How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

arcadegame2004

With Labour starting their campaign for a "No" vote today I felt that it was appropriate to put a poll up on this, especially as there are only 4 weeks left to decide. Based on what we have now heard so far, how do you intend casting your vote on the day?

I will vote "Yes" and urge others to do likewise to stop the abuses of our SW system, especially regarded free housing, that are costing us 350 million euro. This bill is sure to rise in future years because of A: our pathetic 5% deportation rate of asylum-seekers that arrived in 2003 (ie it would take 100 years to deport all illegal immigrants last year alone = 500 years to deport all illegals in Ireland at the moment!!!!) and because of B: the addition of the SW bill and accommodation bill of new asylum-seekers who will arrive this year and in future years.

We need to crack down now by voting "Yes" so as to remove part of the equation of what is making Ireland a Mecca for illegal-immigration. namely the automatic right to citizenship solely on grounds of being born in Ireland. This referendum proposal will not affect the GFA because it only denies automatic citizenship rights to a child born here without a parent born on the island of Ireland. As such, NI Nationalists will keep their citizenship-rights. Furthermore, the GFA deals with Articles 2 and 3, not Article 9. It is Article 9 we are changing.

Lastly, this constitutional change, if passed, will allow Dail Eireann to legislate on the citizenship issue. I see today that Labour are complaining that if this referendum passes, the Dail will be able to, as they put it "do as it likes" on citizenship. Well thats what nearly every other country in the world does. I see no problem with that. What do you all think?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Tommy Vercetti

No.

We have enough legislation already, it is action that is needed. Asylum seekers are way down the list of things that need to be solved/changed/improved in this country. The minister for justice should remove his head from his rectum.

Cork

Originally posted by arcadegame2004


I will vote "Yes" and urge others to do likewise to stop the abuses of our SW system, especially regarded free housing, that are costing us 350 million euro. This bill is sure to rise in future years because of A: our pathetic 5% deportation rate of asylum-seekers that arrived in 2003 (ie it would take 100 years to deport all illegal immigrants last year alone = 500 years to deport all illegals in Ireland at the moment!!!!) and because of B: the addition of the SW bill and accommodation bill of new asylum-seekers who will arrive this year and in future years.

We need to crack down now by voting "Yes" so as to remove part of the equation of what is making Ireland a Mecca for illegal-immigration. namely the automatic right to citizenship solely on grounds of being born in Ireland.

I too will be voting "yes" for these very same reasons.

Tommy Vercetti

How will changing the constitution help to deport people who have already had their applications for asylum rejected?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I will vote "Yes" and urge others to do likewise to stop the abuses of our SW system, especially regarded free housing, that are costing us 350 million euro.

How will voting yes stop this exactly?
I'll be voting no btw.

MrPudding

I will be voting no.

By the way Frank, there is no point in asking arcade how this vote will help. I have asked him numerous times in another thread and am yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

MrP

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by MrPudding
By the way Frank, there is no point in asking arcade how this vote will help.

Yeah, I had the same experience in another thread.
I was hoping the questions won't be ignored this time around.

Cork

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
How will voting yes stop this exactly?
I'll be voting no btw.

It will curtail abuses of Irish citizenship laws.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Cork
It will curtail abuses of Irish citizenship laws.

Do you not think there are more widespread problems in this country that need to be addressed first?
As it stands, having an Irish born child gives no extra status to potential asylum seekers/immigrants.
Why will changing the consitution magically fix all our SW related problems?

Cork

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Do you not think there are more widespread problems in this country that need to be addressed first?

Well the live register is at an 18 month low.

But, why should lax Irish citizenship laws differ from the EU norm? T

here is certainly potential for abuse as Ireland could become the "soft" entry gate to the EU?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Cork
here is certainly potential for abuse as Ireland could become the "soft" entry gate to the EU?

Why don't we just stop foreign people coming in altogether. They all have the potential to abuse our systems.
What about all the Irish people that abuse the social welfare system too, what should we do about them?

