Referenda on non-national births

gurramok

Just heard on TV3 news that there is to be a referenda on the automatic right to Irish citizenship to children born in Ireland of non-national parents.

They say its reckoned that 20-25% of all births in Dublin hospitals are to non-national parents.
What do people think and would vote on this, should there be an automatic right or not for citizenship to children of non-nationals ?
My view would be no as its being exploited to the full especially by asylum seekers to gain a foothold illegally in the country.

bonkey

I'm just waiting to see the Republicans gnashing their teeth if and when the people of the Irish Republic decide that being born on the island is no longer a sufficient qualification to being Irish

Perosnally, I think anyone born in the Republic should be entitled to citizenship, but I also believe that the parents are not entitled to citizenship, or even necessarily residency if they are non-national parents.

jc

Sparks

The good friday agreement said anyone born on the island of Ireland was entitled to Irish citizenship and we had a referendum on that. So "asked and answered" jumps to mind...

ishmael whale

Its true that we sometimes seem to get the same issue thrown at us in successive referenda until we supply the ‘right’ answer. The multiple referenda on divorce, abortion and more recently Nice are examples where it could have been said the people have made their decision, why question it. But I don’t think that applies in this situation. At the time I don’t recall the Good Friday Agreement being presented as having any crossover into the asylum issue. I don’t know if there even was that much of an asylum issue at that time. So it is right for this issue to be put to the people now.

On the one hand this loophole needs to be closed. On the other hand people who have lawfully entered the country and made their home here have a reasonable expectation that their children will be welcomed into our community. The idea floated, that if the amendment was carried the Dail would pass legislation granting children of non Nationals citizenship if one of their parents was legally living in the state for three years, sounds reasonable.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Sparks
The good friday agreement said anyone born on the island of Ireland was entitled to Irish citizenship and we had a referendum on that. So "asked and answered" jumps to mind...

It's a fair eonough point, bur I don't think anyone in the Island thought immigration had anything to do with it when they were voting for the GFA. This is a separate issue.

The fact that we are the only country in Europe where new-born immigrants are automatically entitled to citizenship will probably mean that it will be easily passed. I assume the rights of people born in Northern Ireland to become citizens of the Republic will be protected, so in that sense, it's been "asked and answered", and shouldn't change.

Sparks

Hmmmm. About those statistics McDowell is using...

RTE:

The Master of the Rotunda, Dr Michael Geary, has accused the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, of 'exaggeration' when he stated that he and two colleagues requested a change in the law regarding non-nationals giving birth in Ireland.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio, Dr Geary said the three masters of the maternity hospitals presented the information and facts on the situations in their hospitals, but did not demand a change in the law.

Mr McDowell made the claim on RTÉ Radio this morning when explaining his reasoning for introducing a referendum aimed at eliminating the automatic right to citizenship of children born on the island of Ireland.

uberwolf

I'd imagine Dr. Geary wouldn't presume to make such a demand. I believe it is a loop hole that is being exploited and that the exploitation has to be ended. How this could be achieved I have no idea

DaithiSurfer

I believe the child has a right to citizenship, but the parents do not.
Any child born in Ireland is a citizen and the Irish people should not even attempt to cast off these babies. After all its not the babies choice where to be born is it?

I also believe that any illegal immigrant (be they asylum seekers or not) who has not come to Ireland legally in the first place should be deported if they get themselves pregnant (including the father) BEFORE they have been classed as legal.
They are attempting to abuse the system and should pay a price for this.
OK, so there may be some accidents, and thats another matter, but people would definitely make sure they didnt get pregnant until they were legal if they knew that it automatically get them deported.
Lets remember that they are only looking for a better life, but they should look for a better life withouth bringing babies into the world just for the purpose of getting that life.
Currently there is no deterrent for this type of abuse.

midget lord

Sparks, the good friday agreement was all fine and well, an entirely seperate matter compared to the proposed non-national referedum. Quite a lot of people voted for acceptance of the good friday as it was a step in the right direction in relation a permanent cessation of violence. Whether or not non-nationals giving birth in this country entitles their sibling to citizenship is a completely different matter and one that warrants a seperate referendum.

midget lord

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
Lets remember that they are only looking for a better life, but they should look for a better life withouth bringing babies into the world just for the purpose of getting that life.

So are you willing to let your paye pay for their up keep?

DaithiSurfer

Don't forget. My PAYE pays for your upkeep too.

