Govt Planning Referendum to End Citizenship Rights

by - Thu Jul 15, 2004 15:06

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65954

by omega supreme Sun Mar 14, 2004 20:33

"by AngryLiberal - iccl Thursday, Mar 11 2004,
There are plenty of facts and figures from among others,regional hospital groups,which show hospitals are the governments fault.Same goes for housing and welfare services.As always if people organise effectively and educate the public they will prevail."

By educate do you mean intimadate and attempt to indoctronate as you trotskites usually do.

Seeing as non of you socialist workers (or what ever prefix / ending you like to put on) don't actually work, you might not realise that it is actually the bosses who want to bring immigrants in. Why? because it brings in a cheap labour supply, which under cuts the native workers and corespondingly drives down the wages of native workers and brings up the profits of the bosses (although secretly you might just want your daddy to earn more money anyway). Prehaps also from your ivory towers over in D4 and trinity, you did'nt notice that the "working" class are the most nationalist section of society, and don't really like you coming over and patronising.

by Disobedient Voter Sun Mar 14, 2004 01:04

"the people did define what they meant by citizenship when they voted in the GFA"

Yes, but as in the Nice referendum, the government does not approve of the decision of the people. so again they are sending it back to us to "get it right this time".
Don't you just love the Irish governments definition of democracy?

by The not so Pleasant little branch Fri Mar 12, 2004 18:01

"John Meehan is always the first to throw up the idea of a 'broad alliance' with all sorts of people. The ANV was full of liberals and fluffs. "

Don't agree with you here, I don't think there was anything wrong with the nature of that campaign, it was successful. It worked for this issue.

"John Meehan is mean to be a Socialist. Why not put forward an alliance that will put forward class arguments against this referendum. Not just anti-racist, but anti-cuts, anti-bourgeois as well."

I couldn't agree more with you here. Just because the ANV model worked once, doesn't mean it will work every time. This has to be taken into real working class areas and I'm afraid that arguments put forward by Ivana and her chums might have an effect on winning over her constituency i.e. liberals but it will be fuck all use in Clonsilla, Coolock, Ballymun or Walkinstown. I'm surprised at John here but maybe I shouldn't be when you see how the USFI have shadowed the SWP with RESPECT and their abandonment of a socialist programme.

by An Craoibhin Aoibhinn Fri Mar 12, 2004 17:46

John Meehan is always the first to throw up the idea of a 'broad alliance' with all sorts of people. The ANV was full of liberals and fluffs. John Meehan is mean to be a Socialist. Why not put forward an alliance that will put forward class arguments against this referendum. Not just anti-racist, but anti-cuts, anti-bourgeois as well.

by Cleaver Fri Mar 12, 2004 17:31

John Meehan suggests the following:

A broad based alliance - following the model of the Alliance for a No Vote which defeated the lifer constitutional amendment proposed by Ahern and McDowell in March 2002 - should be built on a principled anti-racist basis as soon as possible aiming to defeat McDowell's racist proposal.

Amid all the hype and bullshit, a practical suggestion, bring it on!

And DICK, the people did define what they meant by citizenship when they voted in the GFA.

by observer Fri Mar 12, 2004 14:00

SF has come out strongly against the referendum proposal. Not about the timing. About the substance.

by Jimi Kavanagh Fri Mar 12, 2004 09:49

Does this mean we re-evaluate the good friday agreement?


Maybe we should reclaim the six counties and try and ethnically purge them, too.


And after that let's see if we can put women back "where they belong" in the kitchen.


And repeal laws pertaining to things like freedom.


Maybe our flag should be red white and blue, no?

by One world Fri Mar 12, 2004 04:43

Now, let me get this right, you mistook Sinn Fein as a racist party, and now you're disappointed that they have not turned out to be one. Guess that makes you look like a bit of a dick.

by Dick Dowling Fri Mar 12, 2004 00:40

"French, Swiss, American or Australian;"...

