9jeirean wrote:walrusgumble wrote:
Ypu do raise a fair point, in that the act says nothing, and that Ben, who knew he might not succeed, chanced his arm - no harm.
From McDowell's musings, it appears it refers to those of distant Irish blood, far away from Grandparent. As you might be aware, Argentina has/had a strong Irish connection (not as strong as Italy mind). Still, many there want to claim citizenship but can't (a number of articles and news clips about this). I think it is intended to deal more with ancestry. But, I don't think it is ever evoked to be honest and it is a bit of a sop to the Irish disapora. I am certain, extremely certain, in light of McDowell and Departments view, it does not apply to those from the IBC erea. I can not think any any examples of them getting it to be honest, I will try and find out. One way of getting over that hump is often just give the receiptant honourory citizenship eg Jack Charlton, Chester Betty
It does not matter whether it exists or not for your good self, it was never intended to be for you anyway. Respectively, do you honestly believe one could pin their hopes on a minor child? Most citizenship based on family is based on descenants as oppose to ascendance
Not sure what you mean by "IBC erea". You might perhaps be making a wrong assumption here. The IBC scheme has absolutely nothing to do with our case. Our child was born and automatically an Irish citizen as any other children at the time of his birth. So his Irish citizenship is not conditional (As per existing constitutional provision pre Jan 2005). That said, none of the other members of our family is here or has been here on the basis of our child's Irish citizenship. So IBC is out of the question in this case.
Fair point about ascendancy vs. descendancy possibilities. The point however remains that Section 16(2) of the Irish constitution defines Irish associations as meaning: ‘
related by blood affinity or adoption to a person who is an Irish citizen’
I might have missed it, but please indulge my oversight and point me to anywhere in that article where it states that this applies only to descendancy cases. This constitutional provision is stated clearly on the form used for this purpose; No caveat what so ever. It would appear that the minister have arrogated unto himself the power to decide who is or not an Irish
person in this case; even in the face of an unequivocal Irish citizenship as per the Irish constitution.
It does not matter whether it exists or not for your good self, it was never intended to be for you anyway.
Quite interesting to see that you seems to be able to quickly identify on the evidence of a few posts here that it was never intended for our case. Well that's quite ingenious considering that a few lines earlier you wrote:
I think it is intended to deal more with ancestry.[/b] But, I don't think it is ever evoked to be honest
Dude, it's obvious you are none the wiser about who this is meant for. Neither do you have any specific reference to persons who have been beneficiaries of this scheme. In that case, how about we stop the guess work and get the minister to do the right thing. Point out clearly and categorically who this scheme is meant to serve or better still, safe us all this hazzle and send this the way of the post nuptial citizenship
What Constitutional Rights? The document must be read as a whole
Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons
otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore,
the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
THe latter, you are hardly in this position.
Article 9
1. 1° On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.
2° The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be
determined in accordance with law.
3° No person may be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship by reason of the sex of such person.
2. 1° Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
2° This section shall not apply to persons born before the date of the enactment of this section.
3. Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.
Where is this "unequivocal Irish citizenship as per the Irish constitution"? Granted its there for the child, but where for you?
_____________________-
The IBC erea (1996 - 2004) where non nationals (regardless of status) obtained residency in Ireland on basis of a child being born here, as the law provided that they were Irish citizens automatically.
It is relevant!!! Its relevant on the basis that many of the posters here applied on the basis of blood and affinity ie on the basis that their child was born in Ireland. Review of citizenship laws on basis of marriage and IBC were undertaking in 2000, at the high of the then trends. Marriage was amended in 2001 and again in 2004. IBC, the minister stopped looking at leave to remains, then came the supreme court, then referendum, then 2005 scheme. The Minister was welfare aware of the implications and likelihood of numberous applications for citizenship by 2010-2012. How many single mother IBC parents who were granted residency ever worked and how many claimed welfare - how can they be refused citizenship on their individual basis, yet be granted citizenship on the basis of child/blood etc....? Makes no sense.
By the way, whilst the IBC scheme does not effect an Irish citizen, it does provide conditions on parents - ie crime free, living here, remaining active parent, not relying on social - therefore, there are conditions!
You can not give specifics if the minister has never granted citizenship on the basis of blood affinity! Hence, if you read the artilce I said it is a sop to the disapora. It is a meanignless provision, particularily in light of current events. One thing is for sure, blood affinity most certaintly does not refer to ascendants , as per your case. Unless you are truely blind as to the attitude of the Department of Justice, as then and as now, towards parents who availed of ibc scheme, and in addition to fact that Ben was refused, as so will you (ie on basis of blood affinity) clearly shows there is no guess work on my behalf. More to the point
I have advised in the past, that one should NOT rely on this requirement!!!!!!!!! May 2010
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... 922#353445
I have turned out to be correct (sorry Ben). So Dude, it turns out I actually do know a bit more than what you know .
As for the Minister, being arrogant. Sweet jesus, the legislation gives him the power as per the Parlimanent. Who else should consider who becomes a citizen. No different to UK home office. NAME ME ONE SINGLE COUNTRY THAT GRANTS CITIZENSHIP ON THE BASIS OF BEING A PARENT OF A CITIZEN. With the absolute uptmost respect, as far as the department of justice is concerned, and its statements acknowledged by the court in Bode (high court & supreme court) when the judges refered to State's submissions and also the case of Loebe, some parents of Irish citizen are very lucky to be allowed to stay in Ireland (DO NOT MAKE YOURSELF BELIEVE THAT THIS IS MY OPINION OR ME TRYING TO RISE YOU. IT IS NOT!!!) The court, as seen in Bode Supreme Court, agreed with the State lawyers that the IBC applications were "generious" and good natured of the Minister
(I would agree when you could say pass the sick bucket) But why is IBC relevant? Because, you will be damn well sure, that the Minister, in any court case on this very issue, would strongly rely on how citizenship was obtained in the first place!!!! (whether that is the right moral thing, is another story) THe below committe links will explain that attitude, which has not gone away you know just because McDowell is gone
In a slight comparison,in Europe,at this very milisecond, and subject to the possible change in that Zambro case, the ECJ only gives a very limited right to parents of EU citizens to live here strictly on the basis of a minor child (ascendants).
In addition, the Minister is barely given out decision in an orderly fashion, and is now saying no on basis of penalty points and social welfare claims, for reasons I reverted too in other posts, honestly and accurately, what actually makes you think one would succeed on the grounds people have attempted?
If it was the case that the citizen was not, right now a minor, then , your argument might hold weight , in light of the current law. But it is simple, the Minister wants to reserve the right to consider these people first on their own merits (ie their own application), like any other person who comes to ireland.
Considering Minister's absolute discretion is in place, why should the blood affinity be removed anyway. You and your family are clearly not of a relationship of conection with this country, only after, what? 10 years. It is, was and always will be a limited avenue for people as oppose to the marriage provision.
http://hughgreen.wordpress.com/2010/06/ ... n-an-ipad/
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id= ... -27.1102.0
http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/Country ... reland.pdf
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.as ... All&Page=2
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.as ... All&Page=3
http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates ... 12-03.45.0
(
See ******Section 10****)
http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates ... 2-03.118.0
When time allows, I shall supplement the answer properly with sources. ok.
In the meantime, you should contact Joe Costello TD for Central Dublin City Labour for assistance. If someone had a bit of money , it might be worthwhile challenging the decision. At least there would be caselaw to confirm the position.