Printable View
Most the politicians are saying that voting Yes is legally sound so i'm going with their greater knowledge.
Maters little how many people are "abusing" the system as I don't belive anyone is entitled to automatic citizenship. If your parents are irish faur enough or you been in country long enough to naturalise then you've put your time in. Why should anyone be able to enter on holiday visa & then stay just cos they gave birth to "irish citizen" ?
They don't. We routinely deport people under these circumstances. However, the child was born in Ireland and still holds Irish citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Exactly... and in the case of the Czech couple who initially brought the case to the high cour, they didn't require visas to enter in the first place...Quote:
Originally Posted by liamon
Politicians...greater knowledge....When will the good poeple of Ireland learn to think for themsleves? Doing what you are told by the political parties is not democracy. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Oh God, I think I'm beginning to sound like Brendy_eire. Maybe I'll vote yes afterall. :rolleyes: ;)
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at the above statement. By politicians I assume you mean the three amigos of FF,PDs and FG. SF, Labour and the Greens are all against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Simple rule of thumb - if the right wing parties agree on something it's bad for the rest of us. ;)
KOH
Well i've politicians have got legal advise which good enough for me.
Not sure why labour against it & can never really make the Greens out as they got strange collection of policies. IMO just too left wing for their own good (SF will get that vote anyway) & if moved to the centre a bit could pick up a lot more support. Greens alwasy support Europe but then want us to vote against any EU referendums etc... :confused:
btw also good idea to vote opposite to SF.
Yea true the right wing partys are promting it but the main left of centre party in Ireland is also supporting a yes vote;) :D:pQuote:
Originally Posted by WeAreRovers
I really cant decide how to vote on this. I believe that Dev and those who drew up our Consitution wanted to give Citizenship to everyone born here but then they were different times where they would never have expected women ready to pop to hop off planes.
The thing that is swaying me is the docs themselves coming out against it.
Not the fact that the Government said it was the Doctors asking for it, and then the Doctor's coming out against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by SÓC
FF/FG/PD are in favour.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Labour/Greens/etc against. Both sides have received legal advice, so that's not a reason to vote yes/no.
Voting along the lines of left wing/right wing is also not a good reason.
The only reason to vote yes/no is to look at the facts and decide for yourself if this is an issue that justifies changing our constitution. The doctors don't think so. The FF/PD governemnt says we need this to sort out, but they can't tell us how big a problem this is. Are we talking about 30 babies per annum? If so, that's tiny and can be ignored. We don't have the necessary info. We can't change our most improtant legal document without knowing this. If the people who are proposing this change can't justify it with numbers, then vote no.
I'm going to completely ignore that bait, as tempting as it is to swallow it hook, line and sinker. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SÓC
KOH
One of the reasons I'm voting no is that the govt say they're really worried that Irish citizenship is being abused and they mentioned women arriving late in pregnancy.
However its at least as big an abuse to give Irish citizenship to someone whose only qualification is that one grandparent was born in Ireland.
That means the grandchild of someone born in Ireland, whose family moved abroad when they were a month old is entitled to Irish citizenship.
Thats not just a theoretical case. A South African athlete will probably run for Ireland in the Olympics after getting citizenship in that way.
I saw an interview with him. He's never been to Ireland and knows nothing about the country.
Some (white) South Africans use this method to get residency in the EU but the govt don't seem to mind this devaluation of our great nations citizenship. The No campaign should be highlighting this double standard more.
Despite what the govt say there is a racist undertone to what they're proposing.
Maybe you should ask the question why they moved away in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by paudie
On the other hand of your spurious example, what about fifth and sixth generation Irish - Americans whose ancestors all came from Ireland and actively took part in Irish politics, (I'm thinking of the period 1970 to 1998) and know more than the Irish average school leaver about their own country. Do you think they're more entitled to Irish citizenship than someone who's popped into a hospital not even in the 26C state and now has a child with a passport from the only country in Europe that would allow such an abuse?
There are abuses of what is called Ius Sanguinnis throughout Europe. Germany has a huge 'Russian' community that have German names and granparents that were Nazi party members even though they themselves were descendents of 19th century migrants to Southern Russia and what is now Kazahkstan. These migrants all got German citizenship on very dubious connections while 2nd and 3rd generation migrants of foreign countries are denied access to citizenship altogether.
Ireland's rule on this is simple. One granparent (or the line continues further if this grandparent's descendents actively take part in Irish citizenship - no excuses for not knowing where Ireland is then) and your entitled to citizenship. If you want to blame this athlete's ignorance of Ireland (he's not the first one) then blame his parents, not the system. As for those who were born in Ireland of foreign parents then provided we don't go down the road of Germany and Austria in denying citizenship altogether to foreign nationals born in Ireland (which as some of you point here is possible if we can't see the legislation itself), then I'm all for it.
Conor, congrats on yet again following the party line. Don't ever try to think for yourself, or the shock might hurt you.