The simple fact here is that without their babies most asylum seekers applications would be rejected anyway.
You just cant walk into a country and expect them to look after you without good cause. At the moment the good cause is that you have a baby born here.
If they even speeded up the process then that would give a lot of people a lot less time to have their babies here.
If they automatically deported a pregnant couple then there would be no incentive to have a baby while awaiting your application.
Problem solved. Only legit claims will be allowed to stay.

midget lord

My paye pays for your up-keep so. Dont be so unnecessarily argumentative and answer my question.

DaithiSurfer

I'm not bothered about my PAYE being used for peoples upkeep.
Thats what i pay it for.
Can you say that these people will never work???
Don't get me wrong, i would prefer if there werre no immigrants allowed, so i would have more jobs to choose from for myself, but it just doesnt work that way. If they have a legit right to stay then, so be it.
Do you mind the culchies coming up to dublin ?
I was on the dole for a year myself in the 90's.
I was glad of your PAYE then. Thanks by the way.
Just as you might be glad of it some day too.
We also pay for the upkeep of our grannies and grandads too you know.
Would you like to trake that away from them?

Mighty_Mouse

Another example of Michael "lunsatic" McDowell.

And ppl wonder how Hitler got so far!!! Even listening to this idiot is crazy.

Breeding hatred of refugees and asylum seekers is all he is doin!

midget lord

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
I'm not bothered about my PAYE being used for peoples upkeep.
Thats what i pay it for.
Can you say that these people will never work???

Your missing the point Daithi.

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
Don't get me wrong, i would prefer if there werre no immigrants allowed, so i would have more jobs to choose from for myself, but it just doesnt work that way. If they have a legit right to stay then, so be it.

Further proof that you are missing the point. Should they be allowed stay?

Originally posted by DaithiSurfer
We also pay for the upkeep of our grannies and grandads too you know.
Would you like to trake that away from them?

Of course not, but then my gran is not a refugee.



The point of the matter here Daithi is whether or not the siblings of these asylum seekers should be given citizenship. Personally speaking i think the influx of asylum seekers into our counrty has made it a culturally richer counrty, but the problems is that if we continue to allow their siblings to become citizens we could be looking at even more of a "problem" then we have now. If we have to increase what the exchequer hands out to the social welfare every year we decrease what is being ditributed to other departments, as the tax is not increasing year on year. So, personally i would prefer to throw the money at improving our transportation, education and health systems, we all know they need it.

DaithiSurfer

You're missing the poiint i think.

Born in Ireland = Irish citizen.
Its their right, just like yours when you were born. Doesn't matter about where your parents were from. If you get knocked down and become a veg we'll still pay our PAYE to look after you. We'll even pay for the court system to make sure you don't get discriminated against.

Prevent people being born in Ireland to parents who are not legit and you go some way to solving the problems that you are talking about. But make no mistake here, there are some people who really need to be here.
Don't bunch them in with the other chancers (just like illegal irish in the US).

If Bertie decided to let you go on the run and every time he caught you he cut off a toe, it wouldn't be long before you are off to other countries saying - 'Please, let me in. i cant go back to my own country. I've no toes left and god knows whats next'

Extreme example i know but it makes the point i think.

ishmael whale

The present situation contributes to a climate of hostility towards non-Nationals by creating the impression among many people that they are all in some way screwing the system. This is despite the fact that the majority of non-Nationals who have come to Ireland in recent years are simply people on work permits who have no connection to the asylum issue at all.

Its important that this debate is conducted rationally. Comparisons to Nazis are simply wrong, and introduces a race issue where there is none. I am not aware of anyone suggesting that this law should discriminate on grounds of race. To suggest otherwise is simply a smear to distract from the main issue.

pork99

Personally I think any immigrant who comes here, works, pays their taxes and abides by the law continously for a period of 3 years should get citizenship, should simply be handed a passport (also applies to their kids).

Anyone who comes here to beg and/or steal -> sent straight back where they came from (also their kids).

I think this referendum is a red herring - "we couldnt be arsed to come up with a well thought out cohesive policy on immigration - lets have a b.s. referendum an an irrelevant question to cover up for that"

Imposter

I'd prefer to see a referendum (if that's what's neccessry) on something that would completely clear up all abuses of the welfare system whether perpetrated by Irish or foreign nationals. If that needs to be combined with a new Asylum policy then so be it.