Bacik is a fool if she things French Swiss etc women arrive in Dublin 9 months pregnant. Bacik is a nobody, she has no roots in the working class.
As a Sinn Fein voter, loyal to the party since I first voted for Christy Burke almost 20 years ago, I am very disappointed with the claptrap statement issued by O Snodaigh. It is extraordinary that a movement which stands on the right of the Irish people to self-determination wants to stifle the people's opinions on immigration. If there is one issue that can cut the momentum of SF in Dublin it's the fact that ordinary working people don't feel that SF is articulating their views on mass immigration. We are facing the greatest demographic change since the Plantation of Ulster. The Irish people had no voice then, and it seems SF don't want us to have a voice now either ! Don't the people have a right to define who should be considered citizens of their country ?

by ucd Thu Mar 11, 2004 21:20

This is a disgusting attempt to play the race card in the local and Euro elections. It is time that the Labour Party, SF and the Greens came out firmly againt this proposal instead of just mouting critisisms about timing. The only way this referendum will be defeated is if clear arguments are put forward that put the blame for crap social welfare, housing crisis and underfunded public services in the hands of the government and their big business mates not the foreigner.

The real enemy and the real scroungers is the ruling class and their profit system not the immigrant, traveller, asylum seeker, homosexual or single mother.

Very good debate on http://ucdsu.proboards20.com/

by John Meehan Thu Mar 11, 2004 18:38

I have pasted below an article from today's Irish Independent by Ivana Bacik on McDowell's racist referendum proposal.

The writer is clearly opposed to McDowell's proposed amendment.

(Unfortunately the Indo now requires reader registration before you can access its articles, so just pasting in a link is no use to many internet users.)

I think this article demonstrates the need to avoid making hasty condemnations of political parties and individuals before you establish their real position - see above the plainly inaccurate and malicious attacks on Ivana Bacik and the Labour Party.

Incidentally, I am not a member of the LP, nor do I encourage people to vote for it - far from it!

A broad based alliance - following the model of the Alliance for a No Vote which defeated the lifer constitutional amendment proposed by Ahern and McDowell in March 2002 - should be built on a principled anti-racist basis as soon as possible aiming to defeat McDowell's racist proposal.

Let's change the emphasis of the discussion towards realising that objective.

Shame on the racist McDowell and his FF/PD government colleagues.
========================
Race referendum could face serious legal challenges

Thursday March 11th 2004


YESTERDAY Minister for Justice Michael McDowell announced that he proposes to hold a referendum to change Article 2 of the Constitution, and deny automatic citizenship rights to those children born in Ireland to non-national parents. The amendment would only allow citizenship to such children where one of their parents has lived in Ireland for a significant time.

This is a hugely contentious proposal. We amended Article 2 in 1998 as part of the Good Friday Agreement process, to state that: 'It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland . . . to be part of the Irish nation.' The purpose was to preserve the rights of those born and brought up in Northern Ireland to be Irish citizens if they wish; its adoption was an integral part of the peace process.

The Article appears to give automatic citizenship on an equal basis to all children born in Ireland - but the rights of children born to non-nationals have already been restricted.

In January 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the non-national parents of such children do not have the right to live in their children's country of citizenship.

This decision allowed the Minister to deport whole families, including young Irish citizens, where their applications for asylum failed or they were otherwise found to be living here illegally.

So the citizenship rights of children born in Ireland to non-national parents have already been restricted. It is clear now that giving birth in Ireland does not confer any right to residence here.

But apparently this restriction is not enough for the Minister, who wants to restrict citizenship rights even further by amending Article 2 unilaterally, without any reference to the undermining effect this may have on the ongoing peace process, and without any indication how those most affected by the Agreement - the people of Northern Ireland - may react to the change. The Minister cannot even offer a good reason to justify the proposed change. All he has said to explain this momentous referendum is that the Masters of the maternity hospitals have complained that too many non-national mothers are giving birth in their hospitals. They have said that 'between 20pc-25pc of births' are to non-national women.

But this is hardly the concrete evidence required to justify a referendum. Many of these non-national women may be from other EU countries; they may be French, Swiss, American or Australian; many may have no desire to seek Irish citizenship for themselves or their children.

There is nothing to indicate that all these audacious women are having babies just to abuse the Irish Constitution. In a country which professes to cherish both mothers and the unborn, it seems churlish to suggest that this is the case.

However, that is just what the Minister has done; yet he can offer no proof for his assertions. He remarked vaguely that a 'very high percentage' of women are appearing at 'one particular hospital' within ten days of the end of their pregnancy, or even in labour. In the absence of actual data, it is hard to take the Minister's remark seriously. It sounds more like a groundless demonisation of non-national mothers.

