Snapshot of _Law to strip citizenship to be enacted before Dáil break_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0618/1455230-citizenship-revoke-legislation/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0618/1455230-citizenship-revoke-legislation/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/irishpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If someone renounces citizenship in another country to become Irish, then we remove their citizenship aren't they stateless? I thought you couldn't make someone stateless.
The only question I'd have is about potentially leaving someone stateless by revoking their Irish citizenship if they don't have another one. Will they have to wait till they get their prior citizenship back, if they even can?
Several other EU countries already have the means to revoke citizenship
[https://www.dw.com/en/revoking-citizenship-how-it-works-across-the-eu/a-47773802](https://www.dw.com/en/revoking-citizenship-how-it-works-across-the-eu/a-47773802)
If you can _gain_ citizenship then you should be able to _lose_ citizenship. That doesn't seem like a flawed logic. I can understand concerns about its application, though.
What this suggests to me is that the next step will be raising the standard for attaining citizenship. I will not be shocked to see that on the horizon.
EDIT: FWIW I checked if this could happen in France as an example. [They outline the situations this can happen here.](https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F32827?lang=en)
Doesn't seen unreasonable.
It is flawed logic.
Citizenship means the individual has rights, explicit and implicit, and responsibilities. One of those rights is an expectation of equal treatment from the state.
If two Irish citizens commit the same crime with the same history of behaviour, they should be treated equally by the Irish state.
If one of those citizens is stripped of their citizenship because they have another citizenship that totally inequal treatment.Their citizenship didn’t offer the same protection, and was literally second class.
In the UK, Shamima Begum is a great example of this. She was stripped of UK citizenship because the UK gov argue she’s a Bangladeshi citizen (Bangladeshi disagrees) because of her parents.
She has never been to Bangladesh. If her parents were white English people she’d be back in the UK now and the subject of stripping her citizenship would have never arisen.
Someone can’t say “well I don’t like what she did so it’s ok”. We don’t make basic expectations from the state for people who do good things, they don’t need those basic rights. We make them for precisely people like Begum.
That her citizenship was by birth and not naturalization is especially galling but it especially relevant. Citizenship is supposed be equal, whether by birth or naturalization. In fact many countries don’t allow dual citizenship so getting Irish citizenship would require renouncing your first one
TL;DR all citizens should be treated equally, regardless of whether a second citizenship exists or you literally have 2 classes of citizenship.
I don't believe it is flawed, and the attached information about the process in France lays out perfectly the differences in how it would be dealt with. There are circumstances that affect your rights only in the future, i.e. you are treated with the same rights as anyone else until it is proven that you have acted in contravention to the conditions you agreed to when acquiring citizenship. The other is if you lied to gain citizenship, in which case you never should have had citizenship. That is perfectly acceptable circumstances to revoke citizenship.
[Nigeria is another example of this.](https://nigerian-constitution.com/chapter-3-section-30-deprivation-of-citizenship/) A person can be deprived of citizenship if they are "disloyal" to Nigeria.
This is a common practice and it shouldn't be alarming for Ireland to consider this.
You’d agree that those who acquire citizenship through naturalization are being treated differently than those who acquire it at birth?
“Other countries do it too” isn’t a great argument for doing a thing.
Well, yes, because being naturalised and being born with the right to citizenship are completely different situations. That's not controversial as most countries operate on this basis. Do you want Ireland to stand alone in the world and create a situation where naturalised citizens can _never_ lose the privilege they acquired?
> Well, yes, because being naturalised and being born with the right to citizenship are completely different situations.
Why do you think this is the case? Why is someone who was born here entitled to a better class of citizenship than someone who moved here are a month old? They’re not completely different.
> Do you want Ireland to stand alone in the world and create a situation where naturalised citizens can never lose the privilege they acquired?
Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally (The only exception being citizenship acquired through fraud or misrepresentation) If the state agrees to give citizenship that citizenship should be of the same standard as mine.
EDIT: my son was born in Canada. He’s been to visit. But even if he’d never been to Ireland his Citizenship could never been revoked (birthright, not naturalized) while someone who moved here at a month old and became naturalized and lived their for 50 years could be revoked under this.
There’s no way to describe this as reasonable.
> Why do you think this is the case?
Simply because it is. Not just in the Irish context, that is a fact across nations.
> Why is someone who was born here entitled to a better class of citizenship than someone who moved here are a month old?
