On the last occasion, when dealing with this Bill, I was endeavouring to point out to the House what I conceived to be its real and true significance, and I was doing so because I felt, from the moment it was circulated, that it would give rise to considerable misconceptions as to the purpose and scope of the measure. I pointed out that in my view, at all events, this Bill was nothing more or less than a Bill which was contemplated by Article 3 of the Constitution; that so far as its scope and effect are concerned, the Bill does nothing more than to provide for the matters which Article 3 of the Constitution contemplated should be provided for by legislation; that from 1922, when the Constitution came into force, a lot of work had been done in connection with the clearing up of difficulties surrounding the legal position as to our status in the community of nations known as the British Commonwealth of Nations, and that one of the subjects that had given most trouble was the subject matter of nationality. I endeavoured to point out that this Bill does not really deal with the subject matter of Irish nationality at all; that it deals with something that is called Irish citizenship, which is something rather artificial. That citizenship is the creation of Article 3 of the Constitution, brought into being to meet a very serious situation existing at that time, with a view to laying the ground for future development along the lines of the full recognition of Irish nationality. The words "citizen" and "citizenship" in relation to international law are, I think, words that have only come into common use in connection with the subject matter of nationality in fairly recent times. It is rather inexact phraseology, from the point of view of public international law, to treat the subject of nationality as being the same as citizenship.
In practice, I think the modern tendency is to assimilate the nomenclature of citizenship with that of nationality, but, in public international law, the real thing is nationality, and this Bill deals, in my view, with something which is not really nationality, and this Bill is really not a Nationality Bill at all. It is the same kind of Bill that will be found to have been passed into law by the legislatures of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Of course the same provisions are not in the measures passed by those legislatures, but, in essence, it is the same matter. It was pointed out at the Imperial Conferences of 1929 and 1930 that the position of the member States of the British Commonwealth of Nations, had become so well recognised in international relations that, from the point of view of those relations, it was necessary that each of the States forming the groups of these nations, should have their nationals properly defined, and that for certain juristic purposes and for the purpose of international law, Canadian nationality, South African nationality and Australian nationality were recognised as something different from the status which had hitherto been associated with the status known as a British subject or British nationality. This Bill only deals with Irish citizenship, in the same way as Canada dealt with her nationals from the point of view of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the League of Nations, and from the point of view of general international law.
I make these observations—not in any carping spirit of criticism— accepting the statement made by the President the other day in introducing the Bill, that it was not conceived in any Party spirit. I make them merely for the purpose of elucidating what, in my opinion, is the true situation under this Bill; that the real problem that has to be solved has not been dealt with in the Bill at all. The real problem that has to be solved is being ignored so far as this Bill is concerned. That problem requires solution, and in the solution of it the President and his colleagues in the Ministry would get all the support and all the help that we on this side of the House could give them as to the recognition of Irish nationality as an independent conception in public international law and the reconciliation of that separate Irish nationality with the idea of common status hitherto associated with, for want of a better name, British nationality. We have no intention of giving up the idea of separate Irish nationality which springs from our sentiments as an independent race, from the full knowledge of our past history and our separate existence as a nation but, at the same time there are solid practical advantages to be got from our association with this group of independent states known as the British Commonwealth of Nations. We can get those advantages by agreement with our fellow States in this community of States, and we can gain those practical advantages without in any way whittling down what some people may call, but which we do not call, our sentimental attachment to our Irish nationality.
I realise that it is an exceedingly difficult task to persuade the old jurists, particularly in England, to give up their idea of one common nationality for the associated States. But it is a problem that can be solved, and that ought to be solved, and the President can rest assured that we on this side of the House would give him every assistance in the solution of that problem without in any way whittling down our national rights. This Bill does not in any way affect the problem, and I think it is only right that should be recognised, because we will have the other problem to face so long as we are associated with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We realise that if we were independent, whether under a republican or any other form of government, the problem would not exist. While we are in the British Commonwealth of Nations we are there for severely practical purposes, to gain solid advantages for our people. One of the advantages to be gained, and that ought to be gained, is the practical advantage that can be got by this reconciliation of our separate nationality with that of the common status hitherto associated with British nationality.