But, why should lax Irish citizenship laws differ from the EU norm

Why shouldn't they differ? We're our own country Cork.

chewy

erm i don't seem to be getting the poll option whne reply to thing these days?

ill be voting no cos there people like arcade in the world

BuffyBot

Isn't this basically the same thread as the last one discussing this issue?

chewy

i don't think its such bad idea to start a new thread on ongoing issues like this... if you havn't been reading and posting to a thread from the start its very hard to partake in it... so start a new one, hopefully some of the question will be already dealt with....

even if its just arcade trying to stir up things

Cork

Originally posted by Frank Grimes


We're our own country Cork.

But we are part of the EU which Irish citizenship gaurentees freedom of travel & work within the union.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Cork
But we are part of the EU which Irish citizenship gaurentees freedom of travel & work within the union.

I love the selective thinking. We are part of the EU so we should have the same citizenship rules. OK. We are one of the few countries in the EU that won't allow a woman to have an abortion. Why can't our constitution be brought into line with the vast majority of the EU on this point.

The "bringing us into line with the rest of the EU is bullsh1t." We are out of line with the EU on many things, why is this one such a big deal?

By the way Arcade, why don't you just answer the questions you are asked instead of making new threads discussing largely the same things where you will probably still not other answering the questions you are asked.

MrP

PS Chewy, I like your reason best.;)

arcadegame2004

"How will changing the constitution help to deport people who have already had their applications for asylum rejected?" (tommy Vercetti)


I didn't say it would. The point I am making is that it will deter future asylum-seekers who would otherwise hope to strengthen their own asylum-claims by having a child born in Ireland with no Irish parent.


"As it stands, having an Irish born child gives no extra status to potential asylum seekers/immigrants." (Frank Grimes)


Theory and practice do not always coincide. In spite of the 2003 Supreme Court Judgement saying that a non-EU national of an Irish-born child does not automatically qualify for Irish citizenship, there is still a tendency for an asylum-seeker to travel to Ireland in the hope that giving birth to an Irish-born child will cause the authorities to look more sympathetically on that mother's application. Someone here keeps asking me can I give a specific example of a case where this was so. Naturally, a judge is not going to come out and say "I am granting you asylum for emotional reasons". That doesn't stop it happening, however.

The reason we need to bring our citizenship-law into line with the rest of Europe is to prevent Ireland being more attractive as a destination for illegal-immigrants compared to other EU states. The Irish taxpayer is subsidising these people. That is the main issue - not race. I have no objection to a non-EU national being here if it is via a work-permit, as this is LEGAL migration. The problem with asylum-seeking is that on the one hand, the asylum-seeker is not allowed to work, whereas on the other hand, the Irish taxpayer pays for them to be accommodated, as well as othe forms of SW, which, while in terms of direct payments may not be very high per person, need to be seen in the context of the free housing which we are paying for. Not to mention the huge expense to the Health-Service of treating the huge increase in infectious diseases e.g. syphillis, being brought in primarily by immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa (the recent doubling of annual HIV cases in Ireland was reported in the Irish media as being 85% due to immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa). They can get treated in whatever other EU state they entered en-route to Ireland.

The point I was trying to make is that the 350 million Euro a year is a recurring cost per annum, because at the current deportation-rate of 5% per annum, it will take 500 years to deport the current number of asylum-seekers already living here (!). So we dont particularly want to have the burden every year of paying for them AND whatever future asylum-seekers are arriving here.

"Why don't we just stop foreign people coming in altogether. They all have the potential to abuse our systems.
What about all the Irish people that abuse the social welfare system too, what should we do about them?" (Frank Grimes)

The legal-immigrants here on work-permits are working for their pay. As such they lack the kind of incentive an asylum-seeker compulsorily living off the State has to abuse the system. While I agree that some abuse exists among Irish people in terms of the SW system, I simply add that we have enough problems with them without making the problem worse by allowing non-EU nationals the potential to do so.

"Do you not think there are more widespread problems in this country that need to be addressed first?" (Frank Grimes)

It is because there are far more important things to be spending money on than freeloading asylum-seekers that we need to get tough on citizenship/benefit tourism that acts as the main incentive for asylum-seekers to come here. Then we wont forever be having to spend untold of amounts of money on them. We will instead be able to spend it on the Health-Service, School repairs, roads etc.