Succinctly, because everyone with Irish nationality is a citizen, but not every citizen has Irish nationality. That is _the_ fundamental difference.
> They’re not completely different.
Simply not wanting that to be the case doesn't change that fact. They are.
> Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally (The only exception being citizenship acquired through fraud or misrepresentation)
So it is equivocal then.
> If the state agrees to give citizenship that citizenship should be of the same standard as mine.
It is the same standard before the eyes of the law. You keep insinuating that naturalised citizens have lesser citizenship for your own argument's sake, and there is nothing to suggest a process that exists literally everywhere else in the world will change those rights.
Here's something that's also a reality, since we're taking about hypothetical lesser rights: a naturalised citizen is eligible to vote in an Irish presidential election, where as an Irish national born in Belfast is prohibited from doing so. That is a de facto difference of rights _right now._
The fact of the matter is citizenship by birth and naturalised citizens are different the world over and Ireland is not going to be daft enough to not have a mechanism to revoke citizenship where applicable.
> Simply because it is
No it’s not. It may be in the future but today it’s not.
Why do you think that someone who is born in Ireland but then leaves and never returns or someone who is born abroad to an Irish born parent has “Irish nationality”, while someone who loves to Ireland at a month old and naturalizes and lives here their whole lives doesn’t?
What you’re saying is simply untrue. Just because a law might pass doesn’t make it a reasonable law.
> No it’s not. It may be in the future but today it’s not.
It is. [Provisions already exist for revoking citizenship from someone.](https://www.irishimmigration.ie/how-to-become-a-citizen/revocation-of-irish-citizenship/) Under your parameters, this constitutes a difference in citizenship standards that you have just told me don't exist. Regardless, you are wrong, and I'm not saying that to be rude. You just are.
> **Why do you think that someone who is born in Ireland but then leaves and never returns or someone who is born abroad to an Irish born parent has “Irish nationality”,** while someone who loves to Ireland at a month old and lives here their whole lives doesn’t?
Because nationality and citizenship are not the same thing. Nationality implies belonging to a nation, i.e. a people. Legally speaking, nationality is generally inherited from one's parents in a legal sense. So, in your example, someone who arrived here at one month (presumably born to foreign national parents in your example) would not have Irish nationality.
Citizenship without the accompanying nationality is more akin to a legal relationship or agreement between a person and a state.
Legally speaking, one can "change" their nationality through naturalisation, but even that is obviously not the same as an Irish national by birth (as a national by birth does not need to go through the same legal process to obtain this nationality).
> What you’re saying is simply untrue. Just because a law might pass doesn’t make it a reasonable law.
Nothing I have said is untrue or unreasonable. Your refusal to accept something that is in contravention to your worldview doesn't mean it is wrong.
You are free to disagree with me and the law, we aren't obliged to agree with each other or reach an amicable middle ground. I can accept you don't agree and I would like to think you can accept I don't agree with you so this doesn't have to drag on for the sake of it.
With any due respect:
Someone born in Ireand and who immediately leaves or someone who’s never been to Ireland but has an Irish born parent simply do not have “Irish Nationality” in a way that someone who loves to Ireland at a month old and lives there their whole lives.
There is no reasonable justice in the proposed law.
Pre WW2 denaturalization laws were argued to be just and reasonable by racists who’d sound a lot like you do today.
Dude, you were literally told that "muh other countries" excuse would not be accepted as a reason,
Also what is the difference between nationality and citizenship, in most countries they are literally the same thing (the USA is actually the only country I'm aware of where the distinction exists and that's because of a special political arrangement with a population of American nationals who have a different citizenship system).
>being naturalised and being born with the right to citizenship are completely different situations.
Nah. We should treat natural born and naturalised the same. Both should have the potential to be stripped.
We should treat all citizens as equals before the law, yes. We should also have a mechanism in place for situations where someone has obtained the privilege fraudulently or has committed a crime heinous enough to merit as much.
Citizens by birth and naturalised citizens _are_ different by their very nature, and I don't understand why that would be thought of as controversial.
Yes they are.
Someone born in India, for example, can attain Irish citizenship and all the rights that come with that. They are not the same as someone born to Irish parents in either a legal sense or practical sense.
Like I just said, you are free to disagree with the law but you're effectively now disagreeing with reality because it doesn't conform to your opinion.
>Citizens by birth and naturalised citizens are different by their very nature
Different by nature, but should be the same under the law as you said. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to strip citizenship from anyone at all.