Right, couple of questions
1. If this is such a big problem that it need urgent attention, then where are the figures to back it up?
2. If it's such a problem for our health service, why are the doctors against the referendum?
3. As a nation, we have travelled abroad and claimed citizenship based on children being born in the new state of residence. Why should we refuse that right to others who now travel here in tiny numbers? (Don't give me the line that it's what every other EU state does - if everyother state started killing Jews, should we follow? We have to decide our own status).
4. Why leave the future definition of Irish citizenship open to vague and uncertain changes in legislation?
5. Why is this being rushed through with minimal debate and preparation? This is a major change to our constitution and must be openly debated. Rushing into such a change may be something we'll regret.
If I can get convincing answers to these questions, I'll vote yes. Otherwise....
Seriously Conor, answer Liamon's questions or Dodge's or any of the No voter's points. I'm still waiting and I reckon I'll be waiting as I walk into the polling station on Friday to vote No.
KOH
It seems to me from my distant vantage point that this is a lot of hoopla over something minor. There are more important things to fix instead of this. Here in the US, this happens all the time but I think you are a citizen automatically once your are born here.
The ones they should be penalizing are the parents of the child. The child has done nothing wrong. And it is the child's citizenship is what's at stake. It's like if my father steals your car but I'm the one to go to jail. For a country that prides itself on protecting the unborn child, and then tells some children born in the same country that they don't have the same constitutional rights as others smacks of pure hypocrisy.
Lopez- in your first post above, are you implying that changing Ireland's arrangements to match Britain's is a good thing- or at least neutral or inevitable? If so, that ain't the tan-bashing we all know and love on here :)
Had my interview for part-time law degree at London Uni yesterday btw...
Which was his point surely- not really to do abortion or any other issue.
Re-read what I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
What I said his that they are still born in the same country as all other children are. They should be afforded the same rights as others.Quote:
... tells some children born in the same country that they don't have the same constitutional rights ...
It is if it switches the emphasis of citizenship onto blood rather than soil. This of course mirrors my own outlook: the British changed the law in the early eighties and put into law that nationality lies with the family (although Thatch probably never had that in mind). As for tan-bashing, you're getting jingo-regionalism-cum-faux nationalism mixed up with a country that has many good points about it (hence why I remain). Good luck with the interview: Hope you didn't use that brick to iron your shirt this time. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan Gardner
The situation in Ireland is different from the US. There is a melting pot where a conflict of cultures come together in a new nationalism that is equally inclusive of both the new and the old. Being Irish or British (no matter what people say) is not like that. Being born in Britain does not make me feel British: It didn't make my schoolmates - more exclusively native than most Dublin schools - think I was British. It just makes a good few eejits in Ireland - some on this board - who cling to a notion that you are where you are born - primarily because everyone born in Ireland had to be Irish, whether, like Duncan above, you liked it or not - think that I am or should be British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
Quite a statement but utterly false. Irish people claimed citizenship on their own terms, like the rest of the world, where it was a. obtainable and b. beneficial. My father never obtained British citizenship (there was nothing beneficial in switching). My mother - who is Spanish - despite being in Britain the majority of her life, rather remained disenfranchised than take either Irish or British citizenship (which was beneficial). Her sister got my cousin's birth registered at the London Spanish Consulate and my mate's parents did likewise to protect their kids Spanish citizenship. As Connor says - and it's been a long time since I agreed with him (or more precise put it into print ;) ) - there is always something more significant to nationality than mere birthplace.Quote:
Originally Posted by liamon
I certainly don't listen to the inane rantings of any of that left wing mob and would never support them at the polls. I was merely pinting out your inability to devaite from the FF line on any topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
Onto the main points:
1. WHy change?
The government say we need to change the law as a problem exists. Where is the problem? It's up to them to prove that a problem exists if they want to change the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
2. Doctor's support and the need for change?
Poor argument there Conor and coming from you, it's priceless. :p :D Basically, this is a follow up to point one - where is the huge problem that requires drastic changes? The medical people say it's not there. This all started because the PDs claim the doctors want it. They don't. No basis for a change to our constitution exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
3. Double standards
Not all of them, but some did accept Brit citizenship. And why not, seeing as they live there? Loads of US and Canadian born kids became US citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
The Jew reference is silly, but I was merely trying to point out that we shouldn't change our laws just coz everyone else does, as this was an argument that people were putting forward early on.
4. Legislative versus constitutional right.
No, it's not, but at least we can read it now and evaluate it's limitations. The change being proposed is open to legasilative alterations and that's dodgy as hell. I'm not willing to vote away citizenship rights without knowing what future legislation will be. This is really my main concern. My other 4 points are less important in my eyes. If the alteration stated that the constitution would be ammended to allow citizenship in clearly defined circumstances, then I might buy in. But, instead the governemnt wants free reign to alter the terms and conditions as they see fit in future without consulting the people. Not acceptable to me, as it's a step away from true democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
5. Rushing the change without debate.
Maybe, but it's not an urgent problem (points 1 and 2), so why rush in to this change? You're not answering the question, Mr FF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
Are you Royston in disguise?