I am not an Irish citizen

[Ben]

Respectively,


Because you could hardly call a brother in law (child's uncle) citizenship on the basis of "affinity" and "bloodline", in light of the fact that a spouse is no longer entitled to automatic citizenship. Sorry, but that is not what McDowell had in mind. Check the Dail Committe discussions. It would not make sense and make a mockery of the legilsative requirements. As to the parents, I would have some sympathy, but 5 years is not a long time to wait

For my two cent, McDowell, who was fully against the IBC situation from continuing, made certain, that this would not apply where it involved minor children, as to do so, might make it difficult to justify the 18,000 to 20,000 potential applications for citizenship (figures who obtained ibc05) without the need to be solely assessed on their own basis.

Are there any country who give citizenship to parents (ala Ben's position) and also to uncle/aunt/grandmothers on the basis of nationality of a minor ?

I completely agree with you. We all expected the applications to be refused, but the law made provision for us to apply under a specified category, we did, we were refused.

It's not a problem. We'll still continue living here. We just don't get to vote in the next referendum, that's all.

[ciaramc]

Sorry Ben didn't catch that......hahaha I've been Italianized! Here everything is permit this and permit that!LOL

[9jeirean]

Because you could hardly call a brother in law (child's uncle) citizenship on the basis of "affinity" and "bloodline", in light of the fact that a spouse is no longer entitled to automatic citizenship. Sorry, but that is not what McDowell had in mind.

Would you by chance have an idea what group or sort of relationship the minister had in mind. Do you have any reference to anyone that has been naturalized via this route?

............. but 5 years is not a long time to wait

Fair enough, so why then do this pathway to naturalization still exists? Why has it not gone the way of post-nuptial citizenship?

[Obie]

Hi Obie,

In relation to the highlighted part of your post above. I am not entirely sure that is the case. Let me relate our experience: Our first child was born outside of Ireland; He is still a minor. Our second child was born in Ireland and has an Irish citizenship (born before the rule changed in 2005). So then we applied for naturalization for our first child on the basis of having a blood tie to an Irish citizen. All necessary documentations to that effect provided and acknowleged by the DoJ. The application was refused. can't remember exactly what the wording of the reason was but basically the minister had not be convinced that whatever "blood/affinity" existed btw my first and 2nd child was strong enough in that case. He had subsequently been naturalized following my own naturalization.

It would be interesting to refer to someone who had been naturalized via this route to appraise what sort of relationship existed between them and he Irish citizen. Until then, IMO, I think this is another of those winky winky policies that was put in place to be used if and when it suits the minister.

I believe the form 10 , which is usually used for that purposed mentioned minor children, and the list of documentation they requested for this sort of application are related to minor children, so it might be safe to assume it relates to minor children who are related to an Irish national by blood or affinity.

Section 16(2) defines Irish associations as meaning ‘related by blood affinity or adoption to a person who is an Irish citizen’. You must submit documentation proving your Irish association or Irish decent as stated in question 3.4.

Section 16(2) or any other part of the constitution should have stated the beneficiary of this concessions more clearly, to prevent misunderstanding.

[9jeirean]

I believe the form 10 , which is usually used for that purposed mentioned minor children, and the list of documentation they requested for this sort of application are related to minor children, so it might be safe to assume it relates to minor children who are related to an Irish national by blood or affinity.

Section 16(2) defines Irish associations as meaning ‘related by blood affinity or adoption to a person who is an Irish citizen’. You must submit documentation proving your Irish association or Irish decent as stated in question 3.4.

Section 16(2) or any other part of the constitution should have stated the beneficiary of this concessions more clearly, to prevent misunderstanding.

You are right about the form 10 Obie. Actually, I remember directing Ben in that direction at the time he was about making the application. What I was pointing out was that based on our experence as I highlighted above and many more that I know, many of such minors with verifiable 'blood affinity' have been refused by the minister.

The highlighted part of your post above remains the crux of the matter. A simple list of blood relationships that qualifies under the 'blood affinity' rule would suffice.

