Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 19 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 182

Thread: Citizenship Revocation; A case to watch

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,157
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Citizenship Revocation; A case to watch

    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





    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.
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Nemesiscorporation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet earth
    Posts
    14,081
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,371
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon View Post
    This has nothing to do with the OP. Politley suggest you delete your post. If you think the story is discussion-worthy, perhaps start a thread on it?
    Consider it done.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon View Post
    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





    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.
    Repeal the 27th.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,157
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    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.
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon View Post
    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).
    Repeal the 27th.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    40,724
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    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.
    Regards...jmcc

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,220
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parlon View Post
    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





    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.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,220
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Kevin Parlon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    10,157
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
    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.
    "It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them." - Thomas Sowell

Page 1 of 19 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •