Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

It cannot be denied that in the recent referendum, the people spoke. The beauty of living in a democracy is that the decision of the people is sacrosanct. That is not to deny that collectively the people can be wrong, or subsequently proved to be wrong. We are democrats, abiding by the decisions democratically taken, and we try to legislate accordingly. Nevertheless, the reservations many of us had in opposing the referendum were not only with regard to the content and wording of the referendum but the rush to judgment and the standard of the debate that accompanied it. The nature of this Bill, in its narrow focus, is justification for the arguments that we made then and still make now.

Irish citizenship is in need of a wide-ranging debate about what it is, can be and should be. Unfortunately the referendum we had and the Bill presented to us by the Government only skirt around the issue. Despite what has been said, the referendum was taken by many voters to be about issues other than the referendum itself. It taps seams in too many people which are ugly in terms of a national psyche. One hopes that can be overcome in time and that people's motivations will not be questioned as we learn to live with our new and emergent society. It is fairly obvious that for some of the people who voted, the referendum related to whether the Government was dealing with the wider issue of immigration. Even though we had this debate in the Chamber, we still have no coherent immigration policy.

The Minister's office will be aware that in terms of my constituency workload, one of the areas in which I most write representations — though not my busiest area — is with regard to immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. I do so because many of them cannot vote. Certainly, none of them can vote for me, but as a Member of this House, anyone who seeks to make contact, phones me or visits my constituency office is entitled to receive whatever help can be offered. I see in many of these people not the motivation ascribed by some elements of the wider debating society and even some elements of the media, namely a need to abuse the system, I see people whose main motivation is a better life. That has been the motivation of generations of Irish people, and I speak as the child of an immigrant. I speak as someone who has birthright citizenship of another country. Today of all days it is particularly ironic that an election is taking place which will have ramifications for a policy that will affect many countries and citizens for generations to come. The people voting in that election are doing so on the basis of birthright citizenship. The Minister and the Government seek to undermine the future contribution of many thousands of Irish citizens who will be placed in a legal limbo as a result of this Bill's enactment.

I would have hoped that if more consideration had been afforded to this matter, the debate we would have had — in the proper time and context — would have looked at every aspect of citizenship. Not only would we have considered matters such as asylum seeking, refugees and immigration but also those of residency and the Minister's overweening power to decide who can or cannot be a citizen. The latter is much too great a power and it should have been contemplated by the debate and addressed in the legislation.

We could also have discussed the fact that being a citizen does not revolve around oaths of loyalty such as those which exist in the current legislation. The rights and responsibilities of Irish citizenship are not codified anywhere in legislation. On the question of an oath of loyalty, the Minister is finally tackling, by way of some type of red herring, the question of citizenship granted through investment. How many of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people who were granted citizenship in this spurious way swore oaths of loyalty before a District Court judge? The Minister has access to all the relevant files and I am sure that few, if any, of the individuals to whom I refer have sworn such oaths. If that is the case, why not, as Deputy Joe Higgins stated, revoke the citizenship of those who received it in this manner?

We must also debate the value of Irish citizenship, particularly when it is seen as being of assistance to people in distressing situations. I refer here to the unfortunate Kenneth Bigley and to Margaret Hassan. As a result of our perceived status of ourselves in the world, it is believed that Irish citizenship can somehow extricate individuals from awkward situations. However, I recall a time when an Irish passport was abused by the American Government. I refer here to the use of a false Irish passport by Colonel Oliver North of the US Army to sell American arms into Iran, which did not recognise the American Government at the time. I do not know what moves the then Irish Government made to make its American counterpart aware of the fact that the use of an Irish passport in that way was utterly inappropriate.

As a result of situations such as those to which I refer and the way in which we deal internationally with other issues, questions must be asked about the value of Irish citizenship and whether it is perceived as highly as we would like to believe to be the case. By putting in place unnecessary restrictions of a sort which, ironically, do not exist in the United States, are we further diminishing and devaluing the concept of Irish citizenship? I would like to believe that the kind of economic theory to which the Minister subscribes involves an open borders approach and greater integration. With its many flaws, the United States can at least be said to be a good economic melting pot. The latter has proven to be to that country's advantage.

I often find it difficult to understand the arguments put forward by the Minister and his party, particularly in respect of economic liberalism and the fact that it is supposed to be a social and liberal party. In reality, both of the party's policies in these areas are divergent. Those policies are not about economic liberalism but about closing off opportunities; they do not involve social liberalism but rather revolve around narrow and confined ways to define what it is to be Irish. That is not a vision I share of being Irish. I am concerned that, in the future, the many thousands of citizens with backgrounds similar to mine who were born outside the country will be viewed as less valued citizens.

The alternative will be for the Minister to come forward at the earliest opportunity with a wide-ranging citizenship Bill which will cover the various areas to which I have referred. This legislation must, on a deep level, try to rationalise and identify the nature of Irish citizenship. Ultimately, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to divest himself of a power which is too wide-ranging and which should allow people — who would do so in other jurisdictions — to receive citizenship automatically. In light, however, of the Minister's contribution and the fact that the tenor and tone thereof were backed up by Deputy O'Flynn, I am afraid that we will not obtain the balanced debate and the future legislation to which I refer. The Bill before us is nothing less than a missed opportunity. Through it, the Irish people are being cheated of a real chance to discuss what Irish citizenship is and what it should be.

See this speech in context