Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Work and Nationality in Ireland: Census 2006
Read more about: Census, Electoral Register, Immigration, Policy, Social Policy
(All figures available from the Central Statistics Office website, here.
This is about as definitive as you can get.
The census figures show an Ireland that is undergoing huge change, but not quite in the way we have been told. First of all, the actual number of non-nationals employed in construction challenges the “common sense” view that it is all Poles and Latvians on our building sites. In fact, only 9 per cent of construction workers come from the ten accession states - which means that the other 91 per cent are not. The overwhelming amount of males employed in Irish construction are, well, Irish - 85 per cent.
The following tables take the non-national working population as a whole, and then break down that population into the various sectors. In other words, of the non-nationals in Ireland, how many of them work as professionals, as manual labour, as non-manual non-professional, etc.
Only 8 per cent of non-nationals are employed in manual unskilled jobs. The largest sectors are managerial and technical (at 24 per cent), and skilled manual (also 24 per cent). When combined with professional workers and non-manual skilled workers, this gives a figure of 72 per cent of all non-nationals employed in skilled work.
The ratio of non-nationals in each industry in proportion to its population can be seen below. The corresponding figure of Irish people in each industry in proportion to its population is also given, for comparative purposes. So, for example, of all Irish people who are working, just over 4 per cent of them work in Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, while just over 2 per cent of all non-nationals who are working, have a job in this industry.
The figures do little to support the argument that the majority of non-nationals are here to do work the Irish aren’t willing to do, and as soon as there is a downturn in the economy, they’ll be heading back home.
Given the fact that the majority of non-nationals are working in highly skilled and professional jobs, and that these jobs are more secure in a downturn than non-skilled, it follows that they are more likely to hang on to their jobs.
the thrust of government policy regarding non-nationals in this country is still dependent on the view of non-nationals as migrant labour, rather than as actual immigrants.
It should never have got to this stage, where long-term immigrants who are committed to building a life in this country, are treated as short-term migrants, and the census figures show that government attitude has to change. That means, full citizenship (and full voting rights) for immigrants. Lord knows, they’re paying enough in taxes.
Full voting rights for immigrants is something we are not that bad at, where we are really lagging is the long-term residency idea. Only recently did we acknowledge that long term residency could be afforded to migrants living here (rather than making them renew every two years).
The voting rights thing is more tricky though, is it not fair to argue that handing out voting rights devalues the idea of citizenship within democracy? Extending voting rights to non-citizens has been done in New Zealand though and it has not exactly been bad for democracy there.
Yes I don’t think we are that bad on voting rights. Is it something like three years you have to live in the country to get a vote? Also all EU can vote in EU and Local elections. (not sure about non-EU) while UK nationals can vote in Parllimentary elections as well.
I must say, I’m surprised at you both. I would have thought youse would know who can and cannot vote in this country - this being an election blog and all that. the eligibility is thus:
* Irish citizens can vote in every election and referendum
* British citizens may vote at Dáil, European and local elections
* Other EU citizens may vote at European and local elections
* Non-EU citizens can vote at local elections only
To be eligible to be included on the Register of Electors, you must:
* be at least 18 years old on the day the Register comes into force (15 February)
* have been ordinarily resident in the State on 1 September in the year preceding the coming into force of the Register
Three years and all that has nothing to do with it. It has to do with residency and citizenship. I’d like to see all non-nationals having a vote in general elections, not just British and Irish citizens.
One of the cornerstone of western democracy has been “no taxation without representation.” If you’re paying tax, shouldn’t you have a say in how that tax is spent? Excluding voting rights devalues democracy. That’s why the Seanad should be scrapped. The Seanad devalues our democratic system, based as it is on elitism. Fat bloated pigs scoffing on taxpayer’s money, while at the same time excluding them from the electoral process. Yep, that’s healthy.
And as general elections are held every five years, why not full voting rights for anyone resident, and working, for 5 years or more? five years unbroken residency and you can vote in general elections. As it is, once you’re resident at all, you can vote in local elections. I’m talking about extending that right, based on five years’ residency, to general elections. also, non-nationals could then apply for citizenship after fives years, giving them voting rights for presidental elections and referenda.
but for me, the main reason to give voting rights is to give people a sense of belonging to Ireland - which, when you think about it, if they’ve been here for five years or more, we should be doing all we can to include them.
nowhere can it be justified that exclusion helps democracy. That argument was lost generations ago, Cian. Should we go back to landlords as the only voters? how about only women over 45? Scrap voting rights for all citizens under the age of 21?
not only is it not fair to argue that including people devalues democracy, you have to go back to pre-revolutionary France (i.e., before the modern period!) in order to scoop up those arguments.
I was raising it as a point since it is something that should be addressed. Your point is correct viz voting rights and in real terms we are in second or third spot internationally for the liberal approach to voting rights exhibited here. We are just behind New Zealand and a few others in that we only restrict voting to the Dail to citizens.
Having said that the concept of citizenship does not act as an exclusion of migrant votes unless it is mobilised that way for political reasons. There is serious debate on whether it is better to extend votes to those who get some “resident status” fulfilling criteria of tax and stay or to go that step farther and deploy a “path to citizenship” model where it is a legal, open and clear route.