This Bill, in my view, if it is passed into law in its present form, repealing, as it apparently intends to repeal, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, will leave the legal position from the point of view of international law entirely unchanged. I would suggest that the introduction of that topic, the repeal of the Act of 1914, into this measure, was entirely unnecessary. I have some reason to know the difficulties associated with ascertaining whether or not that Act is in force in this country or whether any portion of that Act is in force in this country, and the President will find, I think, from his advisers, that I have committed myself on that subject long before this. I think there can be no doubt that certain portions of the Act of 1914 are not in operation in this country since the Treaty became law, but, on the other hand, it is equally certain that some sections of that Act were in force and carried over by Article 73 of the Constitution. I do not think a question as to whether that Act, in whole or in part, is now or was at any time in force in this country is relevant to the subject matter of this Bill. We are not dealing in this Bill with British nationality in any shape or form. We are dealing with citizenship created by Article 3 of the Constitution which co-existed with the idea of British nationality at the time of the passage into law of the Constitution. Consequently, I think that the introduction of the Act of 1914 was entirely irrelevant. It ought not to have been introduced because not merely is it irrelevant but it is probably likely to cause some more friction between this country and our neighbour across the water which could have been avoided as it was unnecessary.
I personally cannot see why this irrelevant topic was introduced into this Bill, but, having been introduced, if Section 28 of the Bill becomes law, so far as my view is concerned, at all events, even with the repeal of the Act of 1914, the position is practically unchanged, because for anybody born in this country, so long as we are legally bound by the Treaty and so long as we recognise the Treaty and live as we are living at the moment under the Treaty and the status given by that Treaty, the law remains as it was before and the President's advisers will tell him what that was. I put forward these views because I think that considerable misconception has arisen as to the scope of the Bill. I repeat that this Bill deals only with local citizenship. I do not use the word "local" in any disparaging sense. I use it in the same sense as the Canadian Parliament used the expression "Canadian national" when they passed their Nationality Act and in the same sense as the South African Parliament use the expression "South African national" when they passed their Nationality Act. It has the very same significance as those and no more. It does not deal with the vexed question of what is known as the common status.
Most of the provisions of this Bill can, I think, be better dealt with on the Committee Stage. I should have liked the President to have opened the case for some of these sections in a little more detail than in fact he did. I should have liked him to tell us some of the principles, if there are principles underlying certain sections of this Bill —or if it is merely expediency, we should like to know, because in a question of the acquisition or loss of nationality, it must be largely a matter of expediency and not principle. I was interested to learn the President's and the Government's views on the subject of the effect of marriage on the loss or acquisition of nationality. Apparently, the President was not inclined to follow the late Kevin O'Higgins's example. Mr. Kevin O'Higgins in the 1926 thought that by accepting the proposals which are now embodied in this Bill he would not be doing what he thought was right and, on the other hand, by refusing them he thought he would be offering himself, in the phrase he uttered in 1926, as a whole burnet offering to the women's organisations which were pressing for what they called reforms in the law of nationality as regards married women. I think he also used the expression at that time that he was not prepared to set up national frontiers between husband and wife— apparently the President is—and he thought there was something inconsistent in the idea of separate nationality of husband and wife with the conception of Christian marriage.