[walrusgumble]

Because you could hardly call a brother in law (child's uncle) citizenship on the basis of "affinity" and "bloodline", in light of the fact that a spouse is no longer entitled to automatic citizenship. Sorry, but that is not what McDowell had in mind.

Would you by chance have an idea what group or sort of relationship the minister had in mind. Do you have any reference to anyone that has been naturalized via this route?

............. but 5 years is not a long time to wait

Fair enough, so why then do this pathway to naturalization still exists? Why has it not gone the way of post-nuptial citizenship?

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

[9jeirean]

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

[walrusgumble]

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.

[walrusgumble]

mistake . mods please delete

[walrusgumble]

[mistake again, sorry, mods please delete

[9jeirean]

@Walrusgumble:

Wow! Such a very lengthy, quite detailed but utterly irrelevant pointless piece

You will save yourself a lot of time and energy if you try and focus on the facts put before you and let it inform the premise of your arguments. To be honest, I'll say 90% of what you have up there has no bearing to the points I have raised. I'll suggest you go back please and read all the FACTS of the case point I presented here. as a matter of fact, if you did, you would have realized that the very limited useful part of your little 'thesis' above actually reinforced the point i was making. All of my 4 previous posts on this thread states clearly the FACTS of my child's case which is the basis for discussion here. Please Go back, read it and be informed. I am sorry dude, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own FACTS. Not at the least if it relates to what happened to me, so stop making up the FACT of my case for me ok.

I have stated clearly and categorically in my first post and the preceding posts here that the application in question relates to the contention about whether my second child should qualify under the blood affinity clause with his younger brother. As i stated in the preceding post no member of my family has been here or is here on IBC basis. Do you get that now?! If you have any counter argument let it be on the basis of that fact or better still, pack up your red herrings and move on. Can I suggest that if you have any bone to pick re IBC ala parents claiming residency/naturalization on that basis, please do not lump that up with the facts of my case here.

Since you have hitherto, not provided any coherent answer or reliable link to the two initial questions that necessitated this discussions. There's no point continuing this as am not in the mood for unnecessary pedantry at the mo.

As for contacting Mr. Watchamacallit TD, I dont need your pointer, trust me I know where to get reliable info and necessary help if i need one. As I said, if you had read my previous posts you would have realized that I stated that the children in question and both of us their parents are now irish citizens. Even if we are not, we know where to go and we can smell bollocks from miles afar so pack it up.

Slan

[walrusgumble]

@Walrusgumble:

Wow! Such a very lengthy, quite detailed but utterly irrelevant pointless piece

You will save yourself a lot of time and energy if you try and focus on the facts put before you and let it inform the premise of your arguments. To be honest, I'll say 90% of what you have up there has no bearing to the points I have raised. I'll suggest you go back please and read all the FACTS of the case point I presented here. as a matter of fact, if you did, you would have realized that the very limited useful part of your little 'thesis' above actually reinforced the point i was making. All of my 4 previous posts on this thread states clearly the FACTS of my child's case which is the basis for discussion here. Please Go back, read it and be informed. I am sorry dude, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own FACTS. Not at the least if it relates to what happened to me, so stop making up the FACT of my case for me ok.

I have stated clearly and categorically in my first post and the preceding posts here that the application in question relates to the contention about whether my second child should qualify under the blood affinity clause with his younger brother. As i stated in the preceding post no member of my family has been here or is here on IBC basis. Do you get that now?! If you have any counter argument let it be on the basis of that fact or better still, pack up your red herrings and move on. Can I suggest that if you have any bone to pick re IBC ala parents claiming residency/naturalization on that basis, please do not lump that up with the facts of my case here.

Since you have hitherto, not provided any coherent answer or reliable link to the two initial questions that necessitated this discussions. There's no point continuing this as am not in the mood for unnecessary pedantry at the mo.

As for contacting Mr. Watchamacallit TD, I dont need your pointer, trust me I know where to get reliable info and necessary help if i need one. As I said, if you had read my previous posts you would have realized that I stated that the children in question and both of us their parents are now irish citizens. Even if we are not, we know where to go and we can smell bullocks from miles afar so pack it up.

