High Court judgement mentioning naturalized ctizens' status and reckonable residence for children's nationality.

I came across this interesting article:
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/co ... urt-rules/

The judgement itself: https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/36d6 ... #view=fitH

A few points have stood out for me here. First of all, this:

The boy was refused a passport on the basis that a subsection of section 6A(1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1956 does not cover people with subsidiary protection as they are not entitled to reside in the State without any restriction on their period of residence.
[...]
Section 6A(1) of the 1956 Act says a person born on the island of Ireland “shall not be entitled” to Irish citizenship unless their parent has, during the four years immediately preceding the birth, been resident on the island for not less than three years.

A subsection of this qualifies that section 6A(1) does not apply to a person born on the island who has at least one parent entitled to reside in the State without restriction on their residence.
Extract from the judgement:

The applicant’s mother’s right to renew her right to reside in the State as a result of
her grant of subsidiary protection, pursuant to s. 54 of the 2015 Act, is and always was for
a temporally restricted permission of a period less than three years subject to conditions. It
was, therefore, open to the first respondent to deem her not to come within s. 6A(2)(d)(i)
as her period of residence in the State was and is restricted in time. I refuse this application.

Does it mean that people without Stamp 5 will not be given an option to register their child, in this case, as stamps 1-4 are all with restrictions on period of residence?
https://www.irishimmigration.ie/registe ... on-stamps/

Stamp 4 indicates permission to stay in Ireland for a specified period, subject to conditions. Stamp 4 is reckonable as residence when applying for citizenship by naturalisation.

vs

Stamp 5 indicates permission to stay in Ireland without change to conditions on the time you can remain here, subject to other conditions.

Anothe interesting quote (eg for @Vadrar ):

The judge said the entitlement to apply for citizenship via reckonable residence was not relevant to the issues before her. Citizenship by birth is as “close to an absolute right as could be contemplated as existing in Irish law”, while citizenship by naturalisation is a “lesser right”, as it can be revoked, she said.

So naturalised citizens are clearly citizens of lesser importance.

What are your thoughts?

Children born in Ireland to parents with 3 years before birth of Stamps 1 to 4 can apply directly for a passport. These parents need a period of residence (3 years) prior to birth because they have restricted permission to stay. Children of eg a British parent (an example of unrestricted permission to stay but not Irish) can apply even if British parent arrived a day before the child’s birth. Which is what those extracts say, and also, if I’ve understood your post, is what you are saying.

The fact that naturalised citizens have fewer rights than a citizen by birth is true. I know it causes outrage amongst people who assume all citizenships should be the same, but it’s true of almost all citizenship grants around the world. The rights that Ireland grants on naturalisation are typically greater than other countries. UK for instance has a large number of graduated rights depending on whether citizenship is gained by residency, marriage, birth or descent that affect eg heritability, rights to reside in UK. Australia even differentiates rights of birth citizenship in the event of dual citizenship (removing citizenship by birth if a second citizenship was taken before about 2002.)

Ireland only has about 3 groups I believe: birth, descent being one group (with maximum
rights) ; association being the second (with intermediate rights) and marriage and residency being the third group with fewer rights. They won’t revoke birth citizenship (short of a dual citizen convicted of eg a terror crime) unlike eg Australia who need no crime to strip birth citizenship (though are taking steps to allow Australian citizenship ship to be gained again in these instances). The Irish can revoke citizenship if another citizenship is taken after naturalisation except by marriage. Oddly perhaps, a FBR child of a naturalised citizen has more rights than their parent, even if they have never been to Ireland. This is extraordinarily generous of the Irish.

Ireland is remarkably generous with their citizenship. Not many other countries allow eg FBR rights to pass on indefinitely through generations as long as registration is in place before birth. Most countries limit it to one or two generations- UK being an example. Irish naturalisation processing is currently a ****show but their terms are generous.

The interesting thing about the child of subsidiary protection is what citizenship they are entitled to. Presumably they inherited a citizenship from their parent even though born in Ireland. I presume this, because generally, if a child is born in a Ireland and isn’t entitled to any citizenship (eg through heritability) they are usually granted Irish even if parents don’t have 3 years residency.

I’m surprised the lawyer for the subsidiary protection client brought the case. It’s clear that subsidiary protection is limited in time - while renewal is anm option it isn’t automatic and can be refused if circumstances change.