No-one under 67 has a Constitutional Right to Irish Citizenship

by Sceptical Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:26

All this ould "British Citizenship" lark seem like a lot of ould bollix to me ....

I mean it seem to have all been introduced recently. The first "ceremony" was on 26 Feb. 2004 according to this press release ...
http://www.uknationality.gov.uk/british_citizenship/english/homepage/press/prince_of_wales_to.html

My theory for what it's worth is that it' all a PR effort to counter rising republican sentiment in the UK ....

by Robbie Fri Jun 11, 2004 17:03

I am bald; likewise, I have no hair. I have hair, otherwise, I am bald.

I am blind in one eye, otherwise, I can see; I am blind in one eye, and likewise in the other.

Like ‘national’ and ‘citizen’, such concepts tend to overlap, and more likely, a person can be both.(in whatever degree) at the same time. As the Constitution allows for evolving interpretations through our judiciary, it is beyond me that these paragons of intellect would continue to assume the opposite to what is written. The intent in 1998, may have been an implicit assumption through the use of ‘otherwise’, that blue meant red and red blue, likewise, an explicit statement could not alter the difference in concept between the two. Otherwise, language is pointless.

Unless of course, jurisprudence has concocted its own specialised language, the more to carve up the knowledge and power so that it is in the sole domain of the legal profession. If this be true, the law is no way sovreign (from the people), and a pox on it for all that and more.

by Constitutional Law Student Thu Jun 10, 2004 13:40

What the Constitution says is

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.....

The key words are "otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland" This implies that every person born in the island of Ireland is a citizen.

by Robbie Wed Jun 09, 2004 23:43

'nation' like 'god' are mystical concepts, such as law itself.

Citizens of Bosnia can be members of the Serb, Croat or Bosniak nation. Citizens of Romania can be members of the Hungarian, Ukrainian, Greek, or Croatian nations (Romany not being officially recognized in the census). Citizens of Spain can be members of the Catalan, Basque or Galician nation, if not Castillianos (assumed to be Spanish nationals).

Nation is related to ethnicity, and not to land. Citizenship is related to civic rights and duties in a territory known as a state. Their Constitution seems to say that a baby gains Irish ethnicity (whatever that is), by virtue of bf its being born in Ireland. Does the soil or air of this island really have such mystical properties?

Even 'otherwise', which could be interpreted as another way to achieve membership of the nation - the subject of Article 2 (as opposed to Citizenship - the subject of Article 9); since the concepts of nationality and citizenship are quite different, a reading favourable to your argument, could not square this circle.

by Constitutional Law Student Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:17

Being part of "the nation" means nothing. But the word used is "otherwise" which means that like those qualified by law, those born are also entitled to be Irish citizens. If referendum is passed there will be a contradiction written into the constitution. I wonder what the Supreme Court would say if someone claimed citizenship under article 2.

by Robbie - Robbie Wed Jun 09, 2004 03:45

I recant. ‘likewise’ or 'otherwise' could notbe explicit enough to have the language changed so that nation mean citizen or citizen mean nation.

Furthermore (uhem, melad), lest their be any confusion with the limitations of English, things are no more clear in nGaeilge. S’é an téacst den bhunreact á leannas.

Tá gach duine a shaolaítear in oileán na hÉireann, ar a n-áirítear a oileáin agus a fharraigí, i dteideal, agus tá de cheart oidhreachta aige nó aici, a bheith páirteach i náisiún na hÉireann. Tá an teideal sin freisin ag na daoine go léir atá cáilithe ar shlí eile de réir dlí chun bheith ina saoránaigh d’Éirinn. Ina theannta sin, is mór ag náisiún na hÉireann a choibhneas speisialta le daoine de bhunadh na hÉireann atá ina gcónaí ar an gcoigríoch agus arb ionann féiniúlacht agus oidhreacht chultúir dóibh agus do náisiún na hÉireann.

[Translation of second sentence]: Everyone has that title too, who is qualified in the other way, according to law, to be a citizen of Ireland].

The other way of being ?a member of the nation'?
The same applies to the English version.

If law was clear, we would own it. But those who have money, not only own it, but interpret it.

Síos leis an mBunreacht

Down with the law and interpretation of the wealthy.