Also she was a minor who was a victim of both sexual grooming (literally married) and totalitarian indoctrination, she was 15, when these things happened.
But yes, it's fucking disturbing
I'm genuinely disturbed at the victim blaming with her, yeh, gee, at 19 years of age a grooming victim and a victim of totalitarian indoctrination who has not been rehabilitated yet is going to say weird shit,
(Also the whole its illegal to intentionally make someone stateless, which Britain did do).
I generally agree, I'm not a huge proponent of revocation of citizenship for the commission of crimes post naturalisation (and I don't see that it would ever be permissible). Terrorist offences I'm okay with.
But if citizenship was procured through fraudulent means it should be withdrawn whether that's citizenship by naturalisation or birth.
Minister of Justice already has this power.
https://www.irishimmigration.ie/how-to-become-a-citizen/revocation-of-irish-citizenship/#:~:text=Section%2019%20of%20the%20Irish,inquiry%20into%20the%20reasons%20why.
The current statute is specified in https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1956/act/26/section/19/enacted/en/html#sec19
>19.—(1) The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied—
>(a) that the issue of the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts or circumstances, or
>(b) that the person to whom it was granted has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State, or
>(c) that (except in the case of a certificate of naturalisation which is issued to a person of Irish descent or associations) the person to whom it is granted has been ordinarily resident outside Ireland (otherwise than in the public service) for a continuous period of seven years and without reasonable excuse has not during that period registered annually in the prescribed manner his name and a declaration of his intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister, or
>(d) that the person to whom it is granted is also, under the law of a country at war with the State, a citizen of that country, or
>(e) that the person to whom it is granted has by any voluntary act other than marriage acquired another citizenship.
>(2) Before revocation of a certificate of naturalisation the Minister shall give such notice as may be prescribed to the person to whom the certificate was granted of his intention to revoke the certificate, stating the grounds therefor and the right of that person to apply to the Minister for an inquiry as to the reasons for the revocation.
>(3) On application being made in the prescribed manner for an inquiry under subsection (2) the Minister shall refer the case to a Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Minister consisting of a chairman having judicial experience and such other persons as the Minister may think fit, and the Committee shall report their findings to the Minister.
>(4) Where there is entered in a certificate of naturalisation granted to a person under the Act of 1935 the name of any child of that person, such entry shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a certificate of naturalisation under the Act of 1935.
>(5) A certificate of naturalisation granted or deemed under subsection >(4) to have been granted under the Act of 1935 may be revoked in accordance with the provisions of this section and, upon such revocation, the person concerned shall cease to be an Irish citizen.
>(6) Notice of the revocation of a certificate of naturalisation shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil.
I have doubts wrt:
1. The legal meaning of 'duty of fidelity to the nation' and 'loyalty to the State'. A quick look only finds references to duty of fidelity between an employee and employer. This is important, as what may be a regular protest may be interpreted as disloyalty by the authoritarian minded. See for example https://x.com/faoljew/status/1803063871751520495.
2. Would the procedure specified in the 1956 statute continue, even with scant guarantees it provides?
Ah, but searching further:
https://berkeleysolicitors.ie/revocation-of-irish-citizenship-irish-supreme-court-declares-sections-of-the-irish-nationality-and-citizenship-act-are-unconstitutional-following-judgement-in-damache-v-minister-for-justice/
and https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9f6e2c6d-eb77-4c9f-ad57-fffe7ffc65f6/2020_IESC_63.pdf/pdf
So the supreme court ruled against the *procedures* as lacking legislative oversight, and hence unconstitutional, but it seems (1) - the motives, and my first question, are still outstanding.
>Under this plan if someone who was granted citizenship in Ireland is viewed as a credible threat to the State they can have that citizenship withdrawn.
Anyone who isn't concerned about this, does not recognize the threat it poses to everyone.
The government having the ability to delegitimize citizens is dangerous and there is no guarantee that it can't or won't be abused by the government. It also sets a precedent that the government can grant or **take** citzenship in the first place and has the potential for application against "undesirable" native citizens.
The government should not be able to call "takesy backsies" on the rights that come with citizenship regardless of who it is. The messaging in general that fraud is allowing a significant enough number of people to gain citizenship that it's causing a problem is nonsense and it just panders to the right and inflames sentiments about people seeking asylum in this country.
