Unborn children have immigration rights - Judge



stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,399
Seems logical. Both a foetus and its parents are human. They should have the same rights. Of course it's not an issue for me, because I don't think Nigerians have any immigration rights when it comes to Ireland, born or unborn.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
If a unborn child is a person under immigration law, why doesn't it require a passport to travel?

Should child benefit have to be paid from the moment of conception?
 

firefly123

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
28,232
If a unborn child is a person under immigration law, why doesn't it require a passport to travel?

Should child benefit have to be paid from the moment of conception?
The Photo never comes out right
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Given that Irish nationality only begins from birth, yet all unborn children are persons, are they stateless persons? Are all children in the womb stateless and so refugees under international law?
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers.

If a couple come here for a two week holiday and she gets pregnant is the kid automatically entitled to live here ?

Time to change the law.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers.

If a couple come here for a two week holiday and she gets pregnant is the kid automatically entitled to live here ?

Time to change the law.
You mean repeal the 8th amendment? Perhaps this is the common ground needed to get this done.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,861
Pro-life vs anti-immigration - who will win?

The ruling seems like a sensible one, as far as I can see, given the laws that we have.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
That seems to contradict the Baby O case on 2002, where a Nigerian woman appealed to the Irish High Court to prevent her deportation on the grounds that she was pregnant.

She argued that due to high Nigerian infant mortality rates the rights of her unborn child (and the foetus is considered a person under the Constitution) could not be guaranteed if she was deported.

The Supreme Court judgment did not engage with the Article 40 arguments

in any substance and simply declared that Article 40 was about abortion and was not

relevant in a deportation context.

So now you know - the Constitution just prohibits abortion. It doesnt grant the foetus any personhood at all. Another convenient legal fiction.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
The judge is a Labour Party appointment from the last govt. He's rather cynically using the 8th amendment to prevent a deportation.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
If this ruling stands, presumably every unborn child is due child benefit, and any child born since the 8th amendment passed is due back pay.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,689
This is what happens when you have crazy, incoherent laws - crazy, incoherent rulings.
Tough sh1t.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
At least he's kept himself busy.

The Nigerian man came here in 2007, was refused asylum and subsidiary protection, and a deportation order was made in 2008.

He remained working here, had a short-lived marriage to an EU national and failed to get residency based on marriage to an EU citizen.

He later had a child with a non-EU national before starting a relationship with an Irish woman.
 

Felixness

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
4,397
Typical Irish judicial nonsense. I don't know what's more worrying, the ridiculous decision of the Judge or the fact that a man refused asylum in 2007 when married to an EU national is still in the country in 2015 fighting that decision. Was there not a change in the laws back around that time when heavily pregnant African women were coming here to give birth in order to claim citizenship?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,656
The govt should appeal. I think this came up in a similar case many years ago and the SC threw it out.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Typical Irish judicial nonsense. I don't know what's more worrying, the ridiculous decision of the Judge or the fact that a man refused asylum in 2007 when married to an EU national is still in the country in 2015 fighting that decision. Was there not a change in the laws back around that time when heavily pregnant African women were coming here to give birth in order to claim citizenship?
Now they dont even need to arrive heavily pregnant.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
The judge could have been the Attorney General. You know, the office that FG thinks is infallible on constitutional issues.

Mr Humphreys had been tipped to become Attorney General during the formation of the Fine Gael/Labour Coalition in 2011.

However, that role went to Senior Counsel Maire Whelan, a former financial secretary for the Labour Party, and Ireland's first female Attorney General.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top