It also sounds like another example of the Minister's tiresome practice of governing by whim, of introducing important legal changes on the basis of anecdotes. The problem with this sort of whimsical law-making is that it can raise lots of problems later. If this referendum goes ahead, for instance, what would its effect be on people born in Northern Ireland to parents who are not Irish citizens? Would the 'residency requirement' for non-national parents apply only to time spent in the Republic, or also to time spent in Northern Ireland?

Due consideration must be given to all these issues, but there will be no time for this if the referendum is held on 11th June, the same day as the European and local elections. The Minister has not ruled that out, but if he presses ahead on that date, there would be little room for debate, since the focus of the political parties would be on electoral campaigns rather than constitutional issues.

Also, given the legitimate concerns expressed by Opposition parties, members of the public and experts about electronic voting (another example of whimsical government decision-making), it might be foolish to force the electorate to cast yet another ballot by computer on the same day.

The best reason to oppose the referendum, however, is that there is no real argument for it. The Minister has simply not given good enough reasons to justify constitutional change. The sort of vague assertions he makes may even have the effect of encouraging the growth of racism; allowing hostility towards foreigners to develop.

Instead of hinting about sinister motives of non-national mothers, we should be welcoming the much-needed immigration that has boosted our economy and enriched our society.

A generous approach to Irish citizenship, that does not deny the rights of one group of children or their families, would be an infinitely preferable basis for our immigration law. And a more rational approach, requiring actual justifications for any legal change, would be an infinitely preferable basis for a constitutional referendum.

Ivana Bacik is Reid Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin.

Ivana Bacik

by hmmm Thu Mar 11, 2004 18:20

So instead of discussing the point, instead of organizing to fight this, instead of getting the full facts we're having a go at Labour.....


Productive.

by Angry Authoritarian Trot Thu Mar 11, 2004 18:05

Labour will have to get their act together on this matter. I accept that individual members are disgusted by the Government's proposal. It's now up to you to make sure that your party actually condemns these plans by McDowell et al.

by AngryLiberal - iccl Thu Mar 11, 2004 17:11

Some spa feels the need to use my name to attack ivana bacik.Just to re-endorse your position as an idiot whoever you are.
There are plenty of facts and figures from among others,regional hospital groups,which show hospitals are the governments fault.Same goes for housing and welfare services.As always if people organise effectively and educate the public they will prevail.

by Allen Thu Mar 11, 2004 16:20

Labour Justice Spokesperson, Joe Costello, said he did not believe that it would be possible to have the referendum to coincide with the European and local elections in June.

Mr Costello said he stood over accusations by his party's leader, Pat Rabbitte, that the referendum was calculated to encourage racist tendencies.

while- Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said the issue should be studied by the all-party committee on the constitution, while Labour's Liz McManus said the Government needed to say now that it would uncouple this issue from the elections.

John Gormley of the Greens said the Minister was opportunistically 'playing the race card', while Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin of Sinn Féin claimed the referendum .

by rayo Thu Mar 11, 2004 16:17

Here is a statement issued by Pat Rabbitt today!

The announcement this evening by the Minister for Justice that the government plans to introduce a constitutional amendment relating to Irish citizenship, without consultation or publication of a wording or the heads of a Bill, is opportunistic and very probably calculated, in the context of the local and European elections, to encourage racist tendencies already active in the undergrowth in Ireland.

I am confirmed in this view by the Taoiseach reply to me in the Dail as recently as February 17th when he said : the government has no proposal at present to hold a referendum to change the constitution.

We acknowledge that the rights conferred by the Good Friday Agreement are being deliberately abused with consequent acute difficulties for some of our maternity hospitals. These difficulties require to be addressed, but not in the context of national elections. Whether a constitutional referendum is necessary and what would be the implications of such an amendment for the Good Friday Agreement is something that requires detailed consideration and on which the government ought to feel obliged to consult the opposition given the bipartisan approach to the Agreement.

