rule, but his kids might be, no? He was adoped by an Irish woman.

Is the FIFA "biological parent" wording discriminatory?

Also, the active interpretation of Article 18.1 (a) is that in order to change association if you have played a competitive underage international for one country is that at the time you played at that level for your first country then you must also have been eligible to play for your "new" country. I'm pretty sure this follows from Ciaran Clark (I'm assuming he played competitive underage footy for England and was not an Irish passport holder at the time).

Mods - delete if rubbished by Geysir or anyone else!

[EalingGreen]

Bruce was acquiring a new nationality according to his birth entitlement . Up to the time he applied for Irish nationality, legally he had only one nationality with an entitlement to apply for a second.
This is different to a person born in NI who is automatically a dual national as soon as that person pops out at birth.

Agree.

Just FYI , Howard Wells is quoted as claiming he asked the FIFA legal dept. to look into the eligibility of Alex Bruce.
As it stands now, the eligibility of Alex Bruce is a proven precedent until and unless there is a new ruling which contradicts it.
There is nothing higher than a binding precedent and it allows us to interpret the rules in the way they are meant to be interpreted.

Precedent is only a guide to future action, not a binding constraint, especially if that precedent may be demonstrated to have been the result of oversight or error.

In which case, under which FIFA Article (15? 17? Some other?) do you consider that players born outside of Ireland, with only an NI-born grandparent, may qualify for ROI?

[geysir]

Jesus Stutts, that's a lot of power to be bestowed to my rubbishing.

Is there any ambiguity relating to the requirement to have a biological parent born on the territory (notwithstanding the Alex Bruce precedent / interpretation) or a (no mention of bioligical) grandparent born on the territory.

So, for example, Tony Cascarino would not be eligible under today's rule, but his kids might be, no? He was adoped by an Irish woman.

Cas was adopted by his loving English born mother who had an Irish father.
Afaia the step-parent/ step-grandparent link is as good as adopted parent/ adopted grandparent link, is as good as the birth parent/birth grandparent link

Also, the active interpretation of Article 18.1 (a) is that in order to change association if you have played a competitive underage international for one country is that at the time you played at that level for your first country then you must also have been eligible to play for your "new" country. I'm pretty sure this follows from Ciaran Clark (I'm assuming he played competitive underage footy for England and was not an Irish passport holder at the time).

The FIFA rules reads as "he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play".
Clark was an Irish citizen at the time he was born England. Your kids are Irish citizens.
Clark's FIFA eligibility status would not be affected even if he had not got it together to apply for an Irish passport at the time he was capped for England.

[osarusan]

If either of your parents was an Irish citizen at the time of your birth, then you are automatically an Irish citizen, irrespective of your place of birth.

Sure about this? If your Irish parent was born outside Ireland, I don't think you're automatically an Irish citizen, even if the parent is at the time of birth. You still have to be registered.

[Stuttgart88]

I have to go down the foreign birth registration route for my English born kids because I was born in Scotland to Irish parents. Are my kids Irish citizens or only when I get off my ass down to Knightsbridge and complete the foreign birth forms? I'd assume from what Geysir says about Clark, it's the former.

[Not Brazil]

Sure about this? If your Irish parent was born outside Ireland, I don't think you're automatically an Irish citizen, even if the parent is at the time of birth. You still have to be registered.

I was quoting from the link provided earlier.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

[osarusan]

The following table may help to explain the situation:

If you are: Then you are:
A Born in the island of Ireland on or before 31 December 2004 - Entitled to Irish citizenship or you are an Irish citizen
B Born on the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 - Entitled to Irish citizenship if your parents are Irish. Entitled to Irish citizenship, if your parents are foreign nationals legally resident in the island of Ireland for 3 out of 4 years immediately prior to your birth.
C Child of A, born outside the island of Ireland - An Irish citizen
D Child of C and a grandchild of A, born outside the island of Ireland - Entitled to Irish citizenship, but you must first register in the Foreign Births Register
E a child of D and a great-grandchild of A, born outside the island of Ireland - Entitled to Irish citizenship, by having your birth registered in the Foreign Births Register, but only if your parent D had registered by the time of your birth.

Stuttgart, if you are C (Born to A), then wouldn't that make your kids D, and therefore you must register them? This would answer NotBrazil's post too?

[Stuttgart88]

Yes, you're right. My God - my kids are Brits!