Frank Grimes

So in other words you have no specific evidence, just idle speculation?

arcadegame2004

Dept. of Justice figures on 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 being pregnant on arrival in Ireland hardly constitutes "speculation", not does the expense of 350 million euro to the public-purse.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
This bill is sure to rise in future years because of A: our pathetic 5% deportation rate of asylum-seekers that arrived in 2003 (ie it would take 100 years to deport all illegal immigrants last year alone = 500 years to deport all illegals in Ireland at the moment!!!!)

Would you like to re-do the maths there? It might make your claims more believeable. 1 year /5% = 20 years

Also, "asylum-seeker" is not the same as "illegal immigrant". You seem to repeat the mistake so often that I can only conclude you either don't understand the meaning of your words or you are deliberately obfuscating.

arcadegame2004

"Would you like to re-do the maths there? It might make your claims more believeable. 1 year /5% = 20 years

Also, "asylum-seeker" is not the same as "illegal immigrant". You seem to repeat the mistake so often that I can only conclude you either don't understand the meaning of your words or you are deliberately obfuscating."

At 5% per annum, that means 20 years to deport all those that arrived here last year alone. Alright then so that means 100 years to deport all those that have arrived here so far. Sorry about that littlke mix up but thats still demonstrative of how difficult it is to deport the illegals we've already got let alone more, never mind the costs involved.

Actually Victor, the Dublin Convention 1981 alone makes virtually all asylum-seekers here illegal by virtue of the fact that they passed through other EU states before coming here. Remember the DC states you must only claim asylum in the first EU country of entry. Even if they were genuinely fleeing persecution in the beginning, they should only be claiming asylum in the first EU state of entry. Since that cannot possibly be Ireland, that alone renders them virtually all illegal.

The current system effectively grants partial citizenship of ALL 25 EU states by granting Irish citizenship to the children of asylum-seekers who give birth here. I feel that this circumvents the citizenship laws of the other EU states and as such is undemocratic. Not to mention allowing the potential for Chinese triads, the Russian mafia, Nigerian criminal gangs, not to mention Al-Qaeda, to gain a foothold in this state. Certainly Nigerian gangs have already begun doing so.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
the Dublin Convention 1981 alone makes virtually all asylum-seekers here illegal by virtue of the fact that they passed through other EU states before coming here.

The Dublin Convention is not binding on someone seeking refuge.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be happy with claiming asylum in the UK at the moment?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Not to mention allowing the potential for Chinese triads, the Russian mafia, Nigerian criminal gangs, not to mention Al-Qaeda, to gain a foothold in this state.

"Official: Triads using newborns to enforce protection racket." :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004

What I mean is that such gangs could simply bring over their pregnant girlfriend in the hope of getting residency rights here. I am not suggesting that they are going to own up to being a member of a triad! But it stands to reason that such gangs will exploit such loopholes as ours to get a foothold in what Al-Qaeda considers the "Infidel" West.

You are supposed to seek refuge in the FIRST EU state of entry. Only. I refute the argument that we have a responsibility to those which, having already reached refuge, then choose to leave the first refuge to cross through 6 or 7 countries in Western Europe to arrive in Ireland. They had it long before arriving here. And most did not need it anyway. You only have to read the list of countries that the majority of the asylum-seekers come from.

arcadegame2004

"If you were an Iraqi, would you be happy with claiming asylum in the UK at the moment?"

Why not do it in Greece?

Syke

poll is close. i voted no. i dont think its as big a deal as people make out and like somone said, there are other issues more important.

the cynic in me thinks this is a diversion to appeal to working classes.

arcadegame2004

Capt.Sparrow, the waste of 350 million euro of taxpyers money on people that aren't even fleeing persecution seems a big deal to me. Bear in mind that this bill is certain to grow in future years given that it takes forever to deport these people and that more are coming. Ireland is not a "safehaven" for someone fleeing persecution. We are tens of thousands of miles away from the countries of origin and it is difficult to get here straight from their own countries. They are getting here by crossing 6 or 7 safe Western democratic countries. Let one of those countries deal with them. We have enough problems as it is that are crying out for money. This amendment, if passed, also returns to our national parliament the power that even the 40 non-European countries that allow citizenship on the basis of birth have, i.e. the power to legislate on citizenship. A changing problem like illegal-immigration should not be constrained by a constitutional strait-jacket that forbids a national parliament from changing policy if the circumstances require it.

