• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Citizenship Revocation; A case to watch


Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,665
Twitter
Deiscirt
The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied 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

-Section 19(1)(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004

[HR][/HR]


Algerian born criminal and accused terrorist, Ali Charaf Damache

Our MFJ will be intimatley familiar with this case for a number of reasons and not only due to the relative novelty of Irish citizen Jihadis. Damache has already been convicted of making death threats to those he deems insufficiently Islamic. Famous for involvement with Jihad Jane, this (so the rap sheet goes) would-be martyr, fund raiser for terrorism, conspirator who wanted to train in Pakistan and return to Ireland in order to murder "individuals that are harming islam", and all-round solider of Allah, is also (praise be to same) an Irish Citizen. The citizenship angle here is important as he and his co-conspirators often remarked on its value for the smooth execution of 'operations' within europe.

So far, so grotesque.

He has now been arrested again on foot of an international arrest warrant as a result of this charge sheet. My question (and I hope the legal eagles might chime in here) is this. Should it turn out that Damache is convicted on these charges, ought that satisfy the MFJ that Damache has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State?

To my layman's eye the obvious answer would seem to be "yes". If the conviction does not satisfy section 19 (1) (b) then

A) what would? and
B) one wonders whether the legislation is adequately protective of value we place in Irish citizenship.
 

Nemesiscorporation

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
14,214
For terrorists, traffickers, violent crimes, rape, paedophilia, fraud, ie serious crimes they should have citizenship revoked and be deported.

The case outcome on this is going to be very interesting.

Unfortunately every racist and every supporter of every cause no matter what will polarise the public debate into a vile hate filled mess.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied 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

-Section 19(1)(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004

[HR][/HR]


Algerian born criminal and accused terrorist, Ali Charaf Damache

Our MFJ will be intimatley familiar with this case for a number of reasons and not only due to the relative novelty of Irish citizen Jihadis. Damache has already been convicted of making death threats to those he deems insufficiently Islamic. Famous for involvement with Jihad Jane, this (so the rap sheet goes) would-be martyr, fund raiser for terrorism, conspirator who wanted to train in Pakistan and return to Ireland in order to murder "individuals that are harming islam", and all-round solider of Allah, is also (praise be to same) an Irish Citizen. The citizenship angle here is important as he and his co-conspirators often remarked on its value for the smooth execution of 'operations' within europe.

So far, so grotesque.

He has now been arrested again on foot of an international arrest warrant as a result of this charge sheet. My question (and I hope the legal eagles might chime in here) is this. Should it turn out that Damache is convicted on these charges, ought that satisfy the MFJ that Damache has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State?

To my layman's eye the obvious answer would seem to be "yes". If the conviction does not satisfy section 19 (1) (b) then

A) what would? and
B) one wonders whether the legislation is adequately protective of value we place in Irish citizenship.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that there are no such (moral) duties in the first place, why should we think that he has failed in his obligations to the state even if such obligations did exist?

If he has failed in his duties, then so has any criminal. If that's sufficient to revoke citizenship for this man, then it ought to be sufficient to revoke it for anyone, whether they acquired citizenship at birth or not.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,665
Twitter
Deiscirt
Setting aside for the moment the fact that there are no such (moral) duties in the first place, why should we think that he has failed in his obligations to the state even if such obligations did exist?
The OP relates to the legislation as it stands, and not the moral basis (or lack of it) supporting the legislation. The OP is about whether and how and on what basis this part of the Act will be used.

If he has failed in his duties, then so has any criminal. If that's sufficient to revoke citizenship for this man, then it ought to be sufficient to revoke it for anyone, whether they acquired citizenship at birth or not.
AFAICS, the legislation as it stands is designed to protect the interests of the state by allowing it to reverse a ministerial decision (i.e. naturalization of a non-Irish citizen) to grant citizenship and not in the case of a Citizen who's citizenship did not come about through naturalization.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
The OP relates to the legislation as it stands, and not the moral basis (or lack of it) supporting the legislation. The OP is about whether and how and on what basis this part of the Act will be used.
The law implies duties without specifying the content of those duties. In order for the law to be applied, those duties need to be specified and that requires providing an explanation of the normative/moral principles which generate the duties to which the law refers.

AFAICS, the legislation as it stands is designed to protect the interests of the state by allowing it to reverse a ministerial decision (i.e. naturalization of a non-Irish citizen) to grant citizenship and not in the case of a Citizen who's citizenship did not come about through naturalization.
That looks correct to me. I believe it's unjust, given that a naturalized citizen is granted fewer rights than a non-naturalized citizen (specifically, a naturalized citizen has no immunity with regard to revocation of citizenship).
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,297
Should be an interesting case. The usual suspects will be whinging in the Dublin media of course - that's if they even realise what happened.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied 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

-Section 19(1)(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004

[HR][/HR]


Algerian born criminal and accused terrorist, Ali Charaf Damache

Our MFJ will be intimatley familiar with this case for a number of reasons and not only due to the relative novelty of Irish citizen Jihadis. Damache has already been convicted of making death threats to those he deems insufficiently Islamic. Famous for involvement with Jihad Jane, this (so the rap sheet goes) would-be martyr, fund raiser for terrorism, conspirator who wanted to train in Pakistan and return to Ireland in order to murder "individuals that are harming islam", and all-round solider of Allah, is also (praise be to same) an Irish Citizen. The citizenship angle here is important as he and his co-conspirators often remarked on its value for the smooth execution of 'operations' within europe.