Indeed on April 20th, 1998, my predecessor, Ruairi Quinn TD, sought assurances from the Taoiseach that the proposed constitutional amendment would have no implications such as have emerged and the Taoiseach replied that ‘I can assure you that in the event of Article 2 and 3 taking effect, no legislation will be proposed by this government to the Oireachtas which imposes restrictions on the entitlement to Irish nationality and citizenship of persons born in Ireland’.

If the government now has decided, for whatever reason, that such legislation is necessary, then the government is required to engage in consultation with and publish the text of any proposed amendment and of the consequent legislation.”

by Labour's Position Thu Mar 11, 2004 15:23

"We acknowledge that the rights conferred by the Good Friday Agreement are being deliberately abused with consequent acute difficulties for some of our maternity hospitals. These difficulties require to be addressed, but not in the context of national elections. Whether a constitutional referendum is necessary and what would be the implications of such an amendment for the Good Friday Agreement is something that requires detailed consideration and on which the government ought to feel obliged to consult the opposition given the bipartisan approach to the Agreement."


Personally I find it disgusting that Labour will scapegoat immigrants for "deliberatly abusing" basic healthcare such as hospitals. They have not said they oppose this attack on civil liberties instead there needs to be "detailed consideration".

by Labour? Thu Mar 11, 2004 15:01

This morning on RTE Radio 1 Joe Costelloe was on about the referendum. He only criticised McDowell on the grounds of TIMING of the vote. He said NOTHING about the proposal. All he said was that we needed more time to consider and debate the issue, and that Northern parties should be consulted.

Labour: Do you have a position? You have been quiet on this thread. I know Labour members are on this site.

by jeff Thu Mar 11, 2004 14:49

is not rascist, it is simply about controlling numbers.

What, we should live in a situation like the Netherlands; a country third the size of Ireland, yet 16 million ppl?

Get that fuck real.

by USI member Thu Mar 11, 2004 14:45

USI Congress is taking place in the next few weeks. As a USI member I think it would be great if the USI were to take a position on this referendum opposing these racist citizenship laws.

The Trade Unions should also come out (particularly the Unions in the health service) and oppose this referendum

by Yossarian Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13

Surely any decent democracy is dependant on having a reasonable amount of factual information available on which to base your choices? The role of the media in spoon feeding capitalist propoganda into our heads is well documented (although most in the media tend to disagree). Even though most people are smarter than to be sucked in by a bit of bullshit here and there, when the entire information system is corrupted, it's very difficult to sift out the crap, even if you're looking for it.
Democracy my ass.

by Devoto Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:37

Two words Red Bhoy - Nice Treaty.

For McDowell to propose this in the lead up to local and EU elections is dangerous. Already heard the xenophobes out in force on various radio shows last night. This is lowest common denominator politics at its worst. Turn the local and EU elections into a debate on race to delect attention away from the goverments record.

by RED BHOY Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:04

If the majority of people want it then it gets passed. Thats the beauty of democracy whether you choose to like it or not!!

by kokomero Thu Mar 11, 2004 09:55

McDowell and Bertie want us to deprive people born in Ireland of citizenship rights while they make unfounded allegations against SF which they wouldn't dare bring before the courts as they'd be thrown out. Nazi is as Nazi does McDowell & Co.! We know you and you'll be punished for your duplicity at the polls!

by J26 Thu Mar 11, 2004 03:59

Weren't the most famous facist leaders of them all elected (Mussolini was elected in 1921, the Nazis in Germany abtained 33% of the vote in the 1932 elections making them the largest party and the powerbrokers in the construction of a government they eventually came to dominate). Surely these would also be counted as democratic.

It's easy enough to win a referendum when the powerful propagandists have already commenced demonising the people who will be affected - the Roma, the "welfare tourists", the Nigerians (of the "scam" fame you know!). Even the Nazi Party worked within the Weimar Constitution to secure its aims. Let's see what the populist papers say tomorrow.

The fact is that Article 2 of the Constitution prevents the government from pursuing an explicitly racist policy on immigration.
It says;
"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."
It is in the way and needs to be removed in order to keep Ireland white. The Immigration Control Platform (professional looking website by the way, but forgive me for not linking to it) is concerned that there were only(!) 518 deportations in 2002.