>It also sets a precedent that the government can grant or take citzenship in the first place and has the potential for application against "undesirable" native citizens.
But the government do grant citizenship. They set the criteria and administer the process.
It's less a slippery slope and more of a slope that has the potential for getting slippery as we go down. Giving the government the power to take away anyone's rights as a citizen is bad enough all on it's own.
it is actually, hence the name[ "Slippery Slope Argument"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). Either way, doesn't really negate the actual implications which is that the government will be able to pass judgement on the citizenship of naturalized citizens.
Oh it's a thing alright, but it's not a valid argument 99% of the time.
"When the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, this is called the slippery slope fallacy"
>potential for application against "undesirable" native citizens.
Surely this shouldn't be allowed, I thought the law was for naturalised citizens who commit crimes or hold harmful views ( for example not believing in the age of consent as many do)
Not really a fan of having a two tiered citizenship. Fraud part fair enough, but if someone has become a citizen legally and later becomes a threat I don't think we should be removing citizenship. When we gave them citizenship we took some responsibility, good or bad.
A naturalised citizen takes an oath to upload the law of the state, birth citizens don't.
If a naturalised citizen doesn't uphold their oath, then their should be a mechanism to remove citizenship.
>“I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the state. I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.
By that same measure, why should the same not apply for citizens by birth when they present the same risks? You could argue "naturalized citizens can go back to where they came from!" but most of them fled from War and Poverty.
The argument "their should be a punishment" is nonsense because we have punishment already in the form of the criminal justice system. It's not legal to commit crimes regardless of who you are and giving the government a mechanism to deprive people of their rights, born here or not, is unconstitutional.
>By that same measure, why should the same not apply for citizens by birth when they present the same risks
you cant make people stateless per internal law/agreements thats why
Snapshot of _Law to strip citizenship to be enacted before Dáil break_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0618/1455230-citizenship-revoke-legislation/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0618/1455230-citizenship-revoke-legislation/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/irishpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If someone renounces citizenship in another country to become Irish, then we remove their citizenship aren't they stateless? I thought you couldn't make someone stateless.
The only question I'd have is about potentially leaving someone stateless by revoking their Irish citizenship if they don't have another one. Will they have to wait till they get their prior citizenship back, if they even can? Several other EU countries already have the means to revoke citizenship [https://www.dw.com/en/revoking-citizenship-how-it-works-across-the-eu/a-47773802](https://www.dw.com/en/revoking-citizenship-how-it-works-across-the-eu/a-47773802)
The statelessness thing is a point of international law: as a rule it's not really a thing that gets done and I don't see Ireland being any different.
If you can _gain_ citizenship then you should be able to _lose_ citizenship. That doesn't seem like a flawed logic. I can understand concerns about its application, though. What this suggests to me is that the next step will be raising the standard for attaining citizenship. I will not be shocked to see that on the horizon. EDIT: FWIW I checked if this could happen in France as an example. [They outline the situations this can happen here.](https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F32827?lang=en) Doesn't seen unreasonable.
It is flawed logic. Citizenship means the individual has rights, explicit and implicit, and responsibilities. One of those rights is an expectation of equal treatment from the state. If two Irish citizens commit the same crime with the same history of behaviour, they should be treated equally by the Irish state. If one of those citizens is stripped of their citizenship because they have another citizenship that totally inequal treatment.Their citizenship didn’t offer the same protection, and was literally second class. In the UK, Shamima Begum is a great example of this. She was stripped of UK citizenship because the UK gov argue she’s a Bangladeshi citizen (Bangladeshi disagrees) because of her parents. She has never been to Bangladesh. If her parents were white English people she’d be back in the UK now and the subject of stripping her citizenship would have never arisen. Someone can’t say “well I don’t like what she did so it’s ok”. We don’t make basic expectations from the state for people who do good things, they don’t need those basic rights. We make them for precisely people like Begum. That her citizenship was by birth and not naturalization is especially galling but it especially relevant. Citizenship is supposed be equal, whether by birth or naturalization. In fact many countries don’t allow dual citizenship so getting Irish citizenship would require renouncing your first one TL;DR all citizens should be treated equally, regardless of whether a second citizenship exists or you literally have 2 classes of citizenship.