We need to regard the term "refugee" as meaning only those fleeing persecution, war, or famine who claims asylum in the first EU state of entry. As far as I am concerned, if they depart the first EU country of entry to claim asylum in another EU state, they should be returned to that first EU state. Proper use of the new Eurodac immigrant-fingerprint-database should help in this matter. We have been taken advantage by benefit tourists for too long. The time has come to end those aspects of Irish law which make us disproportionately more attractive than almost all other EU states in terms of immigration.

We should not be cowed by crass accusations of racism if we intend to vote "Yes" to this amendment. If it is racist, then so too are all the other countries of Europe, which comprise some of the 147 (out of a global total of 187 countries) that do not allow citizenship solely on birth grounds. I do not believe that 147 countries in the world are "racist".

MadsL

expense of 350 million euro to the public-purse

Arcadegame - can you post a link to the source of this figure (and an explaination). Most economic theory usually points to a net increase in GDP as a result of net immigration, therefore talk of immigration costing a country money is usually spurious propaganda.

You also seem to be confusing (once again!) this referendum with the rights of asylum seekers. This has nothing to do with to do with claiming asylum. Please stick to the point of the referendum.

Also you missed an option in the poll.
3. Denied the right to vote (despite paying tax for 7 years) merely an EU citizen...

arcadegame2004

" Most economic theory usually points to a net increase in GDP as a result of net immigration, therefore talk of immigration costing a country money is usually spurious propaganda." (MadSL)

I know of no theory that states that paying asylum-seekers (a category not entitled to work) to sit on their hands for years and years increases GDP. I will post a link for the other info shortly.

arcadegame2004

"You also seem to be confusing (once again!) this referendum with the rights of asylum seekers. This has nothing to do with to do with claiming asylum. Please stick to the point of the referendum.

Also you missed an option in the poll.
3. Denied the right to vote (despite paying tax for 7 years) merely an EU citizen..." (MadSL)

This referendum is very relevant to the asylum-seeker issue because our citizenship law encourages many asylum-seekers to come here in the hope that giving birth to an Irish-born child will strengthen their asylum-claim. Last year's Supreme Court Judgement is insufficient deterrant, especially when you consider that over 4,000 non EU-nationals trying to get to Ireland were prevented from doing so last year. As already mentioend an asylum-seeker is not allowed to work. So talk of asylum-seeking benefiting the economy seems peculiar, especially given the exorbitant cost to the taxpayer of buying up accommodation for them.

On the "denied the right to vote" issue, I point out that as an EU citizen, you are entitled to vote in local and European elections. Indeed, if you are born in NI you are also an Irish citizen and as such are entitled to vote in the referendum too. I do not understand what point you are trying to make with that claim. Could you explain please? This is not relevant to the referendum either given the aforementioned sentences.

arcadegame2004

MadSL I have the info source you were looking for regarding evidence of the claim for how much asylum-seekers cost the State.

http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-03/10Apr/Sect2.htm

Quoting the relvant passage, it states:

"Overseen by the Reception and Integration Agency established for the purpose, the State feeds, houses and clothes those awaiting decisions on their claims, and ensures that their medical needs are catered for. By way of illustration, a sum in the region of €340 million was spent in 2002 on State services for asylum seekers."

I can think of far more worthwhile causes for this sum to be spent on. And no, I am not talkign about corrupt politicians, the LUAS etc. I am talking about the repair of run-down school buildings ,e.g. the scandalous conditions in that Donegal school recently reported on, as well as the NDP and the Health-service. Let whatever the first EU of entry for these people was cater for their needs. They will face no danger in that State.

MrPudding

To be honest it is alittle bit late and I am a little bit drunk so I will keep this short.

Using a system that Arcadegame2004 fully endorses I hereby declare him a racist. There is no arguement he can put against this as I am simply using his own statistical methods. If they are good enough for him to call "the majority of asylum seekers" sw leaches I believe they are good enough to call him a racist.

I brought this very point up in a previous thread and he was unable to dispute the point so I therefore believe it is OK to call him a racist.