So far, so grotesque.

He has now been arrested again on foot of an international arrest warrant as a result of this charge sheet. My question (and I hope the legal eagles might chime in here) is this. Should it turn out that Damache is convicted on these charges, ought that satisfy the MFJ that Damache has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State?

To my layman's eye the obvious answer would seem to be "yes". If the conviction does not satisfy section 19 (1) (b) then

A) what would? and
B) one wonders whether the legislation is adequately protective of value we place in Irish citizenship.
Aren't people required to make an oath of loyalty to be naturalised, whereas people who have citizenship by birth or blood don't.
I would imagine the meanings of the words of the act ie fidelity, loyalty and overt act are fairly straightforward, and the presumption is always for the 'plain and literal' meaning first.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
The law implies duties without specifying the content of those duties. In order for the law to be applied, those duties need to be specified and that requires providing an explanation of the normative/moral principles which generate the duties to which the law refers.



That looks correct to me. I believe it's unjust, given that a naturalized citizen is granted fewer rights than a non-naturalized citizen (specifically, a naturalized citizen has no immunity with regard to revocation of citizenship).
The duty isn't implied it's explicit. Citizenship by birth or blood is a right, by naturalisation it is a gift.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,665
Twitter
Deiscirt
The law implies duties without specifying the content of those duties. In order for the law to be applied, those duties need to be specified and that requires providing an explanation of the normative/moral principles which generate the duties to which the law refers.
You say "need to be specified". Perhaps you meant 'should' as I am not aware of a legal or technical requirement to expand upon them. I think there's deliberate "at the discretion of the minister" ambiguity here, and that that ambiguity is very much intentional. The law wants the minister to have room for maneuver in deciding matters such as this; especially where national security is involved.

There may be a definition elsewhere as to what constitutes a violation of those duties/loyalty. I haven't read the whole act.

That looks correct to me. I believe it's unjust, given that a naturalized citizen is granted fewer rights than a non-naturalized citizen (specifically, a naturalized citizen has no immunity with regard to revocation of citizenship).
Technically I'd agree. Nevertheless, I'd place the security of the state over this technicality, as long as the law is applied judiciously. Which is what will be interesting and the point of the OP.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
The duty isn't implied it's explicit.
Where does Irish law specify what precisely is owed by naturalized citizens to the state?

Citizenship by birth or blood is a right, by naturalisation it is a gift.
The state decides the criteria it uses to bestow citizenship, but that doesn't necessarily reflect any moral entitlement on the part of the potential citizen. It's unlikely that whatever can ground an entitlement to citizenship is as arbitrary as merely happening to having been born on a particular piece of soil or happening to be biologically related to another citizen.

If naturalization is a gift (in some cases it clearly isn't, but we can set those aside for the moment) it doesn't follow that a naturalized citizen should not be entitled to fully equal rights relative to non-naturalized citizens. If you adopt a child into your family you should not have the right to abandon that child any more than you would have the right to abandon your biological child.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
You say "need to be specified". Perhaps you meant 'should' as I am not aware of a legal or technical requirement to expand upon them. I think there's deliberate "at the discretion of the minister" ambiguity here, and that that ambiguity is very much intentional. The law wants the minister to have room for maneuver in deciding matters such as this; especially where national security is involved.
I did mean "should" in a non-legal sense; if one is going to say that naturalized citizens have duties of obedience to the state, the least one can do is specify what those duties actually are.

Technically I'd agree. Nevertheless, I'd place the security of the state over this technicality, as long as the law is applied judiciously. Which is what will be interesting and the point of the OP.
If the security of the state is threatened by a citizen, the state can deal with that threat without removing the citizenship status of that citizen. There is legal precedent from the ECHR which suggests that there are limits to what the state can do when appealing to its own interests - a state cannot deport someone to a country where their fundamental human rights are likely to be violated, for example, no matter how grave a threat they supposedly pose to the state. (This is a legal constraint, but I think it accurately reflects a moral constraint which ought to bear upon the actions of the state)

If there are cases where revocation of citizenship is permissible or even required, then I think the law should be applied equally to non-naturalized Irish citizens as well.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
Where does Irish law specify what precisely is owed by naturalized citizens to the state?



The state decides the criteria it uses to bestow citizenship, but that doesn't necessarily reflect any moral entitlement on the part of the potential citizen. It's unlikely that whatever can ground an entitlement to citizenship is as arbitrary as merely happening to having been born on a particular piece of soil or happening to be biologically related to another citizen.