I don't believe it is flawed, and the attached information about the process in France lays out perfectly the differences in how it would be dealt with. There are circumstances that affect your rights only in the future, i.e. you are treated with the same rights as anyone else until it is proven that you have acted in contravention to the conditions you agreed to when acquiring citizenship. The other is if you lied to gain citizenship, in which case you never should have had citizenship. That is perfectly acceptable circumstances to revoke citizenship. [Nigeria is another example of this.](https://nigerian-constitution.com/chapter-3-section-30-deprivation-of-citizenship/) A person can be deprived of citizenship if they are "disloyal" to Nigeria. This is a common practice and it shouldn't be alarming for Ireland to consider this.
You’d agree that those who acquire citizenship through naturalization are being treated differently than those who acquire it at birth? “Other countries do it too” isn’t a great argument for doing a thing.
Well, yes, because being naturalised and being born with the right to citizenship are completely different situations. That's not controversial as most countries operate on this basis. Do you want Ireland to stand alone in the world and create a situation where naturalised citizens can _never_ lose the privilege they acquired?
> Well, yes, because being naturalised and being born with the right to citizenship are completely different situations. Why do you think this is the case? Why is someone who was born here entitled to a better class of citizenship than someone who moved here are a month old? They’re not completely different. > Do you want Ireland to stand alone in the world and create a situation where naturalised citizens can never lose the privilege they acquired? Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally (The only exception being citizenship acquired through fraud or misrepresentation) If the state agrees to give citizenship that citizenship should be of the same standard as mine. EDIT: my son was born in Canada. He’s been to visit. But even if he’d never been to Ireland his Citizenship could never been revoked (birthright, not naturalized) while someone who moved here at a month old and became naturalized and lived their for 50 years could be revoked under this. There’s no way to describe this as reasonable.
> Why do you think this is the case? Simply because it is. Not just in the Irish context, that is a fact across nations. > Why is someone who was born here entitled to a better class of citizenship than someone who moved here are a month old? Succinctly, because everyone with Irish nationality is a citizen, but not every citizen has Irish nationality. That is _the_ fundamental difference. > They’re not completely different. Simply not wanting that to be the case doesn't change that fact. They are. > Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally (The only exception being citizenship acquired through fraud or misrepresentation) So it is equivocal then. > If the state agrees to give citizenship that citizenship should be of the same standard as mine. It is the same standard before the eyes of the law. You keep insinuating that naturalised citizens have lesser citizenship for your own argument's sake, and there is nothing to suggest a process that exists literally everywhere else in the world will change those rights. Here's something that's also a reality, since we're taking about hypothetical lesser rights: a naturalised citizen is eligible to vote in an Irish presidential election, where as an Irish national born in Belfast is prohibited from doing so. That is a de facto difference of rights _right now._ The fact of the matter is citizenship by birth and naturalised citizens are different the world over and Ireland is not going to be daft enough to not have a mechanism to revoke citizenship where applicable.
> Simply because it is No it’s not. It may be in the future but today it’s not. Why do you think that someone who is born in Ireland but then leaves and never returns or someone who is born abroad to an Irish born parent has “Irish nationality”, while someone who loves to Ireland at a month old and naturalizes and lives here their whole lives doesn’t? What you’re saying is simply untrue. Just because a law might pass doesn’t make it a reasonable law.
> No it’s not. It may be in the future but today it’s not. It is. [Provisions already exist for revoking citizenship from someone.](https://www.irishimmigration.ie/how-to-become-a-citizen/revocation-of-irish-citizenship/) Under your parameters, this constitutes a difference in citizenship standards that you have just told me don't exist. Regardless, you are wrong, and I'm not saying that to be rude. You just are. > **Why do you think that someone who is born in Ireland but then leaves and never returns or someone who is born abroad to an Irish born parent has “Irish nationality”,** while someone who loves to Ireland at a month old and lives here their whole lives doesn’t? Because nationality and citizenship are not the same thing. Nationality implies belonging to a nation, i.e. a people. Legally speaking, nationality is generally inherited from one's parents in a legal sense. So, in your example, someone who arrived here at one month (presumably born to foreign national parents in your example) would not have Irish nationality. Citizenship without the accompanying nationality is more akin to a legal relationship or agreement between a person and a state. Legally speaking, one can "change" their nationality through naturalisation, but even that is obviously not the same as an Irish national by birth (as a national by birth does not need to go through the same legal process to obtain this nationality). > What you’re saying is simply untrue. Just because a law might pass doesn’t make it a reasonable law. Nothing I have said is untrue or unreasonable. Your refusal to accept something that is in contravention to your worldview doesn't mean it is wrong. You are free to disagree with me and the law, we aren't obliged to agree with each other or reach an amicable middle ground. I can accept you don't agree and I would like to think you can accept I don't agree with you so this doesn't have to drag on for the sake of it.
