Letters to the Editor: Law sends message of appeasement

'Introducing this change with a cliff edge could leave current residents missing out on eligibility to apply for citizenship by just days or weeks and move the goalposts after years of building their life here, as well as adding to the uncertainty of their continued acceptance in a country they call home in an increasingly hostile environment for non-nationals.' File picture

It’s difficult to escape ongoing debate around the proposed Irish citizenship changes. As an EU national with a Malaysian spouse and an Irish-born toddler and being months away from applying for citizenship ourselves, it’s obviously a top-of-mind issue.

To be clear, I think there are some very welcome changes being discussed here. In particular, language proficiency is obviously a key consideration for building your life here and contributing to society.

I can’t help myself from adding the side note that even candidates running for Uachtarán na hÉireann treat using their cúpla focal as entirely optional.

The particular aspect I think is worth talking about is around the increased residency requirements. This is, in my view, less about necessary alignment across EU states than sending a message of appeasement to those seeking to blame immigration for all that ails Ireland. Across the EU, the residence requirement for citizenship ranges between three and 10 years, raising it from five to eight years firmly puts the country at the most restrictive end of that spectrum.

Introducing this change with a cliff edge could leave current residents missing out on eligibility to apply for citizenship by just days or weeks and move the goalposts after years of building their life here, as well as adding to the uncertainty of their continued acceptance in a country they call home in an increasingly hostile environment for non-nationals.

There are reasonable accommodations when introducing these changes in an empathetic way, options like a 12-month grace period for people nearing their application date or a gradual introduction where the residency requirement increases by one year every year so the impact is minimised for anyone who was already on the path to citizenship and has committed to Ireland.

Citizenship is, and should remain, a privilege rather than an automatic entitlement. But strengthening the process does not need to mean losing sight of the people who have already made Ireland their home.

It’s important that when responding to increasingly hostile rhetoric around immigration, we do not end up adopting it ourselves.

I’m hopeful a céad míle fáilte can still be extended to those who make positive contributions to their communities without additional roadblocks being introduced.

Peter Elst, Donabate, Co Dublin

Migrants deserve clarity

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposal by Minister Jim O’Callaghan to extend the residency requirement for naturalisation from five years to eight years. This change would have significant and unfair consequences for longstanding migrant workers and their families, particularly those on critical skills employment permits (CSEP) who have already contributed meaningfully to Ireland’s economy and society.

Ireland actively sought critical skills migrants to fill essential shortages across healthcare, technology, engineering, and other sectors. In response, thousands of professionals relocated their families, invested in communities, and built their lives here under the clear understanding that five years of reckonable residence would qualify them for naturalisation.

To retroactively extend this period to eight years would undermine the reciprocal relationship between the State and these workers. Migrants upheld their side of the agreement — providing skills, stability, tax contributions, and continuity of service. The State should honour its side by maintaining the five-year pathway for those already living and working here.

A reasonable and just approach would be:

• Migrants who apply for general or critical skills employment permits on or after January 1, 2027 should fall under the new eight-year rule;
• Migrants already in the State, who have been contributing under the CSEP system, should retain the existing five-year naturalisation eligibility.

This distinction is essential for legal clarity, fairness, and public trust. It should be clearly published on Citizens Information and all Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) platforms.

The proposed change also risks creating unnecessary hardship for migrant families:

• Family unity: Parents and children should not be forced into different citizenship timelines.
• Children’s rights: Children who have lived in Ireland for five years should be eligible to apply for citizenship alongside their parents, rather than waiting until age 18.
• Educational stability: Many migrant children are fully integrated into Irish schools. Delaying their citizenship by an additional three years creates uncertainty, and disadvantages them compared to their Irish-born peers.

Critical-skills migrants are not transient workers — they are long-term contributors who strengthen Ireland’s competitiveness, innovation capacity, and public services. Extending the
naturalisation timeline risks discouraging future skilled workers from choosing Ireland, reducing retention of existing talent, and creating instability for those who have already committed to life here.