These are all matters of opinion. I do not think they are matters of principle at all, but I should have liked to have heard the justification for the proposals which are now embodied in the Bill. I hope we will hear them more fully explained in the course of the Committee Stage of the Bill. I personally have not any very strong views on the subject of whether or not a married woman takes the nationality of her husband on marriage, but I think it is relevant in this connection, and it leads me to another point I want to make on this Bill: there is nothing that causes more confusion in international law on the subject of nationality than the question of dual nationality. I do not know, when this Bill is passed, how many nationalities it will be possible for people to have, at all events, in this country. We shall have dual, treble and quadruple nationalities, assuming that citizenship under this Bill is equivalent to nationality. Under the provisions of the Bill dealing with the acquisition of nationality by aliens, there is no provision that, when an alien comes over here and wishes to acquire citizenship, he has to abandon the nationality he had before, so that a German or a Russian or a Pole or an Italian can come over here for the purposes of his own—let us not enter into any discussion of what those purposes might be at any stage of the world's history—and acquire citizenship under this Bill and acquire it, let me remark, in parenthesis and in passing, without having any knowledge of Irish or English and still retain his own nationality. I think that is a matter which the President and his advisers ought seriously to consider—whether we should give facilities to foreigners to acquire the Irish citizenship which is conferred under the Constitution and in accordance with this Bill to people who come over here for purposes of their own and still allow them retain their own nationality. There can be several forms of nationality vested in the one person under that arrangement.
I do not know, under this Bill at the moment, what an alien is. On the Order Paper there is an Aliens Bill which has been introduced but the text of which has not been furnished to Deputies up to the moment. There is no definition of an alien in this Bill, and, so far as I can recollect, the word "alien" in the Bill only occurs in one of the marginal notes to the Bill. Is an Englishman, if this Bill is passed, an alien? Is a Canadian an alien? It may be that these matters will be dealt with under the Aliens Bill, but I think it would have been better, and this Bill could have been discussed with great knowledge of its effect, had the text of the Aliens Bill, which has been introduced, been circulated, and also had the text of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which it is proposed to pass also been circulated, but as things stand at the moment, there is no definition of the word "alien" in this Bill. We regulate the entry into this country of aliens under, I think, the Aliens Order of 1925, which was made under the Aliens Restrictions Acts of 1914 and 1919. The Act of 1914 was in a sense a war measure, but its provisions were continued by the Act of 1919, and we adopted them by Article 73 of the Constitution and further recognised them by the making by the Executive Council of the Aliens Order of 1925. It is that Order, made under these two Statutes, which regulates the status of aliens in this country and their entry into the country and exit from it compulsorily. In that Order there is no definition of alien either. So that you are thrown back for a definition of alien to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, and that Act defines an alien as a person who is not a British subject. That is proposed to be repealed and we have no definition of an alien at the moment, as far as I can see, except whatever the dictionary meaning may be. So that, under the Order of 1925, it may be—unless the point is dealt with and made clear by the proposed Aliens Bill, which we have not yet seen —that a person who is not a citizen of this State must be regarded as an alien; in which event a Welshman, a Scotchman, a Canadian or a South African must go to the immigration authorities and comply with the provisions of that Order of 1925. I hope that matter is dealt with in the Aliens Bill. As it stands, the difficulty is there. I do not suppose it will be left there; but at the moment we have no idea as to what the position will be under it.
I do not want to go into detail through the very meticulous provisions of the various sections of this Bill. They will be dealt with on the Committee Stage. So far as we are concerned, we will meet those in no spirit of hostile opposition. The only attitude that we take up on the Bill is that we regret the Bill shows no advance on the position as created in 1922 by Article 3 of the Constitution. That Article, as I said on the last occasion, enshrined within itself a novel conception of new Irish citizenship. It was due to the genius of one man, I think, that that conception was embodied in that Article, and he and those who adopted the Constitution in 1922 looked, not to the creation of a mere local citizenship under that Article, but to laying the foundations on which, when the full significance of the Treaty would be realised and when, to use the current phrase, the last ounce had been got out of the Treaty, would be erected the solid edifice of Irish nationality. This Bill, in our view, marks no advance on the 1922 position and entirely ignores the very solid achievements of the representatives of this country in 1929 and 1930 at the Imperial Conference.