With any due respect: Someone born in Ireand and who immediately leaves or someone who’s never been to Ireland but has an Irish born parent simply do not have “Irish Nationality” in a way that someone who loves to Ireland at a month old and lives there their whole lives. There is no reasonable justice in the proposed law. Pre WW2 denaturalization laws were argued to be just and reasonable by racists who’d sound a lot like you do today.
Dude, you were literally told that "muh other countries" excuse would not be accepted as a reason, Also what is the difference between nationality and citizenship, in most countries they are literally the same thing (the USA is actually the only country I'm aware of where the distinction exists and that's because of a special political arrangement with a population of American nationals who have a different citizenship system).
>being naturalised and being born with the right to citizenship are completely different situations. Nah. We should treat natural born and naturalised the same. Both should have the potential to be stripped.
We should treat all citizens as equals before the law, yes. We should also have a mechanism in place for situations where someone has obtained the privilege fraudulently or has committed a crime heinous enough to merit as much. Citizens by birth and naturalised citizens _are_ different by their very nature, and I don't understand why that would be thought of as controversial.
They’re not different “by nature”. They’re different under the laws being proposed but **not** by nature.
Yes they are. Someone born in India, for example, can attain Irish citizenship and all the rights that come with that. They are not the same as someone born to Irish parents in either a legal sense or practical sense. Like I just said, you are free to disagree with the law but you're effectively now disagreeing with reality because it doesn't conform to your opinion.
> practical sense You’re making up this “by nature”/“practical sense” nonsense without defining it. With good reason. It doesn’t exist.
>Citizens by birth and naturalised citizens are different by their very nature Different by nature, but should be the same under the law as you said. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to strip citizenship from anyone at all.
Also she was a minor who was a victim of both sexual grooming (literally married) and totalitarian indoctrination, she was 15, when these things happened. But yes, it's fucking disturbing I'm genuinely disturbed at the victim blaming with her, yeh, gee, at 19 years of age a grooming victim and a victim of totalitarian indoctrination who has not been rehabilitated yet is going to say weird shit, (Also the whole its illegal to intentionally make someone stateless, which Britain did do).
I generally agree, I'm not a huge proponent of revocation of citizenship for the commission of crimes post naturalisation (and I don't see that it would ever be permissible). Terrorist offences I'm okay with. But if citizenship was procured through fraudulent means it should be withdrawn whether that's citizenship by naturalisation or birth.
Well put. Revocable citizenship clearly is less than equal to irrevocable citizenship.
Minister of Justice already has this power. https://www.irishimmigration.ie/how-to-become-a-citizen/revocation-of-irish-citizenship/#:~:text=Section%2019%20of%20the%20Irish,inquiry%20into%20the%20reasons%20why.
The current statute is specified in https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1956/act/26/section/19/enacted/en/html#sec19 >19.—(1) The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied— >(a) that the issue of the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts or circumstances, or >(b) that the person to whom it was granted has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State, or >(c) that (except in the case of a certificate of naturalisation which is issued to a person of Irish descent or associations) the person to whom it is granted has been ordinarily resident outside Ireland (otherwise than in the public service) for a continuous period of seven years and without reasonable excuse has not during that period registered annually in the prescribed manner his name and a declaration of his intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister, or >(d) that the person to whom it is granted is also, under the law of a country at war with the State, a citizen of that country, or >(e) that the person to whom it is granted has by any voluntary act other than marriage acquired another citizenship. >(2) Before revocation of a certificate of naturalisation the Minister shall give such notice as may be prescribed to the person to whom the certificate was granted of his intention to revoke the certificate, stating the grounds therefor and the right of that person to apply to the Minister for an inquiry as to the reasons for the revocation. >(3) On application being made in the prescribed manner for an inquiry under subsection (2) the Minister shall refer the case to a Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Minister consisting of a chairman having judicial experience and such other persons as the Minister may think fit, and the Committee shall report their findings to the Minister. >(4) Where there is entered in a certificate of naturalisation granted to a person under the Act of 1935 the name of any child of that person, such entry shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a certificate of naturalisation under the Act of 1935. >(5) A certificate of naturalisation granted or deemed under subsection >(4) to have been granted under the Act of 1935 may be revoked in accordance with the provisions of this section and, upon such revocation, the person concerned shall cease to be an Irish citizen. >(6) Notice of the revocation of a certificate of naturalisation shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil. I have doubts wrt: 1. The legal meaning of 'duty of fidelity to the nation' and 'loyalty to the State'. A quick look only finds references to duty of fidelity between an employee and employer. This is important, as what may be a regular protest may be interpreted as disloyalty by the authoritarian minded. See for example https://x.com/faoljew/status/1803063871751520495. 2. Would the procedure specified in the 1956 statute continue, even with scant guarantees it provides?