Slan

I have recently modified the answer, since you wrote that. so read again, if you are able.

But to point out to you, these responses are not for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who are asking what the grounds are for citizenship on blood line. You asked for sources, I give you sources, you do not want to read them, or are trying to shift the goal posts, fine that is your right. Have you read the links? What part of your question / statement remains to be answered?

Whether you think it is irrevelant is quite frankly irrelevant. Why? Because I have turned out to be correct!!! Maybe checking what ancesty means in a dictionary would help! My statements were not for your benefit only. It covers all positions on those who have applied under blood affinity, whether you personally applied (as did BEN who applied also on behalf of his brother in law)

As follows , from Senand Eireann meeting, the then Minister for Justice

http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates ... 2-03.118.0

"The law on citizenship is as follows: the Irish State can, when the Executive advises the President, confer citizenship as a token of honour on somebody who has done signal service to the Irish nation, under section 12 of the 1956 Act. That is full citizenship, not honorary in the sense of being an honorary member of a golf club or whatever, but conferred as a matter of honour on the person.

This section gives meaning to the term “Irish associationsâ€

[fatty patty]

Sorry but isn't the word bloodline means that if i had a child i am related to him/her by blood. Regardless of my child got there citizenship through mum/dad being a native caucasian Irish or through pre 2005 IBC rules, they are IRISH...right? SO...question is (and i am trying to say in layman's terms & not trying to bamboozle with paragraph after paragraph of rebuttals) isn't this is the very point of this rule being blood related? Wether its grandson related by blood to grandfather or grandfather related to blood to grandson? and if not then the minister is going against his words (which is not the first). And he should make the legislation more and more clear. I know minister wants it to be grandson related to grandfather rule and not vice versa but still he should make this clear!

As far as state being greedy is concerned it wasn't just clinton morrisson (he can't score an open goal daft decision to grant him irish citizenship and being associated with sh*te crystal palace ) its Steven Reid/McGeady oldies like Coyle/Houghton/Cascarino and many others. What i meant was when it suits FAI rules are applied (and i meant in a joke term). Mind you if they start giving Irish citizenship to those Irish Argentinians, Ireland will win euro chamnpionship and FAI don't need to beg English rejects! (i'm not refering to any of the footballers above)

mistake . mods please delete

[mistake again, sorry, mods please delete

So that's how you got to the SAGE status!

[Southern_Sky]

Apparently, the 'Bloodline' they refer to pertains only to antecedents and not descendants

[walrusgumble]

Sorry but isn't the word bloodline means that if i had a child i am related to him/her by blood. Regardless of my child got there citizenship through mum/dad being a native caucasian Irish or through pre 2005 IBC rules, they are IRISH...right? SO...question is (and i am trying to say in layman's terms & not trying to bamboozle with paragraph after paragraph of rebuttals) isn't this is the very point of this rule being blood related? Wether its grandson related by blood to grandfather or grandfather related to blood to grandson? and if not then the minister is going against his words (which is not the first). And he should make the legislation more and more clear. I know minister wants it to be grandson related to grandfather rule and not vice versa but still he should make this clear!

As far as state being greedy is concerned it wasn't just clinton morrisson (he can't score an open goal daft decision to grant him irish citizenship and being associated with sh*te crystal palace ) its Steven Reid/McGeady oldies like Coyle/Houghton/Cascarino and many others. What i meant was when it suits FAI rules are applied (and i meant in a joke term). Mind you if they start giving Irish citizenship to those Irish Argentinians, Ireland will win euro chamnpionship and FAI don't need to beg English rejects! (i'm not refering to any of the footballers above)

mistake . mods please delete

[mistake again, sorry, mods please delete

So that's how you got to the SAGE status!

What does Sage status mean? No, a mistake was made by me when editing the previous post, i pressed quote as oppose to edit. Made a hash of it. there was no point having similar posts. If yo can suggest how to delete same, that you be helpful.