MrP

arcadegame2004

" I am a little bit drunk .". (MrPudding)

As far as I am concerned that is testament to the rationality, or lack of it, of your argument. I have provided statistic evidence to back up my arguments, MrPudding. You. on the other hand, prefer namecalling, especially the "R" word. I am not a racist. If I was, I would not only be categorising asylum-seekers as largely consisting of benefit-tourists, but rather I would be applying this accusation to all those of a particular race in this country who have entered Ireland legally, i.e. by work-permits. I am NOT doing that and as such I am not a racist.

I am simply point out that we have to ensure the law is upheld, including international-law. That is why the Citizenship referendum is needed. Other countries are turning a blind eye to their obligations under the Dublin Convention so the question is do we turn a blind eye too to this and in the process waste tens of millions that could be better spend on our own poor and overstretched Health-Service?

If someone is coming here legally then fair play to them. But just as we should not tolerate illegal activity among our own citizens, neither should we reward those non-nationals who break the law. I believe the current system does reward such people. Asylum-seekers are not allowed to work while their applications are being assessed. Given that they did not arrive in Ireland prior to another EU state, it is virtually impossible, from a factual point of view, that they could be legal migrants. For this reason, they should be returned to their first EU state of entry, which should then assess their asylum-claims. I do not see how this puts anyone in any danger.

It is the people-traffickers who are putting these people in danger, as the recent series "Proof" on RTE illustrated. While the series was fiction, the part of it relating to the trafficking of women who are then forced into prostitution, closely resembles reality.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I can think of far more worthwhile causes for this sum to be spent on.

Right, that figure is money that was spent on people waiting to have their application heard.
So, you're saying we should spend no money at all on these people?
What about the people whose claims are legitimate? What are we supposed to do with them? Or maybe we should just turn them all away, just in case they're not legit?
Voting yes in this referendum will not stop people trying to claim asylum here.
The people whose claims are legitimate have been persecuted (in many cases) enough as it is in their home countries, without coming to places like here and been persecuted further by armchair fascists.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Right, that figure is money that was spent on people waiting to have their application heard.
So, you're saying we should spend no money at all on these people?
What about the people whose claims are legitimate? What are we supposed to do with them? Or maybe we should just turn them all away, just in case they're not legit?

I'm not sure if that is what he is trying to say.
But I think we should make it very clear that If Ireland is the asylum seekers port of call and if the asylum seeker has passed through other E.U countries to get here, then their application in Ireland is transferred to the first port of call in the E.U.
In other words,if they have already arrived to the safety of another E.U country, then their application to stay here should be disqualified.
Thats because it suggests they have moved to the furthest outpost of the E.U for ecomomic reasons and that landing in the "freedom of the E.U" was only secondary to them.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
But it stands to reason that such gangs will exploit such loopholes as ours to get a foothold in what Al-Qaeda considers the "Infidel" West.

Jeez do you work for a tabloid rag or something? Not content with posting some dubious "facts" (as shown by previous posters) you're now trying to imply that if we don't put a stop to any foreigners entering the country, we're gonna get blown up by some mad Arabs.
:rolleyes:

SantaHoe

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Asylum-seekers are not allowed to work while their applications are being assessed. Given that they did not arrive in Ireland prior to another EU state, it is virtually impossible, from a factual point of view, that they could be legal migrants.

If this is the case, why do we as a country entertain asylum requests at all?

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
you're now trying to imply that if we don't put a stop to any foreigners entering the country, we're gonna get blown up by some mad Arabs.

Why is this thread becoming a racist witch hunt?
He already said he has no problem with non-nationals coming to this country as long as they do it legaly.
Some people are missing the point in their overt efforts to be "PC".
Give it a rest.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by SantaHoe
Why is this thread becoming a racist witch hunt?
He already said he has no problem with non-nationals coming to this country as long as they do it legaly.
Some people are missing the point in their overt efforts to be "PC".
Give it a rest.

Maybe because some of his posts are racist?

I was objecting to his hysterical al-Qaeda threat as part of this debate. The Sept. 11th hijackers were all legally in the United States. Better stop the legal ones too I guess.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by SantaHoe
Why is this thread becoming a racist witch hunt?
He already said he has no problem with non-nationals coming to this country as long as they do it legaly.