A child that's born in Ireland is Irish but the parents shouldn't automatically obtain any extra rights as a result of the birth imo.

DaithiSurfer

I agree, it shouldn't be a race issue, but lets face it - most people talking about taking citezenship away from babies born here are taking about non-white children, whether they say it or not. Asylum seekers etc may someday work, so you can't say that we will be looking after them all. Some yes, but some irish people are in the same situation.

The problem i see is that babies are being used as leverage.
This happens in the UK where some people find it quirte profitable to have lots of children just for the benefits. more money, bigger council house etc.
It happens among Irish people too but since its so hard to get anything from the Govt anyway its not as profitable.

This is not right and should be stopped, but not at the cost to the rights of those (from whatever parents) born in Ireland.

seamus

Originally posted by pork99
Personally I think any immigrant who comes here, works, pays their taxes and abides by the law continously for a period of 3 years should get citizenship, should simply be handed a passport (also applies to their kids).

I would tend to agree, although I wouldn't be as liberal, especially in terms of crime. I'd say 5 years with a 15-year 'no crime' stipulation (excluding minor traffic offences naturally).

Anyone who comes here to beg and/or steal -> sent straight back where they came from (also their kids).

I'd give them to option to take the child with them or leave it here to be put into foster care. No point punishing a child because his/her parents are morons. Any child left here before they're 14 is given provisional citizenship until they're 18 when they can apply for full citizenship.

That would be part of my plan

midget lord

An african mother, pregnant, in a war torn country, broke, wants a better life for her kid. She hears that if you go over to ireland and have your kid there the kid will be an irish citizen. So she gets over here and has her kid, walla - a better life for the kid.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with this?

pdh

I agree that the law should be changed. A lot of people who have posted here are a bit confused about Nationality laws, been born in a stable does not make you a horse and so just because your born in Ireland does not make you Irish.

Also it would be good to see any new nationality laws brought in made retrospective so that current mess can be cleared up.

Personally I blame Sinn Fein and the GFA for this, its about time that the government has seen the light and are now responding to the public mood out there on this issue.

seamus

Originally posted by midget lord
An african mother, pregnant, in a war torn country, broke, wants a better life for her kid. She hears that if you go over to ireland and have your kid there the kid will be an irish citizen. So she gets over here and has her kid, walla - a better life for the kid.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with this?

Of course. But why shouldn't the child be granted citizenship? Why should the child be forced to endure poverty and war simply because that's the hand they've been dealt. As I say above, I don't have a problem with somebody leaving their child in the care of our state, citizen or otherwise, because they want a better life for the child. The problem is when the child is used as a pawn in exploiting our laws. I'm pretty sure there are other loopholes that could be closed or regulations put in place without taking this drastic action.

pork99

Originally posted by seamus
I would tend to agree, although I wouldn't be as liberal, especially in terms of crime. I'd say 5 years with a 15-year 'no crime' stipulation (excluding minor traffic offences naturally).

I would still say 3 years because, in my experience, migrants who come here to work tend to be well educated, law abiding and hard working. They're exactly the sort of people we want to encourage to come here, so the 3 years in most cases should be just a formality.

If only we could send a few of our own home-grown liabilities the other way now!

midget lord

Of course it will be better for the kid to be raised in Ireland and all that. But are we the only counrty that can offer the kid a better standard of life? Of course not. The reason they are coming over here and doing this is because we are among a minority that will allow the kid to become a citizen just because it is born here. Now that is a problem, because if this referendum allows them to do this we will have a serious problem. In most countries it take 7 years to become a citizen, we should do the same.

ishmael whale

It would be possible to get into a Dutch auction over the timespan. Let me say that I have no problem with citizenship being given to children born to a parent with three years or, for that matter, two years of legal residence. The issue is really the present situation of conferring citizenship where people have entered the state illegally.

Redleslie

Originally posted by pdh
just because your born in Ireland does not make you Irish.

Oh yes it does. The Department Of Justice says so. What have you got? Point out exactly what people born here must do in order to "prove" their Irishness. Anyway, I bet I'm more Irish than you are, because I say so. So get out.

Sparks

Originally posted by midget lord
Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with this?

Yeah, I have a problem with it - she doesn't get to stay in the country afterwards.

Tell me something midget, in all this worrying about PAYE expenditure, did you pause to consider that given the demographics of this country, we desperately need immigration to prevent PAYE tax having to skyrocket in the next few decades just to cover pensions and healthcare for the aging workforce?

