NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > Roots blogs > An American in Ireland > Ireland voted away "anchor babies" in 2004

An American in Ireland by The Yank

Ireland voted away "anchor babies" in 2004

Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

18 Comments

RSS

Archives

In June 2004 the Irish people voted to amend the Constitution to change the laws on citizenship and eliminate the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in Ireland. I would have completely forgotten about that vote if I hadn't been seeing so much comment on the so-called "anchor babies" in the American media, including from Niall O'Dowd of these parts.

When the votes of that referendum were counted, 79% of the electorate approved the 27th amendment to the Irish Constitution (see article 9.1) and ended Ireland's "anchor baby" issue.

The campaign wasn't all that contentious (or it would have been more memorable). The two biggest parties were in favor of the change, but some of the smaller parties were opposed and there was some debate in the media and we had the usual election poster slogans to try to energize the voters.

In the early years of this decade there were many stories in the media about "non-national" women coming to Ireland to have their babies here in order that their babies have Irish (and, thus, EU) citizenship. We didn't have the phrase "anchor baby" – "maternity tourism" was tossed around a bit – but the basic premise was the same: women were coming to Ireland to have babies so that they could stay in Ireland or any other EU state.

During the campaign leading up to the vote the Minister for Health referenced these well-known anecdotes when he implied that "maternity tourism" (and not government mismanagement) was the reason our national health system's maternity facilities were so stretched. Those leading the 'No' campaign asserted that there was no facts or figures to back up any of the "maternity tourism" claims, but the general impression stuck.

The 'No' side claimed that racism was at the core of the 'Yes' campaign. This caused Brian Cowen, then the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to reply that some of those in the 'No' campaign were "congenitally incapable of dealing with this issue without losing their head."

In addition to those direct arguments, there were hints and opaque references to possible tensions with Britain thanks to our liberal citizenship laws. We heard that refugees and illegal immigrants resident in Britain were flying to have their babies in Belfast, which automatically entitled the baby to Irish (& EU) citizenship, something not available to them in Britain.

Given all the talk in America about this "anchor baby" issue, that might be the most interesting aspect of the Irish experience. Prior to the 2004 referendum, Ireland was out of line not only with the United Kingdom, but with every other member of the European Union.

However, thanks to that June 2004 referendum Ireland's citizenship laws are now consistent with those in all EU member states. That is, no EU country automatically grants citizenship to those born within its boundaries. There are no longer any EU "anchor babies."

Pictures of election posters from the Irish Election Literature Blog.

E-mail

18 Comments

See all comments

kell7757 | Sep 13, 2010, 01:16 PM EDT

maryjeandc, thanks for enlightening us that europe colonized the whole world. I'm in the dark though, can you fill me on the colonies claimed by Poland, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway? Is there some historical secret that you're guarding from the free world.

Report abuse

GivenMegaw | Aug 23, 2010, 09:37 AM EDT

Re: children of US military members born abroad (at least when we were in Italy, circa 1989) were consider to be Americans if born on US military property, or dual American/Italian citizens if born in an Italian hospital. We have friends (wife British, husband American) who's son was born in an Italian hospital...you can't be consider tri-national, so his parents had to deal with lots of red tape to declare his dual citizenship as British and American. Not sure how this would be handled now, as it appears that the EU issue has changed things.

Report abuse

TheYank | Aug 23, 2010, 05:26 AM EDT

nygalwaygirl

I defer to your knowledge of EU citizenship laws, but it is true that no EU country offers automatic citizenship to those born inside their borders, right?

Report abuse

Laura Wilson | Aug 21, 2010, 11:01 PM EDT

ALl pregnant Illegals should be able to skip the entire legal mumbo jumbo, process, its to timley they need to be put on the fastest jets back to thier countries i say NO More Illegal babies ON My dime, i work to hard for money I dont get to spend on my family & my future, next we will be seeing on our protion of our pay stubbs state taxes with held ?? fed, taxes with held ?? & Illegal babies taxes with held, might as well put it on thier , what a hot mess,

Report abuse

mmccreedy | Aug 21, 2010, 08:03 AM EDT

My mother's family came to America from England in 1619, and my father's family came during the potato famine. Does that mean that I am not a citizen of the US? I was born in California in 1957, does that mean I am a Mexican citzen, just because Mexico once owned California? Only someone who is ignorant of American history and US Constitutional development, including Barry Obama, would claim that I owe alleigence to any other country than the United States of America. Obama and people like him are hisorically illiterate, and have NO business making any kind of public policy concerning citizenship (much less any other kind of public policy).

Report abuse

rpmschevy | Aug 21, 2010, 03:36 AM EDT

Corcoran very well put. Another way to say it, if our married military or American workers in foreign countries, have children in the foreign country, the children are American, USA, born, even if birthed in another country. So why would illegal aliens birthing in the US be anything other than their parents nationality, they are not.

Report abuse

MerleAZ | Aug 21, 2010, 02:05 AM EDT

I live in Arizona which borders Mexico. This is a huge problem. My doctor left Arizona and moved to Chicago. He was continually called to the hospital to deliver babies for mothers who were just here from Mexico to have an "anchor baby". No pre-natal care, young moms. They wait until they are ready to deliver and call 9-11 the fire department. Lots of problem pregancies, with no planning. His increasing costs of malpractice insurance made it impossible to continue to practice OB-GYN in Arizona. We do not have enough doctors as it is. More and more illegal aliens leave the state because of our poor economy. Phoenix, AZ is kidnapping capital of the world. Criminals bring illegals across the border and then hold them in "drop houses" under they are paid more money.

