If immigration was not on the political agenda in 1998, it did not take long for it to do so afterwards. Indeed, shortly after the agreement, the already growing strength of the Irish economy reversed the historical pattern of emigration towards an immigration pattern, leading large numbers of foreigners to claim the right to remain in the state on the basis of their child citizens born in Ireland.  They did so on the basis of a 1989 Supreme Court decision in Fajujonu v. Minister of Justice, where the Tribunal prohibited the expulsion of foreign parents of an Irish citizen. In January 2003, the Supreme Court distinguished between the previous decision and ruled that the government was constitutionally able to expel parents of children of Irish nationality.  The latter decision should have calmed the case, but doubts remained as to the adequacy of the removal, albeit indirect, of Irish nationals and the excessively generous provisions of Irish nationality law. The government said family members of dual British or Anglo-Irish citizens of Northern Ireland would be able to apply for status through a post-Brexit residency procedure, known as the community`s settlement programme. In the British constitutional system, commitments made in international treaties cannot be invoked directly. For such obligations to allow individuals to have rights in the national territory, such provisions would have to come into force in UK law (or, in some cases, in politics).  The treatment of northern Irish residents in these sections was of considerable importance to the territorial boundaries of the state, as their "sensational effect". it was, in the eyes of Irish law, to grant citizenship to the vast majority of the population of Northern Ireland."  According to Ó Caoindealbháin, the compatibility of this innovation with international law was doubtful," given his attempt to regulate the citizenship of an external territory. By trying to extend jus soli citizenship beyond the jurisdiction of the state, the 1956 law openly attempted to undermine the territorial border between North and South.
The effects of the act were easily recognised in Northern Ireland, with Lord Brookeborough having tabled a motion in the Northern Ireland Parliament in which he "tried without reason". to impose on the people of Northern Ireland an unwanted republican nationality."  Uk national law allows dual Anglo-Irish nationality and, for those with that status, to revoke their British nationality and have only Irish nationality. Some commentators have questioned whether people born in Northern Ireland, who have to take this "extra step" to have only Irish nationality, are in the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.  Ms DeSouza claims that the Good Friday Agreement supports her position – that Irish people in Northern Ireland cannot be forced to live with dual nationality. That`s because Britain and Ireland said in the deal that both countries: Simon Coveney, Ireland`s foreign secretary, said he would raise the Emma deSouza case with the Northern Ireland minister on Tuesday. He is concerned that UK law is not "consistent" with the unique rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, which allows anyone born in Northern Ireland to be Irish, British or both. "We are delighted that the High Court accepts that UK nationality legislation is compatible with the Belfast Agreement." The recently reported case of De Souza (Good Friday Agreement: Nationality) United States of America  UKUT 355 (IAC) is part of a campaign led by the dubious Emma DeSouza, who questions this situation. . .