Johnmb

And we have immigration. It should be controlled. The Government have done a piss-poor job of controlling it up to now, hopefully that will change.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Johnmb
And we have immigration. It should be controlled. The Government have done a piss-poor job of controlling it up to now, hopefully that will change.

By having this referendum?
I don't see why the nationality of a child's parents should come in question, if the child is born here they have as much right to call themselves/be Irish citizens as I do. But that's my opinion.
I don't see how it will do anything about illegal immigration or deportations.
A Czech family last year were set to be deported even though their child was born here (only links I have are ireland.com links), and the Supreme Court did rule that having an Irish child did not mean the parents had a right to stay here.

Johnmb

Citizenship in Ireland should be brought in line with citizenship in Europe. This business of just being born here has always been crap. When that is done away with, it will cut the attraction that Ireland has as a doorway to Europe for illegal immigrants. Then, if the government gets it's act together, and introduces a proper immigration policy, genuine refugees will find it easier to get in and live here. The people causing the problems are those who are not genuine trying to use loopholes to their advantage. Closing those loopholes will get rid of those people. Genuine refugees will continue to come because they have no choice. Non-genuine cases will look elsewhere for an easy ride.

Also, I don't think that a child of an American, British, French, etc... couple should get citizenship just because they where born here during a temporary stay. I certainly wouldn't consider myself French had I been born there while my parents were on holiday.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I don't see how it will do anything about illegal immigration or deportations.
A Czech family last year were set to be deported even though their child was born here (only links I have are ireland.com links), and the Supreme Court did rule that having an Irish child did not mean the parents had a right to stay here.

The suggestion is that this loophole encourages people to come here simply to give birth in Ireland, not that birth here will confer any special status on the parents. That said, the Master of Holles Street is on the record in the article below saying many of the women who come are unaware of the Court's decision, and still think the birth will give them residency.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/12/02/story493071313.asp

Extracts from a few more relevant articles are below. The full articles are at the links indicated.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/09/15/story488289275.asp

Monday, September 15, 2003 :

Non-national baby boom ‘pushes system to the brink’

By Neans McSweeney
…………….
Births to non-nationals have more than doubled in the last three years and as many as 15% of non-national expectant mums turn up either in labour or just 10 days before giving birth, new figures show.

Master of Maternity at the Rotunda Hospital’s Dr Michael Geary said some women are travelling from abroad very late in their pregnancy. He said women from outside of Ireland are landing at our ports and airports and heading straight for hospital. “It’s all just a tragedy waiting to happen,” he said.


http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2002/09/22/story328198.asp

Dublin maternity hospitals under increased pressure
Sunday, September 22, 2002
By Kieron Wood
The rising number of pregnant asylum seekers is putting pressure on services at Dublin's biggest maternity hospitals. Expectant mothers have been told they may have to leave the hospital just one day after having their babies because of the rising number of births and resulting shortage of midwives.

Ten years ago, 6,277 babies were born in the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street. Last year, that figure had risen to 8,142.

According to health board figures, almost 2,000 asylum-seekers had babies here in the first eight months of last year. Of these, 1,500 babies were born in the Dublin maternity hospitals.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The suggestion is that this loophole encourages people to come here simply to give birth in Ireland, not that birth here will confer any special status on the parents.

It's not a loophole, it's in the consitution.
And if it confers no rights on these parents, what is the problem with it being there?

Redleslie

Originally posted by Johnmb
I certainly wouldn't consider myself French had I been born there while my parents were on holiday.

I'm sure you've got evidence to the contrary but I don't think many 9 month pregnant women decide it's the best time to go on holiday somewhere. Especially not to Ireland.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie
I'm sure you've got evidence to the contrary but I don't think many 9 month pregnant women decide it's the best time to go on holiday somewhere. Especially not to Ireland.

I don't need to provide evidence for anything other than what I said, and I am that evidence. I would not consider myself anything other than Irish, regardless as to where I was born. As for whether or not many 9 month pregnant women go on holiday, it is irrelevant if the referendum is passed, as their child would not be given Irish citizenship. It doesn't just single out immigrants as some scaremongerers would like everyone to believe.

bonkey

Personally I'd favour something like what is in effect here in Switzerland (which will come as no surprise to regulars here...).