I demer to above discussion, since it obviously is of more interest to our 'anarchis' literati.

by Robbie Tue Jun 08, 2004 20:02

The second line of Article 2 you refer to is 'That [membership of the Irish Nation[first line]] is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland'.

If your interpretation were correct, the word would be 'likewise', not 'otherwise'.

In other words, as it stands, if you're enetitled to be a citizen because of 'law', then you are entitled to be a member of the Irish nation: tautoligy indeed.

However, the other way round is not said, and this would not be tautology. It does not say that if you are entitled to be a member of the Irish nation, then you are an Irish citizen.

Many people I know from England and America, who still consider themselves to be Irish (by virtue of parentage and culture etc.), are not Irish citizens, even if they do have entitlement (by legislation) to be so.

The point still stands, that legislation, and not the Constitution, gives people the right to Irish citizenship on their being born in Ireland, and this wall not change after this sham of a referendum.

by Constitutional Law Student Tue Jun 08, 2004 16:20

Under Article 2 (the new one) it gives citizenship to those OTHERWISE qualified to be citizens of Ireland. The word "otherwise" in Article 2 is what gives all born in Ireland citizenship.

Of course anyone that is a citizen of the Irish Free State were given Citizenship of Ireland in 1937. In effect this is a transitional clause and is redundant with the new Article 2.

by jeepjeep Mon Jun 07, 2004 15:15

I'm not a subject of the House of Windsor. I'm a Citizen of the United Kindom, and I swear allegiance to my Queen-in-Parliament, which means I'm a subject of the state, the embodiment of which is The Parliament, the Courts and the Queen.

So don't think that writing FACT in capital LETTERS helps your case.

by The Hun Mon Jun 07, 2004 15:12

There is a fundamental difference between the concept 'British Citizen' and 'British Subject'

The 'British Citizen' is someone who has UK nationality and an incontestible right to reside in the United Kingdom and its territories. This is known as 'Rigth of Abode' Anybody born in the UK with at least one parent a British Citizen is a British Citizen at birth. (but not the Overseas Territories.)

A Subject's status is like owning an affiliates card but not a passport. You need to use it alonside a 'right to abode' cert.

You became a British subject if you were, on 31 December 1982 or after:

a British subject without citizenship, or
a British subject because you made a claim under section 2 of the British Nationality Act 1948 or
a British subject by registration under the British Nationality Act 1965.

If you are a British subject, and you get any other citizenship or nationality after 1 January 1983, you will no longer be a British subject unless you used to be a citizen of Eire and have made a claim to remain a British subject under section 2 of the British Nationality Act 1948 (see paragraph 2) or under the 1981 Act (see paragraph 3).

It's all very confusing, but it's clear that in the UK system, birth in the territory only gives you at the very most, the same level of 'citizenship' that one or more of your parents have.

For instance, I was born in Northern Ireland of two British Citizens, and therefore I am a British Citizen by right and, should I so wish, an Irish Citizen. I don't want Irish Citizenship, so that's alright then.

Dave, my friend, is from Zimbabwe, a member of the British Commonwealth. He's a Commonwealth citizen, and, since he is not stateless, any kid he has with Geraldine, his British girlfriend, could be either a British Citizen, a Zimbabwe Citizen (and therefore a Commonwealth Citizen) but could not be a British Subject.

Claire, a french friend, is currently living with Dieter, from Germany. They both want to live in the UK for the rest of their lives, but don't want to become British Citizens ( http://www.uknationality.gov.uk/content/british_citizenship/english/homepage.html ) and therefore their child will be screwed. Probably taken into care, I shouldn't wonder.

Anyway, back to work.

by Lone Gunman Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:42

The older[blue] british passports.It is British subject.

by walter bagehot Mon Jun 07, 2004 09:22

Yes Robbie .... I am sure that that's what counts and that full support for your position can be found in the (ahem ... unwritten) UK constitution ....

However, the FACT remains that so-called "British citizens" are subjects of the House of Windsor ..... even if this does not appear in writing on the passports .......

by Robbie Mon Jun 07, 2004 06:49

Under nationality on a british passport, is written 'British citizen', as opposed to subjects.

by Lizzie Sun Jun 06, 2004 14:50

...when you refer to someone as a ‘British Citizen’, I take it you mean 'British Subject'. After all. you must not offend the house of Windsor.
Keep your head.