If naturalization is a gift (in some cases it clearly isn't, but we can set those aside for the moment) it doesn't follow that a naturalized citizen should not be entitled to fully equal rights relative to non-naturalized citizens. If you adopt a child into your family you should not have the right to abandon that child any more than you would have the right to abandon your biological child.
Have a look at the oath people take. Doesn't the act in the OP state two duties? fidelity and loyalty? I have Irish citizenship that cant be taken from me, purely because my parents are Irish. I was a citizen before I ever set foot in the country. It does follow that if a naturalised citizen breaks their oath then they could lose their citizenship.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
Have a look at the oath people take. Doesn't the act in the OP state two duties? fidelity and loyalty? I have Irish citizenship that cant be taken from me, purely because my parents are Irish. I was a citizen before I ever set foot in the country. It does follow that if a naturalised citizen breaks their oath then they could lose their citizenship.
It follows in a purely legal sense, obviously, but the more interesting question is how we could justify the revocation of citizenship.

I do not believe it's fair to ask naturalized citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to the Irish state without asking the same of all Irish citizens. This is because the current situation means that there are some citizens who have more duties to the state than others. Once someone has been granted citizenship, I don't believe the law should distinguish them from those who were granted it at birth. (And given that I received Irish citizenship at birth, and given that I don't believe I have any moral obligation to swear an oath of loyalty to the Irish state, I don't think it should be asked of anyone.) Granting someone citizenship is like adopting a child into a family - there might be additional hoops that one has to jump through initially, but once the process is complete, each "child" should be treated equally by the state (which means equality of legal rights in this case).
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
It follows in a purely legal sense, obviously, but the more interesting question is how we could justify the revocation of citizenship.

I do not believe it's fair to ask naturalized citizens to swear an oath of loyalty to the Irish state without asking the same of all Irish citizens. This is because the current situation means that there are some citizens who have more duties to the state than others. Once someone has been granted citizenship, I don't believe the law should distinguish them from those who were granted it at birth. (And given that I received Irish citizenship at birth, and given that I don't believe I have any moral obligation to swear an oath of loyalty to the Irish state, I don't think it should be asked of anyone.) Granting someone citizenship is like adopting a child into a family - there might be additional jumps that one has to go through, but once the process is complete, each "child" should be treated equally by the state (which means equality of legal rights in this case).
You are making too much of it. Giving someone citizenship is nothing like adopting a child, not even close. In most cases it is just a step up from permanent residence.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,215
You are making too much of it. Giving someone citizenship is nothing like adopting a child, not even close. In most cases it is just a step up from permanent residence.
It's more important than adopting a child, if anything, since it offers extremely important legal rights and responsibilities.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,297
It's more important than adopting a child, if anything, since it offers extremely important legal rights and responsibilities.
One of which is not to go about knocking off Irish people who this guy and his pals think are "harming" Islam.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
It's more important than adopting a child, if anything, since it offers extremely important legal rights and responsibilities.
It is worlds away from adopting a child. It is not that big a deal. I have two passports, as a NZer I can go and get an Australian passport. My wife has an American passport, I presume if we went and lived there for a while I could qualify for a fourth one. Don't Americans have residency rights in Canada? presumably, if we could be bothered, we could probably go there and get another one for the collection.
Adopting children is a completely different thing.
 

dunno

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,285
The Minister may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he is satisfied 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

-Section 19(1)(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004

[HR][/HR]


Algerian born criminal and accused terrorist, Ali Charaf Damache

Our MFJ will be intimatley familiar with this case for a number of reasons and not only due to the relative novelty of Irish citizen Jihadis. Damache has already been convicted of making death threats to those he deems insufficiently Islamic. Famous for involvement with Jihad Jane, this (so the rap sheet goes) would-be martyr, fund raiser for terrorism, conspirator who wanted to train in Pakistan and return to Ireland in order to murder "individuals that are harming islam", and all-round solider of Allah, is also (praise be to same) an Irish Citizen. The citizenship angle here is important as he and his co-conspirators often remarked on its value for the smooth execution of 'operations' within europe.

So far, so grotesque.

He has now been arrested again on foot of an international arrest warrant as a result of this charge sheet. My question (and I hope the legal eagles might chime in here) is this. Should it turn out that Damache is convicted on these charges, ought that satisfy the MFJ that Damache has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State?

To my layman's eye the obvious answer would seem to be "yes". If the conviction does not satisfy section 19 (1) (b) then

A) what would? and
B) one wonders whether the legislation is adequately protective of value we place in Irish citizenship.
I think with those 55 charges, he won't see much sunlight for the rest of his natural life, if convicted.
 

fuque

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
4,512
if one is going to say that naturalized citizens have duties of obedience to the state, the least one can do is specify what those duties actually are...
basically your not allowed be a radical islamic terrorist bastid. is that clear enough for you?
 
Top