The racist aim was furthered by the judgement in the Lobe case ( http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IESC/2003/1.html&query=lobe&method=all ) and this permitted more people to be deported and was intended to discourage immigrants. The judgement in the that case itself was of dubious quality - the Supreme Court judges were split on the matter, and this new referendum is a way to ensure that the "niggers" do not get citizenship, and to prevent challenges to Lobe. Lobe was merely an expedient way to discourage immigration, and many would say that it was politically motivated rather than in accordance with the law.

In any event, whatever people think of the merits or demerits of the word facist, the important thing is that this lunacy need to be defeated before our rights are eroded further.

Or on the other hand maybe we just are a pack of racist bastards in this country.

by soundmigration Thu Mar 11, 2004 02:27

so the excuse given for the singling out people in this country by the colour of their skin is to be justified by the lack of funding/resources in maternity wards....that tops the recent tribunal relevations{if they are to be believed... business criminals word against politicaians selective anmesia...flip a feckin coin}

i think joe public is a lot more clued in than either the fear mongering business media or pulse feelingfocus group gov are on thier behalf..but much work is needed starting now to defeat this referendum.

united in diversity and forceful in our arguments!!!!

by steve Thu Mar 11, 2004 01:19

were referenda popular in fascist states? (nat as far as I know) referenda are democratic in my book.

lets just hope that the people vote this down.

by Killian Forde Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:40

The timing of this is very cynical and dangerous, Mc Dowell is scum.

ICP will have a field day.

by J26 Wed Mar 10, 2004 23:43

"The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism). "

I think we're there in the exaltation of nation (in this case capitalism) above the individual, the propoganda & censorship are there in spades. The violence is there ( the RTS Mayday debacle is evidence) We are definitely espousing nationalism (trying to limit the definition of citizenship) and the racism in this little rock perched on the edge of the North Atlantic is self evident. I think we're pretty close to being in a facist state going by that definition. We just lack the totalitarianism, but it does seem on the pattern of the last few years that we are headed that way (how will we know who actually got elected??)

As for overtly racist groups, I think we have several here already. There's some crowd up North distributing anti-Chinese propaganda as we speak.

by omega supreme Wed Mar 10, 2004 23:23

At last the government is talking sense on the immigration issue, and doing something to help Irish working people.
Has for this being fascist if you don't realise that this is the best step against an Irish BNP, NF or a movement that is actually fascist in Ireland being set up, then you should really start to question your own intelligence.

by j26 Wed Mar 10, 2004 22:25 july26 at eircom dot net

Facist Bastards - whites only need apply, eh?

I can't wait to see the lunacy that passes for debate on this one. Every racist shit-for-brains in the country will be rubbing their hands with glee and getting off beating up Chinese/Romanians(your favourite minority here). It will probably pass, God help us.

Fuck it - if this madness is passed I think I'll pack up and get out of this insane little dictatorship. A couple of weeks ago they fucked up our right to vote. Now they can strip away our citizenship. Aside from the last few years of stripping away the welfare system, health service, public services and every other support they now assault our basic rights as citizens.

Have we reached the deconstruction of democracy and the final stages of a new imperial age?

What's next week - the right to a fair trial?

Perhaps the right to freedom of expression (already under attack (Bertie told us not to protest when the little fool emperor arives in June), but surviving as yet!)

Or maybe the right to freedom of movement (Clare included!)

Fuck, things are gone further than I thought!!!

by x Wed Mar 10, 2004 21:06

It is possible this referendum might be held on June 11th (same day as local and euro elections). Not much time to get going on stopping it going through. This is another form of State racism - it must be defeated.

No Borders, No Nations.

by Labour Watcher Wed Mar 10, 2004 19:28

According to the RTE Political corespondant Labour and Fine Gael will not "vigorously" oppose this proposal as they are "sympathetic" with the "plight of the main maturnity hospitals"

They underfund hospials for years. It's FF-FG-Lab-PD to blame for the lack of resources in the Hospitals NOT foreigners!

Vote NO to this proposal.
It's an attack on civil liberities
Hospital places and Citizenship for ALL!

by Angry Liberal Wed Mar 10, 2004 19:19

McDowell said that the opposition parties where "consulted". I presume that the Labour Party heard about it. Do they support it or what?

Will we see the disgusting site of Prof Ivana Bacik so called "liberal" and Labour Euro candidate backing this referendum.