I'm not trying to be "overly PC", but he does seem to have a problem with non nationals coming in.
From the tone of his posts, anyone who comes here claiming asylum are ripping off the country etc. etc.

zooz

I voted yes because this loop-hole allows cirminal gangs involved in human trafficking charge women large sums of money for them to have a better life in the west which turns out to be a lie and these women find themselves in-debted to these gangsters and forced to work as postritutes.

To quote the inpterpol (http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/Women/Default.asp) "Trafficking in women is a criminal phenomenon that violates basic human rights, and totally destroying victims' lives. Countries are affected in various ways. Some see their young women being lured to leave their home country and ending up in the sex industry abroad. Other countries act mainly as transit countries, while several other receive foreign women who become victims of sexual exploitation. "

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by zooz
I voted yes because this loop-hole allows cirminal gangs involved in human trafficking charge women large sums of money for them to have a better life in the west which turns out to be a lie and these women find themselves in-debted to these gangsters and forced to work as postritutes.

That doens't really have anything to do with the amendment to the constitution. Your example refers to people trafficking and illegal immigration which would be largely unaffected by the referendum result.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by zooz
I voted yes because this loop-hole allows cirminal gangs involved in human trafficking charge women large sums of money for them to have a better life in the west which turns out to be a lie and these women find themselves in-debted to these gangsters and forced to work as postritutes.

Can you (I know this is a long shot) explain how exactly voting yes will end trafficing of women?

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
Your example refers to people trafficking and illegal immigration which would be largely unaffected by the referendum result.

Of course it would be affected by the referendum result, if it was a yes.
A yes would copperfasten the denial of citizenship automatically to the children of those who get pregnant while here or who arrive here pregnant.
It would mean that, in those cases their residential status here would have to be determined by the value of their asylum claim and that alone .
It would remove the easy option of E.U citizenship creation for their families.
That new factor would surely impact on any decision to choose Ireland.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
It would mean that, in those cases their residential status here would have to be determined by the value of their asylum claim and that alone .

As it stands having the child here doesn't help with the asylum claim anyway. So how can voting yes stop the trafficing of women?

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
As it stands having the child here doesn't help with the asylum claim anyway. So how can voting yes stop the trafficing of women?

But you will agree that as it stands the children born here of asylum seekers get citizenship here, before the merit of their parents asylum application has been resolved.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
But you will agree that as it stands the children born here of asylum seekers get citizenship here, before the merit of their parents asylum application has been resolved.

Yes, it's a fact that it happens.
Anyone who is born here gets citzenship, regardless of their parents merits.
I just fail to see how it's going to cut down on bogus asylum claims/trafficing of women/international terrorism if people vote yes next month.

zooz

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Can you (I know this is a long shot) explain how exactly voting yes will end trafficing of women?

Yes, the EU is seen as a land of opportunity to many people from the developing world and a garuntee of citizenship to one these countries which also allows them to go to any other is huge incentive, therefore they will pay a lot of money to come here but the unfortuante thing is that the people offering these "travel services" are gangsters and are involved with other "services" such as prostitution and are therefore more concerned with putting these women in debt so that they can be exploited even more.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by zooz
Yes, the EU is seen as a land of opportunity to many people from the developing world and a garuntee of citizenship to one these countries which also allows them to go to any other is huge incentive, therefore they will pay a lot of money to come here but the unfortuante thing is that the people offering these "travel services" are gangsters and are involved with other "services" such as prostitution and are therefore more concerned with putting these women in debt so that they can be exploited even more.

but how will voting yes put an end to it????

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
but how will voting yes put an end to it????

I did say it'd be a long shot

zooz

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
but how will voting yes put an end to it????

by removing the gauarntee of citizenship will remove incentive for gangsters to target women with offers of the "good life" and therefore reduce the amount of women being exploited at the hands of the heartless bastards.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Yes, it's a fact that it happens.
Anyone who is born here gets citzenship, regardless of their parents merits.
I just fail to see how it's going to cut down on bogus asylum claims/trafficing of women/international terrorism if people vote yes next month.

It removes from their psyche the definite knowledge that the bonus prize from coming here is that any child they have here will be an Irish citizen.
The current situation means that there is a least case scenario.
This one constitutional change is not going to stem the tide a whole lot, but it would mean that there would be a certain singular definition of what would be possible for any asylum seeker who comes here and no bonus prize or second best prize if the application fails.