Report abuse

Corcoran | Aug 20, 2010, 02:14 PM EDT

We in America do not need to change the constitution. We need to clarify it so that people don't misinterpret it. In the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1. it states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Illegal aliens, Native Americans, children of ambassadors born in the US are not "Under the jurisdiction of the United States". They are under the jurisdiction of the country they came from (or the Tribe they are born to)..therefore, the 14th Amendment does not have to be changed, it just simply needs to be clarified and inforced!

Report abuse

Ajreaper | Aug 20, 2010, 02:06 PM EDT

I've really never much understood this citizenship by birth alone philosophy much less having it a part of a nations laws. I was born in the burrough of Manhatten as was my mother and my maternal grandparents going back at least 3 generations, I was not yet a year old when my father was stationed in Italy and have never lived in New York city since- am I a New Yorker? Should I be entitled to services those who call New York city home are eligible for? It's a question few would have a problem answering- not only no but hell no! So how can one be granted citizenship by just the location of ones birth? There's so much more that goes into being a citizen of any place then having been born there or even living there.

Report abuse

nygalwaygirl | Aug 20, 2010, 02:01 PM EDT

Well, it's not exactly true that that Ireland's citizenship laws are now consistent w/ those in all EU member states - each country has its own citizenship laws, and Ireland offers automatic citizenship to children of native-born parents no matter where in the world they are born, for example, which not every nation does. IrishAndProud - Do you really think there's a need to free up housing for Irish people? Are you under the impression there's somehow a shortage of housing here? Wacky!

Report abuse

LinLinisme | Aug 20, 2010, 09:44 AM EDT

we should do the same here. Should have done it years ago

Report abuse

maryjeandc | Aug 20, 2010, 09:26 AM EDT

Well, the United States cannot change its constitution by popular referendum. It takes a vogte of 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states. Irish immigrants should be happy about that. The character of America was WASP until lots of immigrants came from Europe, Latin America and all parts of the globe. The greatest of America is its people from all over the world. So Europe is proud of its closed system, maybe they should have thougt about this before they colonized the whole world.

Report abuse

IrishAndProud | Aug 19, 2010, 06:58 PM EDT

Ahhh...Can't you just see it? Wouldn't you love to just be standing there, witnessing it? Planeload after planeload after planeload after planeload (and ferryboat after ferryboat after ferryboat) of Africans, Asians and Eastern Europeans (and all of their influence, culture and languages with them), being deported OUT of Ireland and back home...nonstop, nonstop, nonstop, day and night, night and day...until there's little if any of them left anywhere on Irish soil. Whew! Think of all the public funds, land, housing and above all JOBS that would free up, for Irish people! The mass emigration of the Irish themselves would greatly slow, and Ireland itself would cease losing its Irish identity, like it is currently. They could stay home and then actually rebuild Ireland (correctly, this time). If only this would happen...if only. I think that if enough of the Irish would say they'd HAD enough, it would. My kin's apathy and passivity are their sole obstacles, on this. They need to shake out of it, for their own sakes. For real. This isn't believing in some 'mythical' Ireland of the past; it's simply believing in IRELAND, and not wanting it to just disintegrate away, under the imperial banner of politial correctness. That banner is poison and death, to ANY nation.

Report abuse

jacersisityourself | Aug 19, 2010, 05:12 PM EDT

WoundedKnee, I think you are right on the button. In 1995 I did a certain survey of statistical trends, analysed the results and (correctly) predicted that Ireland’s economy was going to buzz hugely in the mid-noughties (2004-2006). More importantly, I warned that we should get ready for it. No one listened. Not the Govt., not even the Banks. No schools were built to meet the coming needs, no hospitals were readied for new babies and the sick, no prisons expanded – all the things that an economic expansion would bring were not planned for in spite of clear “In-your-face” statistics available at the time. In yr 2000, I realised and warned that our economy was going to explode so much that we would need foreigners to help out. Again, no one listened - but it happened. It was to my personal disappointment that I did not predict in 1995, that an influx of migrants would be needed and add to what was going to happen in what are now known as the Celtic Tiger years (they should’ve been called the ‘Celtic Elk’ years... some idiot Irish journalist coined the ‘Celtic Tiger’ phrase out of China’s booming economy just before that time, labelled the Chinese Tiger – it was stuck onto Ireland, farcically IMO. Geddit? Extinct Chinese tiger re-appears? There were never any Celtic tigers but there are extinct Celtic elks (and bears). It just proves how smuckingly wrong Irish journalists get their phrases and mislead everyone else. Now we can say with truth that the Irish Elk years led to Irish Yeuch years...

Report abuse

jacersisityourself | Aug 19, 2010, 04:30 PM EDT

Re IAP's comment - see the news today about Fance sending Roma (Gypsies) back to Romania on free flights and free €300 in their pockets? Ah, France! - the Liberal country.. with a president (Sarkhozy) that's popular abroad but not at home. Any guesses as to when he'll become popular again amongst the Gauls? Sarkhozy isn't a French name, maybe that could be a reason he's not popular in France? Why weren't his forbears thrown out of France? Just asking, like ya know...

Report abuse