Letters to the Editor: Moving the finish line on citizenship
'The Government can still pursue whatever citizenship policy it believes appropriate for the future without breaking faith with people who are already here.' File picture
I came to Ireland in 2024 on a critical skills employment permit, bringing with me professional experience, qualifications and, most importantly, the intention of building a permanent life here with my family.
Like many skilled migrants, moving countries was not a casual decision.
It meant leaving behind an established life, relocating my wife and young child, finding a home, building a career from the beginning in a new country, and accepting all the uncertainty that comes with such a move.
One important part of that decision was the clear legal framework that existed when we came: After five years of reckonable residence, a person could become eligible to apply for Irish citizenship.
Nobody believes citizenship should be automatic.
Applicants should demonstrate good character, respect Irish society, obey the law, and make a genuine contribution.
Reasonable language or civic requirements can be debated.
But increasing the residence requirement from five years to eight years, particularly for people who are already living here under the existing system, feels fundamentally different.
It feels like moving the finish line after the race has already started.
That comparison is especially personal for me because this year my young son and I took part in the marathon in Limerick.
He was proud simply to be part of it, and I was proud to share that moment with him in the city we now call home.
In any race, you accept the distance before you begin. You prepare for it, commit to it, and keep moving towards a finish line you can see.
Imagine being several kilometres into that race and then being told that the finish line has been moved further away.
That is how this proposal feels to many families who came to Ireland in good faith under the existing five-year framework.
We accepted the rules as they were, built our lives around them and started that journey believing that, if we met the conditions and contributed positively to Irish society, we would eventually reach the point where we could apply for citizenship.
My son will probably remember running in Limerick long before he understands immigration law.
For him, this is already home.
That is why moving the finish line now feels like more than a policy change; it feels like changing the promise of the journey after families have already begun it.
For people looking at Ireland from abroad today, the Government is perfectly entitled to say: These are the conditions if you choose to come here.
They can consider those conditions and decide whether Ireland is right for them.
But those of us already here did not have that choice. We made major, sometimes irreversible, family and career decisions based on the rules Ireland had in place when we arrived.
Three additional years may look like a simple number on a government policy paper.
For a family living through them, they are birthdays, school years, rent payments, tax contributions, career decisions, and years of uncertainty about whether the country your child is growing up in will ever fully become your home.
My wife and I are building our lives here. We work, support ourselves, pay taxes, and contribute to the society around us.
For families like ours, citizenship is not simply about obtaining another passport; it represents security, permanence, and belonging.
There is also a wider question Ireland should seriously consider.
The State actively competes internationally for engineers, doctors, nurses, technology workers, and other skilled professionals.
Many of these people have choices about where they build their careers and raise their families.
If Ireland asks them to come because their skills are needed, but later changes a five-year path to citizenship into an eight-year one after they have already relocated, what message does that send to the next highly skilled worker considering Ireland?
The Government can still pursue whatever citizenship policy it believes appropriate for the future without breaking faith with people who are already here.
A simple and fair transitional arrangement would achieve that: Allow those who were legally resident in Ireland before the new legislation takes effect to continue under the residency framework that existed when they came, while applying the new rules prospectively to future arrivals.
That would not weaken immigration control.
It would demonstrate something equally important about Ireland: That when people make life-changing decisions in good faith based on the rules of this State, the State treats them with fairness in return.
I think the changes to citizenship rules are unfair to people who have already contributed by living here, paying taxes, and buying properties.
They should be rewarded as promised when they had chosen to work in Ireland.
Many were invited/sponsored by companies to come and work here.
I completely agree with Guilherme Daniel Gomes ( ‘Rules bend for those who did not obey them and tighten for those who did’, , September9).
We followed rules, paid our taxes, yet the rules are being tightened for us.
Also the respected minister has overlooked the fact that when he talks about being in line with other EU nations, in many of them, lawful legal migrants do not have to get their resident permits renewed every year or two.
I have lived in Sweden and Norway and both give multi-year resident permits to begin with, especially if you are coming in on critical or highly skilled work permits and then give you permanent residency after three to four years of residency.
This removes a lot of uncertainty and reduces the cost of applying for resident permits every year or two.
If they increase the residency requirements from five to eight years, it would mean a further three years of Irish Residence Permit (IRP) renewal costing €900 for those on stamp-1g and at least two renewals for those on stamp-4 costing €600.
This is on top of already a significant amount spent during the initial five years of residency and cost of IRP for dependent children if they turn 16 while waiting for eight years of residency.
If they want to be in line with other EU countries, then they should also look at it more holistically then just changing citizenship rules.
Furthermore, the bill says that one has to be self-sufficient two years prior to application.
It looks like a random choice.
What if we are let go by our company a few months before we become eligible?
Would many months and years of employment and taxes hold for nothing?
We are not immune to industrial ups and downs and should not be punished for it.
I was headhunted and invited to come to Ireland on a critical skills visa almost three years ago.
My sponsoring company arranged everything.
They put me up in an apartment for two weeks, helped me find a rental, and even shipped my belongings across.
They rushed the process and I found myself living in a new country, that I’d never even visited, just over four months after that first email.
For almost three years I have worked hard, paid my taxes, and tried to integrate into an unfamiliar culture.
I’ve had to adapt to completely different processes, ideals, weather, and humour — and it hasn’t been easy.
Even though the article 'Citizenship rules to tighten as Government approves eight-year residency requirement,’ ( , September 9) states that Ireland values migrants this sudden, unexpected change does not support that assertion.
It makes me feel unwelcome and gives the impression that Ireland would be far happier if I’d never accepted their pressing invitation to make a new life here.
Minister of state at the department of justice Catherine Ardagh recently said she’s pushing ahead with plans to make parents responsible for their children’s criminality.
It now appears these measures are likely to be included in the next youth justice strategy.
I am not convinced that this is a fair response by the minister to what I deem to be a very complex issue.
It’s good that we are now looking at the entire youth justice strategy.
Parenting is part of this strategy, and this is not just about parents preventing neglect, it could be also be that a parent doesn’t have the skills in being able to parent.
There could be addiction or domestic violence in the house as well.
I believe that the challenges around where our young people get their values from is especially pertinent to this issue.
The State must find a way in engaging with beleaguered communities.
I would contend that there is no silver bullet when it comes to dealing with young people going into criminality.
I think it’s right to include parenting as part of that conversation.
However, if parents can’t cope, I am not entirely clear how slapping a fine on them is going to help them.
