• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Is the loose wording of the Childrens Rights Referendum about to undo the Citizenship Referendum?


Equinox

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
3,053
It's been raised as a peripheral issue, but I’ve heard no discussion of the prospect at all, nor any clarification from the government.

The new article states:

"The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights."

Will the law of unintended consequences that inevitably follows poorly conceived legislation soon require us to accommodate any asylum seeker that arrives as or with a minor?
 


Man or Mouse

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
7,069
It's been raised as a peripheral issue, but I’ve heard no discussion of the prospect at all, nor any clarification from the government.

The new article states:

"The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights."

Will the law of unintended consequences that inevitably follows poorly conceived legislation soon require us to accommodate any asylum seeker that arrives as or with a minor?
And the saga of the FOur Goldmines rolls on.
 

Equinox

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
3,053
Parts of it, clashes and contradicts with Article 41

Will be a matter for Court Interpretation


Asylum seekers are not relevant here. It implies that people have a right of residence. But, all the more reason to ensure that they are processed and removed a lot more quickly.
To my mind the 'imprescriptible rights of all children' is broad enough to encompas asylum seekers, I can't see any judge ruling that they are excluded under the terms of the referendum. This would suggest that it will be impossible to remove or deport any non national minor and probably their parents either due to their imprescriptible right to the care of their parents. The wording smacks of a charter for the Pamela Izevbekhai's of this world.
Our minister for children Frances Fitzgerald recently refered, rather tellingly, to the referendum as a great move for Irish children and the children of the world. The world indeed. I certiantly can't see Shatter plugging the inevitable loop hole either.
 

Slievenaglogh

Active member
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
249
If "the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children" means that all babies born here will be entitled automatically to citizenship, that would be good. That's one thing, of many, that is admirable about the USA.
 

CiaranO'Reilly

New member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
2
just vote YES. Don't get sidetracked by the government screwing-up. This is our referendum and we've been calling for it for 30 years!
 

Joe Ireland

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
16
And so it begins ..........

Check out the article in today's Irish Times entitled " Rights of the child mean father should not be deported"

A Nigerian man who “manipulated the asylum system and engaged in egregiously wrongful conduct” won himself a stay on his deportation based on his child's constitutional rights. The Judge also said the applicant had no personal merits that would entitle him to protection, ........

“There is no question at all but that if one looked at this matter from the perspective of Mr A, his outrageous conduct would have plainly dis-entitled him to any prospect of relief,” Mr Justice Hogan said. "But the court must approach the question from the perspective of the child and seek to ensure that the substance of his constitutional right to the care and company of his parents was upheld."
The Judge then stopped Mr A’s deportation.

This man's child appears to have been in Ireland before the Citizenship Referendum.

Expect more of this. The passage of the children's referendum will now provide a new platform for all the families who arrived after the Citizenship Referendum and who don't actually have an Irish Citizen Child.

Hmmmmm ........ Let us cast our minds back. In the Citizenship Referendum there was a 59.95% turnout and a 79% vote in favour of the amendment (that's 1.4 million votes)

.... and .... let's see, on Saturday there were how many people voting in favour ?????
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,703
The Citizenship Referendum clashed with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:
The child shall.. have ..from birth the right to acquire a nationality ...
Convention on the Rights of the Child

We implicitly excluded this condition in the citizenship referendum since there is no requirement to check that a child has the right to acquire a nationality before denying him Irish citizenship.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,767
Dearbhail McDonald: A guide to the Children’s Referendum - Analysis, Opinion - Independent.ie

The reality

Children's opinions (as per their age and maturity) will be taken into account, subject to rival interests, such as that of their parents.

Most disputes involving children will, in any event, take place under the guardianship and custody regime. This section is notable for its big omission: it only applies to the above proceedings and does not cover other areas such as asylum cases or disputes involving schools.
 

laidback

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,134
I emailed a query to the referendum Commission about the position of non irish children here with parents claiming asylum status. I emailed first thing Tues am and 4 days later at 17.41 Friday 9th got the reply below:

Scope of wording’s reference to children

The proposed wording refers to “the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children”, which would include all children of residing in Ireland. However, the right to citizenship of any person is covered separately in the Constitution, under Article 9.

What does it mean?
 

im axeled

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
29,638
seen on breakingnews.ie earlier the moaning one saying that a a referendum police is required, this was pulled off sharpish.
 

clonycavanman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
656
Someone's bound to try it, and now some very loose wording is indeed in the Constitution, and it will be years before the Dail shambles passes adequate legislation to define what it means.

Was loose wording really neccessary? Today Enda Kenny has welcomed the yes vote by 19% of the electorate very articulately; 'It is an historic day for the children of Ireland, as the Constitution of this Republic will for the first time recognise them as citizens in their own right.'


As It Happened - Children's Referendum count - RT News

Well, that's just one man's opinion, but if they'd just put that in their amendment, they would have had 90% of the electorate vote for it.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,171
It's been raised as a peripheral issue, but I’ve heard no discussion of the prospect at all, nor any clarification from the government.

The new article states:

"The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights."