[osarusan]

I was quoting from the link provided earlier.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en...r_descent.html

That rule only relates to 'citizenship through birth in Ireland'.

[Eminence Grise]

Stick it and move all stray, relevant posts here in future I say.

Amen to that!!

Meantime...

Many, many years ago when I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be
This widow had a grownup daughter who had hair of red
My father fell in love with her, and soon they too were wed

This made my Dad my son-in-law and really changed my life
For now my daughter was my mother, 'cause she was my father's wife
And to complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy,
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad
And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad
For if he were my uncle, then that also made him brother
Of the widow's grownup daughter, who was of course my stepmother

Father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run
And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son
My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue
Because although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
'Cause now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa

I'm my own grandpa,
I'm my own grandpa,
It sounds funny, I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa

So, when we run out of real footballers to discuss, or this topic encroaches into other threads, can you all come back here and work this one out?

Could be as effective as writing PTO on both sides of a piece of paper to keep people out of mischief...

[geysir]

Precedent is only a guide to future action, not a binding constraint, especially if that precedent may be demonstrated to have been the result of oversight or error.

In which case, under which FIFA Article (15? 17? Some other?) do you consider that players born outside of Ireland, with only an NI-born grandparent, may qualify for ROI?

This is FIFA legal stuff, not UK law or US law or Napoleonic Law. As I wrote, the Bruce decision is binding until FIFA rule otherwise and there is not much chance of that happening. To quote from the CAS ruling on Kearns "The regulations put in place by FIFA are binding and must be observed at all times by every member association."
I think we can say that second generation Irish like Ciaran Clark, are born Irish citizens, therefore qualify for the FAI under article 15.
I think we can say that Alex Bruce was not an Irish citizen when he was born, as he was a 3rd generation, born to english born parents (Steve Bruce and wife), then I presume his status was that he had to acquire Irish citizenry, which he was entitled to do under the Irish citizenship laws.
I´d say it is most likely that a 3rd generation footballer has to acquire Irish nationality in order to be eligible to play for the FAI and is eligible under article 17. I'd say it is most likely that he does not qualify under article 15, even though his acquired Irish nationality is permanent and without residence requirements.
Though I don´t rule it out completely, I just cant see it.
That leaves the question of place of birth of Bruce's grandparents - Northern Ireland. Why are FIFA not concerned that Bruce's grandparents are not born inside the 26 counties? I conclude that FIFA legal dept. are satisfied that the grandparents are born in a territory from which automatic Irish nationality is granted.

Alternatively, iirc the IFA did not make a Test Case out of Bruce in the same way as they subsequently did with Gibson or Kearns. Therefore it is possible that nobody at FIFA looked too closely at Bruce's particular case. Which may sound unlikely, except that it took a wave of protests by other African Associations to alert FIFA to the fact that both Qatar and Cape Verde were preparing to confer nationality on some second-rate Brazilian players etc. Moreover, I have seen it reported that there are eg Kosovans playing for Albania, or Japanese playing for North Korea, whose eligibility would not bear close scrutiny, should eg Serbia or Japan/S.Korea lodge an official protest.

Howards wells is on record saying he did ask in writing to the FIFA legal department clarification about the eligibility of Bruce, referring exactly to Bruces´ grandparent link to Northern Ireland.
You appear to be trying to paint a picture of FIFA ineptitude in its legal department. Whilst corruption is present in FIFA and obvious commercial interests guide decisions, that does not mean the whole lot is corrupt. Far from it. FIFA has a reputation to maintain, especially in these legal matters. It cannot be seen to be inept/biased/corrupt in the eligibility issue. There is way too much face to lose by exercising cronyism or favouritism here.
So far I have not come across one FIFA eligibility case, in all the cases that FIFA deal with, as being bogus.
The Qatar case in 2003 was not bogus. As per FIFA rules, Qatar could get their Brazilians, Qatar were seen as attempting to abuse the rules albeit legally. FIFA acted with haste and changed the rules so they could not get the Brazilians.
The couple of Japanese born who play for North Korea, qualify under the parentage or grand parent connection to play for North Korea.
It is well known that Kosovars have been eligible to play for Albania. Kosova has gained some form of independence in 2008-2010 and is looking for its players to come back.
The FIFA legal department is on the ball and and do their work appropriately scrutinising the eligibility applications that come their way.