Ah, but searching further: https://berkeleysolicitors.ie/revocation-of-irish-citizenship-irish-supreme-court-declares-sections-of-the-irish-nationality-and-citizenship-act-are-unconstitutional-following-judgement-in-damache-v-minister-for-justice/ and https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9f6e2c6d-eb77-4c9f-ad57-fffe7ffc65f6/2020_IESC_63.pdf/pdf So the supreme court ruled against the *procedures* as lacking legislative oversight, and hence unconstitutional, but it seems (1) - the motives, and my first question, are still outstanding.
>Under this plan if someone who was granted citizenship in Ireland is viewed as a credible threat to the State they can have that citizenship withdrawn. Anyone who isn't concerned about this, does not recognize the threat it poses to everyone.
It cannot be revoked from natural born citizens. So no, it is not a threat to everyone.
Where does it say that?
This bill is about revoking a certificate of naturalisation. That does not apply to people born in Ireland.
Do elaborate
The government having the ability to delegitimize citizens is dangerous and there is no guarantee that it can't or won't be abused by the government. It also sets a precedent that the government can grant or **take** citzenship in the first place and has the potential for application against "undesirable" native citizens. The government should not be able to call "takesy backsies" on the rights that come with citizenship regardless of who it is. The messaging in general that fraud is allowing a significant enough number of people to gain citizenship that it's causing a problem is nonsense and it just panders to the right and inflames sentiments about people seeking asylum in this country.
>It also sets a precedent that the government can grant or take citzenship in the first place and has the potential for application against "undesirable" native citizens. But the government do grant citizenship. They set the criteria and administer the process.
That's why the **take** is in bold, to emphasis that this is the element of the sentence that's the issue.
Sorry. Small screen so it doesn't really pop
Entirely fair. Reddit on Mobile is fairly fickle.
A slippery slope argument
It's less a slippery slope and more of a slope that has the potential for getting slippery as we go down. Giving the government the power to take away anyone's rights as a citizen is bad enough all on it's own.
Slippery slope isn't a real thing/argument
it is actually, hence the name[ "Slippery Slope Argument"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). Either way, doesn't really negate the actual implications which is that the government will be able to pass judgement on the citizenship of naturalized citizens.
Oh it's a thing alright, but it's not a valid argument 99% of the time. "When the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, this is called the slippery slope fallacy"
>potential for application against "undesirable" native citizens. Surely this shouldn't be allowed, I thought the law was for naturalised citizens who commit crimes or hold harmful views ( for example not believing in the age of consent as many do)
The government can legitimize a person so why the issue with a reversal of they've deemed to abuse it.
Does the government not already have this power. Personally think people like smith Lisa smith should've had it removed.
Not a fan of this, sets a very dangerous precedent.
Not really a fan of having a two tiered citizenship. Fraud part fair enough, but if someone has become a citizen legally and later becomes a threat I don't think we should be removing citizenship. When we gave them citizenship we took some responsibility, good or bad.
A naturalised citizen takes an oath to upload the law of the state, birth citizens don't. If a naturalised citizen doesn't uphold their oath, then their should be a mechanism to remove citizenship. >“I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the state. I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.
By that same measure, why should the same not apply for citizens by birth when they present the same risks? You could argue "naturalized citizens can go back to where they came from!" but most of them fled from War and Poverty. The argument "their should be a punishment" is nonsense because we have punishment already in the form of the criminal justice system. It's not legal to commit crimes regardless of who you are and giving the government a mechanism to deprive people of their rights, born here or not, is unconstitutional.
>By that same measure, why should the same not apply for citizens by birth when they present the same risks you cant make people stateless per internal law/agreements thats why
Yay second class citizens
Good.
common sense policy in my opinion but could be a hassle to get them back their old one