Will the law of unintended consequences that inevitably follows poorly conceived legislation soon require us to accommodate any asylum seeker that arrives as or with a minor?

I've underlined the relevant get-out-clause.
 

Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
15,102
I've underlined the relevant get-out-clause.
That is anything but a "get out clause". Synonyms for the word "practicable" include possible, feasible and achievable.
Please outline the circumstances in which it might not be possible, feasible or achievable to allow right of residence to children (and of course their families) who just happen to arrive here.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,171
That is anything but a "get out clause". Synonyms for the word "practicable" include possible, feasible and achievable.
Please outline the circumstances in which it might not be possible, feasible or achievable to allow right of residence to children (and of course their families) who just happen to arrive here.
Presumably you think we shouldn't allow such a right because it would constitute an impermissible drain on our resources, making us unable to meet the needs of people to whom we already have strong obligations.

Do you think if we denied residency to children in line with the citizenship referendum that we would be violating its natural rights?
 

Joe Ireland

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
16
To answer the OP's point. No. The Citizenship REferendum simply changed the laws on automatic citizenship after 2004. It says nothing about the right of residency, but seeks to prevent those arguments in the future. Any cases that concerns foreigners and Irish Citizens Children concern cases where the child was a citizen before 2005 or , if the other parent is , either Irish or the parent qualified under the new laws as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

It has nothing to do with this recent referendum

Now to deal with your comments

Those arguments would have been made EVEN if the Referendum never took place.

There are provisions under the existing Constitution that deal with this. Secondly, IF the Child is an Irish Citizen, and the mother is not an Irish Citizen, then, the man can rely on EU LAW!!!!!!!! and ECHR, which look at these very issues, ie best interest of child.

It is high time some people, who are clearly unaware of the topics in question, fail to understand how badly newspaper reporters often get the story arseways and completely miss the point, and refuse to do the basic research, should be banned or post deleted. Asking questions are one thing, but making statements as if they are fact , without any support, is getting tiresome


Do you have a link for that report. Just words "manipulated the asylum system", unless the paper is quoting a Judge who said this, seems odd, for the Irish Times. They don't tend to use words like that for these kind of cases.

Did the paper mentioned what the legal status of the child is, whether it was an Irish Citizen. If that was the case, the issue regarding children asylum seekers is irrelevant.


Would you now go and read the ACTUAL COURT TRANSCRIPT that is freely available on Courts.ie and Bailli.org AND now provide the Irish Times link.

Don't even bother attempting to engage in "discussion", as your knowledge of the issue is, with all due respect, inferior and this is not an education class.

You have not even bothered to point out the dated of this news report!


The only thing that the Citizen Referendum did was end the automatic citizenship after 31 December 2004.

Those who were Irish Citizens were not effected. However, some had problems seeking RESIDENCY for their parents in light of Supreme Court cases in 2003. This continue (noting the ADMINISTRATIVE scheme , IBC 05 and 2007). The Residency rights improved after Supreme Court decisions in 2007. In 2011 European Court ruled, and effectively ended the 2003 case application, in certain cases. In other cases, the rule sticks (see both Zambrano and Dereci - there are more cases of these type down the line, and it appears Zambrano will be further restricted)


People like you should be ignored, but, in light of the fact that there are other stupid people here, it is best to at least set the record straight (not for the first time all of this has been pointed out) and let them decide : stick with stupidity or get themselves informed.

By the way, that judgment was given in ............September 2012!!!!!!!


Now, now settle down. My, we are a tad tetchy today.

1. The report was in the Irish Times -- on Monday 12th November (same day i posted and mentioned the words 'today's Irish Times')
2. Tried to post the link but P.ie wouldn't let me ...
3. The quoted text is from the newspaper article. The case is: EA Anor -v- Minister for Justice and Anor Neutral citation 2012 IEHC 371. and the article provides a link to the judgement.
4. Yep. It certainly is in the Irish Times. Sorry it it does not meet the standards you seem to expect from it IT - but please, take it up with them.
5. I completely accept that Irish citizens (such as this man's child) have rights under the constitution, EU law, IBC 05 & 07, etc.
6. I merely point out that the recently passed 'children's rights' referendum provides a hitherto non-existent but very available platform on which to take a case to remain in the State. You can talk all you want about 'residency' but genuinely, are you seriously saying that no-one will will try to use the recent referendum to stay in the country? When Catherine McGuinness is patron of the Irish Refugee Council? All I am saying is that we will see more of such cases. Therefore, There is a very good chance that one of the unintended side-effects of this referendum will be to undo the Citizenship Referendum.
7. I am not thick, stupid or have an inferior education but "with all due respect" you have very little manners.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,767
Now, now settle down. My, we are a tad tetchy today.

1. The report was in the Irish Times -- on Monday 12th November (same day i posted and mentioned the words 'today's Irish Times')
2. Tried to post the link but P.ie wouldn't let me ...
Here's the link.

Rights of the child mean father should not be deported - The Irish Times - Mon, Nov 12, 2012

The above case is not connected to the amendment because the amendment has not yet taken effect.

Furthermore, read post number 11 of this thread.
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top