As for the citizenship and the footballers. My god you are either showing your arrogance. . Clinton Morrisson, was entitled to Irish Citizenship as of Birth, even if he sounds more Only Fools n Horses than Fair CIty. The state or FAI did not "grant him irish citizenship". A member of his family is Irish. If you said, grant him an Irish Cap, then fair enough. Clinton has a very decent goal-game ratio for Ireland btw and was on form during that period and was treated badly by Steve Bruce at Birmingham(whose's son is capped as an Irish International - we are bad but we are not that bad, that was really strange) Fair enough about him, shame though.

Good job ye didn't treat John Barnes (I am not a liverpool fan, but he is a legend) with the the same then, wasn't he an immigrant's son? (albeit still part of the commonwealth). what about Owen Harvegreaves .The Welsh and Scots are just as bad. For a time, Lennox Lewis seemed to have a nationality crisis for a while (legend)

Coyle as in Tommy(great) and/or Owne Coyle (one cap wonder)?. Hang on, you seriously saying that players John Alridge and Houghton were not bothered about playing for the Republic? McGeady comes from Glasgow Celtic, what would you expect - McGeady actually played underage football for Ireland, Reid also played U21

You seem to forget, that it is sometimes the PLAYERS themselves who write to the FAI seeking to provide their services. None of these lads you named were held up with a gun and forced to play for Ireland. Whether they were crap or not, they agreed to play for Ireland. I accept though, as you would point out, some will play for anyone as long as its international football. Look at Robbie Blake & Jamacia. You will probably also say, the said players , or all, would never have donned the shirt if Scotland/England or other better teams came calling. Fair enough, i guess. Considering the huge Irish population in Britian, there were/are bount to be players who consider themselves more Irish - as you know the plastic paddy (Rooney could have played for us, probably thought better, but least he would be treated better here)

its Steven Reid/McGeady oldies like Coyle/Houghton/Cascarino and many others. What i meant was when it suits FAI rules are applied (and i meant in a joke term). Mind you if they start giving Irish citizenship to those Irish Argentinians, Ireland will win euro chamnpionship and FAI don't need to beg English rejects! (i'm not refering to any of the footballers above)

FAI or FIFA have no power over citizenship and an English person's ability to play for another Football Assocation / Country where they have links (provided he has not already played for another country) - you know this

SOme how, i doubt the Irish Argies would be any good. I doubt they have the Maradonna esqiue finnese. Ireland hardly beg for "England rejects" - for a country that is under performing and under achieving that is extermely arrogant - but then again, its a trait the soccer world has become accustomed too.

How can some of them be rejects if they were never considered. No doubt you can think of quality english players who have been inexplicable ignored by the national team mananger like taylor, venables etc. Call them rejects?


If you had said steeling, considering the countries history and some Irish quarters (wrongly mind) blaming all the past ills of another country, One could see how delicious the irony would be. No one seems to have problems with the past and current French team? Was Ruud Guillt born in the Netherlands?

Seriously though, you could not question the commitment of the players like Houghton, Townsend, Phelan, Lauro, whilst they wore that jersey. Being so called rejects must not have looked funny for England. We have played a few times in the last thirty years, and ye have never beaten us, wehn ye should. It took a few louts to ruin a good game (and possible beating) the last time round.

As for the current crop, English and Irish, as bad as our lads are, as least we know that they are committed to the jersey. Most or all the team's main players are Irish born btw: Given, Hunt, Duff, Keane, Doyle, Fahey, Gibson (island), Long, O'Shea. The English born lads are as much Irish as the Irish - Argies - so that makes no sense (just the assumption that the Argies would be better of course ) Can ye ask Kevin Nolan to come over though Kilbane, was not always a donkey, though how he got all those caps is one of the seven mysterious of the world. Folan might be of use. Laurence is handy. Scotland can take back McGeady, he is useless and full of himself

As for the Euro's. Maybe, had Saipan not happen, maybe 2004 might have been the best time (obviously having qualified) That 2002 team was the best team we have had since 1990