I have what is currently called a B-Class permit. This is a residency & work permit that is typically annually renewed (except now for EU citizens who get a 5-year B-class, because of bilateral agreements).

After 5 years of a B-class permit, no major problems with the law (i.e. a littering or speeding offence wouldn't be a major problem), and not having been resident anywhere else for any of the duration, my B-Class gets upped to a C-Class.

That gives me permanent residency, and most of the rights of a citizen, but no right to vote (except possibly at a local level. It can also be revoked if I ever have a serious run-in with the law, etc. etc.

People who marry Swiss people get C-Class permits. People born in the country to non-Swiss parents get C-Class permits.

Anyone with a C-Class permit (again, you possibly need ot have it for more than 5 years) is eligible to apply for citizenship.

All works swimmingly.

jc

Egalitarian

Who killed equality ?

The responses to this Citizenship Referendum smack of no real conviction on either side. McDowell is clearly fostering a debate on non-nationals for electoral gain, but the reason he is able to do this so effectively is because there is not a shred of priniciple held by his opponents.

The farcical distinction between economic migrants and asylum seekers has degraded the key issue regarding the unequal treatment of non-nationals, whether that is based on immigration control, citizenship restrictions or the low-wage 'work permit' worker. Immigrants need bleeding heart liberals like a hole in the head right now. They have produced this mess in the first place. The evasion of fighting for equal rights and the flight into the courts to plead 'human rights' for those from less-prosperous parts of the world has served to apologise for the blatant inequalities suffered by non-nationals by this and previous administrations.

McDowell deserves the contempt of all egalitarians, not because of specious allegations of racial prejudice but for his contempt of equal rights. As a republican, I welcome any non-national to join Irish society and demand their rights to equal pay and welfare services that the rest of us take for granted. I do not think that I'm special or deserve to be privileged simply because of some cultural/racial inheritance, nor do I think most Irish citizens aspire to a society of privilege. So why be so defensive about equality?

Rather than welcome this opportunity to expose the prejudices which condemn Africans for getting on their bike and trying to improve their fortunes and their families futures, we get McDowells opponents condemning him for playing the race card before election time. With friends like that, immigrants know they're in for a hiding to nothing.

GuanYin

Bonkey, I think that sort of system would be the ideal solution and an incredibly forward thinking move by the government, as such I doubt it would ever be implimented inIreland

[edit]
I didn't read Egaltarians post properly (I've been distracted by other World News, )

Sparks

Originally posted by Egalitarian
The responses to this Citizenship Referendum smack of no real conviction on either side.

'scuse me? You reading this thread or another one somewhere else?

McDowell is clearly fostering a debate on non-nationals for electoral gain, but the reason he is able to do this so effectively is because there is not a shred of priniciple held by his opponents.

Actually, the reason he's able to do so effectively is that the FF/PD government has a majority in the Dail.
Which isn't to say that I wouldn't trust the bulk of the opposition TDs as far as I could throw them with one hand, but still.

Rather than welcome this opportunity to expose the prejudices which condemn Africans for getting on their bike and trying to improve their fortunes and their families futures, we get McDowells opponents condemning him for playing the race card before election time. With friends like that, immigrants know they're in for a hiding to nothing.

So, to summarise:
If you support taking away the rights of immigrants, you're doing them good - if you protest the taking away of these rights as the electioneering stunt that it is, you're out to harm them.
Hmmm.
Apparently, I've misread the dictionary definition of "logical".

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
It's not a loophole, it's in the consitution.

Legal texts can have mistakes or unforeseen consequences, which is essentially my understanding of a loophole. I don’t see why the Constitution is immune to this. My understanding of the relevant provision is it contains a flaw to the extent of conferring citizenship on the children of people who have entered the state illegally. I don’t think that was the intention of the drafters who framed this provision or the electorate who voted for it, and I don’t seem to be alone in that belief. If a referendum is held and the amendment passes I’m right. If the amendment does not get a majority I’m wrong.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
And if it confers no rights on these parents, what is the problem with it being there?

As we are the only EU member state with such a provision, it increases illegal immigration. As the articles I posted above suggest, an immediate effect of this is a lot of pressure on maternity services.

Remember, all that’s needed is a very simple change – that citizenship requires one of your parents to have lived here legally for a relatively short period.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
If a referendum is held and the amendment passes I’m right. If the amendment does not get a majority I’m wrong.

Not quite.