Indeed the idea of citizenship is intended to concrete that sense of belonging in which decisions taken by a community of citizens are taken as binding by all others even those who disagree.
I have no problem with migrants getting a vote, I agree with you that those who are here are invested in the society and failure to recognise this is a farce and a tinderbox of social division. My point rather is there is a strong argument to streamline the path to citizenship (which at present is very much ad hoc in this country) and make it clear, easy and feasible for all those who live, work and pay tax here to become a citizen as a means to extending franchise.
I was not stating that they should not be included, nor that their exclusion is necessary. Rather the point is that there are arguments on the best way to expand the franchise. The above tends to see the value in citizenship as that which binds the decision of democracy.
Yet your point on voting has been taken up only in New Zealand where all can vote after a year of residence. The issue is whether citizenship is really that important a factor in deciding this. It is not only a thing which excludes but a concept which includes and that latter is proving likely to be vital in the coming twenty years.
Its not the principle of your point I am commenting on, I agree, rather the difficult issue of implementation.
We exclude non-nationals from the Dáil, referenda, and presidental elections, from the legislative and executive branches of government. Local government in Ireland has none of the legislative powers, or indeed, tax-raising powers, that its name would suggest. Hell, every city and county council can be over-ruled by an unelected civil servant!
But the main point of my article is that the job spread among non-nationals is much wider than we have been led to believe. I can’t see how someone in a good job in Ireland is going to up and leave after five years - and there are tens of thousands of non-nationals in bloody good jobs.
we’ve never had a situation in the republic before where 14 per cent of the working population are not Irish. We need to start working on what we are going to do about it, instead of hoping that they’ll all leave once the bubble bursts - which seems to be the main thrust government and bureaucratic policy at the moment.
you’ve got to give people a political stake in society in order for them to feel part of it.
As an aside, the influx of non-nationals to Ireland has been great in terms of challenging our self-image. I don’t think we’ve really begun it yet, but soon enough we’re going to have to come up with more dynamic cultural expressions. As one non-national said on a pre-election debate on the subject - they were talking about “Irishness” - “apart from drinking, what is it to be irish? what is Irishness?” and none of the irish present could give her an answer!
“Irishness” is, of course, very simple to explain. We’ve heard the British media talking about “Britishness” and just adapted the term for our own use. No other substance to it.
absolutely right, those figures dont lie and tell a very different story than the one policy makers would like to tell. The response in terms of political rights is still very slow. It is difficult to become an irish citzen and up to last year the idea of long term residence was alien to our system. We had it in title only.
The political aspect has been talked of in reports but the extension of rights is a very tough decision, do you liberalise your citizenship policy with knock on effects on the idea of irishness you mention as a citizen is no longer white ginger haired catholic but a person tied to the society of ireland? or do you extend voting rights to non-nationals as a matter of tenure here in the country, say 3 years or 5 years and maintain the divide between irish and non irish despite similar political rights?
you give voting rights to all residents, and citizenship to those who show a commitment to the country, usually shown in terms of length of residency, and who swear allegiance to the constitution.
Of course, you’re going to need a new constitution!
We cannot have a racial or cultural test for Irish citizenship - simply because the vast majority of Irish people would fail a cultural test - such a test would have to include language.
so. We’re left with geography - actually living here - and allegience to a set of principles while you’re living here, a constitution. And a secular one at that.
I think this is all quite exciting! In many ways, it’s a return to the debates about Irishness that ran through elements of the United Irishmen - the search for a a political definition.
anything to get us away from the failed cultural definition that came to promenance in the mid-to late 19th century, and which has stuck with us ever since.
Our constitution is quiet secular one of the most infact. Only referance to a devine is in the preamble which has little basis in law. Compare to England and the established church.
Simon, a constitution that swears allegiance to God, is not a secular constitution. I’m not concerned whether I can use the constitution to bring a court case against God.
and Simon, England doesn’t have a written constitution.
Irish preamble.
“In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
constrast with the American (secular)constitution preamble:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
the French Constitution preamble:
“The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004.
By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories that express the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic development. ”
The spanish constitution preamble:
“The Spanish Nation, wishing to establish justice, liberty and security, and to promote the welfare of all who make part of it, in use of her sovereignty, proclaims its will to Guarantee democratic life within the Constitution and the laws according to a just economic and social order. Consolidate a State ensuring the rule of law as an expression of the will of the people. Protect all Spaniards and all the peoples of Spain in the exercise of human rights, their cultures and traditions, languages and institutions. Promote the progress of culture and the economy to ensure a dignified quality of life for all, Establish an advanced democratic society, and Collaborate in the strengthening of peaceful and efficient cooperation among all the peoples of the Earth.”
Notice how there’s no mention of God or a holy trinity? That because they’re secular constitutions.
I said it was quiet a secular one not a secular one. People’s rights are derived from the rights given to them in the constitution. The preamble does impinge on those rights. I myself would like to see the preamble removed but it would have very little impact on the rights of people in this country.
The comparison to England is that unlike in England no religion in Ireland is given greater status then any other religion under law. As a state Ireland under law is more secular then England and as secular as the other states you highlighted. The presidential oath in Ireland does have references to god but the American president says the oath on a bible as does the Spanish president. While the French president does not swear any kind of oath.