I request the following parliamentary actions:

• Grandfathering existing migrants into the five-year naturalisation rule,
• Clear public guidance distinguishing new applicants from current residents,
• Protection of family unity in citizenship applications,
• A five-year pathway for migrant children who have grown up in Ireland.

This issue affects thousands of families who have made Ireland their home and continue to contribute to its prosperity.

Ireland is a country that cares.

Gillian Loos, Loughrea

Rigidly apply compromise

Majo Rivas’ article on English-language tests for citizenship was splendid. I hope it will be read by those working on the issue. The key words she uses are “rigidly applied”.

Because of our last-century exposure to “rigidly applied” Catholicism, many of us, including our leaders, were brought up to see any form of compromise as intrinsically wrong. Any appreciation of ‘grey’ as opposed to black and white, is sinful backsliding.

I hope the new citizenship rules for language proficiency will be applied in a kinder fashion than the unnuanced thinking of the past. We need pragmatic accommodations and exemptions for those with disabilities and truly difficult circumstances.

If we are really the land of saints and scholars, let’s act as if we are.

Geraldine Powell, Fairview, North Carolina

Proposal doesn’t add up

I agree with all that Prof Pauline Mellon, Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin (both of whom have now resigned from the mathematics syllabus committee), and Neil Dobbs have written and said about the new Leaving Cert Maths draft specifications.

I would add two further points about the new plans. First, instead of a project, the NCCA is proposing an ‘Additional Assessment Component’ (AAC). The plan is that on a certain day towards the end of 5th year, all maths students will be given a few problems to be examined. Then, under supervision and without access to the internet, they will have to respond to the problems set. This will all be done on that day, before the students go home. Forty per cent of the marks will go to the work that day on the AAC and 60% for the exam at the end of sixth year.

This new idea is plainly an admission by the NCCA and the DES that if projects are set over several weeks, it will be impossible to stop students from using AI to do some or all of their project. And yet projects will continue to be used in nearly all other subjects, despite their unreliability. This does not make sense.

Second, because the NCCA plans to introduce this one-day project, they propose to eliminate substantial and significant parts of the present course, including nearly all proofs. If the project takes only one day, why remove so much wonderful, challenging, useful maths from the course? This, too, makes no sense.

Oliver Murphy, Bray

Greyhound racing in decline

I see that the greyhound racing body reported €1.1m pre-tax losses for 2015, and that attendances at tracks are down on the previous year.

Worldwide, greyhound racing is in terminal decline. In the past six months, New Zealand, Wales, and Scotland have banned it. Only one US state, West Virginia, still permits it, and one of the two surviving greyhound racing stadiums in Northern closed last week.

The trend globally is very much towards the abolition or phasing out of this inherently cruel practice. But in this country successive governments have been mesmerised by the greyhound industry, with politicians vying with each to lavish praise on it.

Those €1.1m losses are all the more stark considering that the industry receives around €19m in State support each year, funding that many other sporting bodies could only dream of.

The objections to the sport that led to its demise in other jurisdictions are same ones that apply to the industry in Ireland. Track injuries, abandonment, and culling of unwanted or underperforming dogs.

Political backers of the industry claim it’s a huge money spinner, generating thousands of jobs and boosting the fabric of life in rural Ireland.

But if it’s such a big plus economically, why does it rely on State handouts? And why is it losing money instead of showing the big profits, and increasing popularity, that would indeed point to an economic success story?

I have a sinking feeling that Ireland will be the last country on earth to ban greyhound racing. We have much to be proud of as a sporting nation: our footballers, our hurling, and great sportspeople like Katie Taylor who do us proud on the world stage.

But when it comes to protecting animals from recreational cruelty, I don’t expect our government to be first out of the traps.

John Fitzgerald, Callan, Co Kilkenny

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here