No matter which way a referendum would go, you still won't know what the original intent was. All you know is what the opinion today thinks the intent should be.

If every single person in the country voted for a Constitutional Amendment, it still doesn't mean that deV et al did not intend the law to function as it currently does. It simply means that people today don't want it to.

There is a distinction......but one which in no way undermines the validity of any decision made by the current populace.

jc

ishmael whale

Let me say you are absolutely right that we do not know why people vote for a particular measure, only that they did so. Indeed, it could be the case that they misunderstand the question to be decided and vote against their own preferences. I recall press comment at the time of the referendum on the International Criminal Court that there didn’t seem to be a copy of the relevant international treaty in the country. The Department of Foreign Affairs were unable to supply one, there was no debate about what the Court was about, yet the people voted for it overwhelmingly. Presumably the electorate reckoned that international criminals sounded like the kind of people who should be brought to Court.

On the citizenship question, as an earlier contributor has provided a relevant link.
http://www.justice.ie/802569B20047F907/vWeb/wpMJDE5E4FVG

The relevant provision of the Constitution says: "Every person born in the island of Ireland, its islands and its seas, has an entitlement and birthright to be part of the Irish nation". This provision is not part of the original Constitution and was added in 1998 as part of the Good Friday Agreement package. It was intended to give effect to Article 1(vi) of the British-Irish Agreement, where the two Governments recognise "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland".

It seems clear to me that the Government were proposing an amendment with the intention of granting clear citizenship rights to the people of Northern Ireland, not persons entering the state illegally. From the electorates point of view the main issue was giving effect to the Good Friday Agreement, and citizenship was only a detail. I totally accept that I cannot look into everyone’s heart and say why they voted for this amendment, but in truth I don’t see any basis for suggesting that the people intended the Constitution to go beyond the Good Friday Agreement.

Victor

Does anyone have the text of the pre-1998 clauses?

Johnmb

I would assume that Article 9 would be the relevant one for pre-1998 citizenship. It says:
9.1.1 On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.
9.1.2 The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law.
9.1.3 No person may be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship by reason of the sex of such person.

9.2 Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.

Victor

Won't such a referendum alienate quite a few people who will be voting in the local elections?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
Won't such a referendum alienate quite a few people who will be voting in the local elections?

Like who?

Victor

Originally posted by Johnmb
Like who?

Recent immigrants.

Johnmb

I don't see why recent immigrants should feel alienated. The referendum will simply return things to the way they were pre-1998. It will not make things any more difficult for them, we will simply be just like every other EU country. If they are genuine, then both they and their children can expect a good deal. If they are not genuine, then who cares if they feel alienated? The key test will be what the government does afterwards in order to improve things by weeding out the chancers quickly, and allowing the genuine cases to seek work and start the process of becoming a part of Irish society much quicker than is currently the case.

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Sparks

So, to summarise:
If you support taking away the rights of immigrants, you're doing them good - if you protest the taking away of these rights as the electioneering stunt that it is, you're out to harm them.
Hmmm.
Apparently, I've misread the dictionary definition of "logical".

Please in future consult the dictionary, since I neither said removing Irish citizenship was good for immigrants or opposing McDowell's stunt is likely to harm them. I clearly explained that McDowell's proposed constitutional discrimination against non-nationals is being aided by the spineless equivocation of his opponents to argue for equal citizenship rights for all immigrants - adults and children. If you allow McDowell to restrict economic immigration, then you have already conceded the principle of equality. To repeat:

Rather than welcome this opportunity to expose the prejudices which condemn Africans for getting on their bike and trying to improve their fortunes and their families futures, we get McDowells opponents condemning him for playing the race card before election time. With friends like that, immigrants know they're in for a hiding to nothing.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Egalitarian
Please in future consult the dictionary, since I neither said removing Irish citizenship was good for immigrants or opposing McDowell's stunt is likely to harm them. I clearly explained that McDowell's proposed constitutional discrimination against non-nationals is being aided by the spineless equivocation of his opponents to argue for equal citizenship rights for all immigrants - adults and children. If you allow McDowell to restrict economic immigration, then you have already conceded the principle of equality. To repeat:

This is just daft. Every country discriminates against non-nationals. It needs to be done. If it wasn't done then no country would be viable. Any rich countries would be over-run by immigrants which would cause too much of a burden on their system, and poor countries would lose most of their citizens to the rich countries and would therefore not have the human resources to ever improve their lot.