We're choosy about which constitutional loophole we plug
Sunday June 06 2004
They're too busy with more important things, such as trying to get themselves, or their cronies, elected.
So, as a public service, let's outline the Top Eight Reasons for Voting For the Government's Proposal. And the Top Eight Reasons for Voting Against.
Should babies born in Ireland be deprived of citizenship unless at least one parent has lived here for three years?
You might vote Yes because . . .
You're afraid the maternity hospitals will be filled to bursting with non-nationals, including women rushing here at the last minute to have babies.
You might vote No because . . .
The vast majority of non-nationals giving birth in Irish maternity hospitals are legitimate migrants, many of whom we actively sought to attract, and without whom the economy would falter.
You might vote Yes because . . .
"Citizenship tourists", arriving without previous contact with a maternity hospital, endanger themselves and their babies.
You might vote No because . . .
Analysis of one hospital's figures show that half the women arriving without previous contact are Irish. "Citizenship tourism" is greatly exaggerated, and doesn't require a constitutional amendment.
You might vote Yes because . . .
There's a "loophole" in our citizenship law that allows babies with no connection with Ireland, other than being born here, to potentially claim Irish citizenship - and thus become citizens of the EU. And, while we can throw the parents out, and the babies along with them, the babies can come back when they grow up.
And, as Mr McDowell says, they can confer that citizenship "on a second and third generation with even less connection with Ireland".
You might vote No because . . .
This is a tiny "loophole" and the EU seems unconcerned. Countless hundreds of thousands who have never even seen Ireland can potentially claim Irish citizenship because their grandparents were born here. And thus become EU citizens. And in turn can pass the citizenship on down the generations.
We're choosy about which "loophole" we plug.
You might vote Yes because . . .
We must protect the "integrity" of our citizenship. As Mr McDowell says, "Citizens must show loyalty and fidelity to the nation". There "should be a greater connection with the country before an en-
See Michael McDowell
titlement to citizenship, and all that it entails, arises".
You might vote No because . . .
Citizenship is denied no one on the basis of disloyalty, not even politicians and others whose tax-evasion closed hospital wards and seriously damaged this country. Should we whip citizenship away from the child, born in Ireland, of a Filipino nurse whose loyal hard work is keeping that hospital from collapsing?
You might vote Yes because . . .
By eliminating "loopholes", we preserve the integrity of the immigration system, all the better to protect "genuine" migrants.
You might vote No because . . .
If we cared about "genuine" migrants, we'd free them from the infamous work permit scandal. Permits belong not to migrants but to their employers, with predictable results.
You might vote Yes because . . .
It's a matter of "urgency", as Brian Cowan says, that we plug this unfortunate "loophole" in our law.
You might vote No because . . .
The referendum is rushed, the reasons given don't stand up. It's a gimmick designed to deflect an electoral hammering for the Government because of its general election deceit.
You might vote Yes because . . .
This is a technical issue about allowing the Oireachtas to decide citizenship criteria.
You might vote No because . . .
It asks us to be intolerant of people who need our generosity.
For some, the final compelling reason for voting for the proposal is, of course, that Michael McDowell wants us to vote for it.
And for some, the final compelling reason for voting against the proposal is, of course, that Michael McDowell wants us to vote for it.
- Gene Kerrigan