[EalingGreen]

This is FIFA legal stuff, not UK law or US law or Napoleonic Law. As I wrote, the Bruce decision is binding until FIFA rule otherwise and there is not much chance of that happening. To quote from the CAS ruling on Kearns "The regulations put in place by FIFA are binding and must be observed at all times by every member association."
I think we can say that second generation Irish like Ciaran Clark, are born Irish citizens, therefore qualify for the FAI under article 15.
I think we can say that Alex Bruce was not an Irish citizen when he was born, as he was a 3rd generation, born to english born parents (Steve Bruce and wife), then I presume his status was that he had to acquire Irish citizenry, which he was entitled to do under the Irish citizenship laws.
I´d say it is most likely that a 3rd generation footballer has to acquire Irish nationality in order to be eligible to play for the FAI and is eligible under article 17. I'd say it is most likely that he does not qualify under article 15, even though his acquired Irish nationality is permanent and without residence requirements.
Though I don´t rule it out completely, I just cant see it.
That leaves the question of place of birth of Bruce's grandparents - Northern Ireland. Why are FIFA not concerned that Bruce's grandparents are not born inside the 26 counties? I conclude that FIFA legal dept. are satisfied that the grandparents are born in a territory from which automatic Irish nationality is granted.


Howards wells is on record saying he did ask in writing to the FIFA legal department clarification about the eligibility of Bruce, referring exactly to Bruces´ grandparent link to Northern Ireland.
You appear to be trying to paint a picture of FIFA ineptitude in its legal department. Whilst corruption is present in FIFA and obvious commercial interests guide decisions, that does not mean the whole lot is corrupt. Far from it. FIFA has a reputation to maintain, especially in these legal matters. It cannot be seen to be inept/biased/corrupt in the eligibility issue. There is way too much face to lose by exercising cronyism or favouritism here.
So far I have not come across one FIFA eligibility case, in all the cases that FIFA deal with, as being bogus.
The Qatar case in 2003 was not bogus. As per FIFA rules, Qatar could get their Brazilians, Qatar were seen as attempting to abuse the rules albeit legally. FIFA acted with haste and changed the rules so they could not get the Brazilians.
The couple of Japanese born who play for North Korea, qualify under the parentage or grand parent connection to play for North Korea.
It is well known that Kosovars have been eligible to play for Albania. Kosova has gained independence in 2004 and is looking for its players to come back.
The FIFA legal department is on the ball and and do their work appropriately scrutinising the eligibility applications that come their way.

OK, here's one for ya.

In 1950, FIFA instructed the IFA to stop selecting ROI-born players, even though some of them will themselves have been born pre-Partition, and all of their parents/grandparents.

At the time of the Gibson dispute (2009), FIFA wrote to the IFA (and FAI) offering to permit the IFA to select ROI-born players, with no question of such players needing parents/grandparents from the ROI.

Where is your "precedent" for that?

[ifk101]

In 1950, FIFA instructed the IFA to stop selecting ROI-born players, even though some of them will themselves have been born pre-Partition, and all of their parents/grandparents.

"On the other hand, the Executive Committee consider it inadmissible to select
players, being citizens of Eire, for the representative teams of a country other
than Eire. An exception from this rule is only allowable in respect of the
international matches between the four British Associations if those countries
agree and the F.A. of Ireland do not object, but not for matches played in Jules
Rimet Cup."

[geysir]

OK, here's one for ya.

In 1950, FIFA instructed the IFA to stop selecting ROI-born players, even though some of them will themselves have been born pre-Partition, and all of their parents/grandparents.

At the time of the Gibson dispute (2009), FIFA wrote to the IFA (and FAI) offering to permit the IFA to select ROI-born players, with no question of such players needing parents/grandparents from the ROI.

Where is your "precedent" for that?

There does not have to be precedent for FIFA to vote in an eligibility rule to the statutes. The rules are binding. New rules replace the old. The Bruce precedent supports the eligibility rules as they stand now.

FIFA allowing associations to meet together and come up with an agreement of how they slice up common assets, is in harmony with FIFA's constitution.
FIFA allowed the 4 UK home associations to meet in private and trash out an agreement, which FIFA examined and approved of.
FIFA reserve the right to approve or disapprove of such agreements.
Any such agreements, as per FIFA rules, have to be lodged with FIFA and officially annexed to the statute books.

Only the IFA could present the 1950 argument as reason why the FAI should not be allowed to select Kearns in 2009.
Only the IFA and apparently some OWC fans, could perceive some rationality in that argument.