This referendum lark

Superman

Now im abit confused about this referendum and especially confused with the yes vote.

Whats the harm with letting black people come to Ireland, have a kid, raise the kid here, get it an education and contribute to society?

Like am I missing some thing ?
to me its as simple as that,

ok there might be a few spongers , but plenty of irish people already sponge (i'd say we all know a few) .
People are saying that foreigners will come in there millions, even as it stands Ireland isn't getting over-run with foreigners, theres a good few but its good for the country, we need a niced mixed society.
also i'd feel pretty bad in voting yes, because I know I'd be responsible for making sure that some kid ends up growing up in some west african shit-hole and not getting an education or a chance in life.

really why are people voting yes?

arcadegame2004

also i'd feel pretty bad in voting yes, because I know I'd be responsible for making sure that some kid ends up growing up in some west african ****-hole and not getting an education or a chance in life.

(Superman)

No you wouldn't. You'd just be making sure their asylum claim is dealt with in the first EU state they entered, as required under the Dublin Convention.

Whats the harm with letting black people come to Ireland...contribute to society?

As long as it's via LEGAL mean i.e. work-permits, I have no problem. But why does that require citizenship? Remember it is citizenship we are discussing.

Remember also that when a work-permit is issued by the Department of Enterprise and Employment, it happens in such a way as to protect Irish workers from cheap labour. This mechanism involves the granting of the work-permit being dependent on the company seeking the worker proving that there isn't sufficient Irish labour in this skill to employ an Irish person or EU national. If you allow an asylum-seeker to work, then you remove this safeguard because their presence in Ireland is not dependent on there being a skill-shortage in a particular job-sector. Hence, Irish people lose out to cheap labour, unlike the case where the person is employed via a work-permit.

Asylum is intended for people fleeing persecution, famine, and war. Not for economic-migration. The asylum-process brings nice goodies like free houses, at the taxpayer's expense, and is therefore tempatation for illegal-immigrants.

have a kid, raise the kid here, get it an education and

Hey! Where are you going to get the money to build all the hospitals we would need if we allow asylum-seekers to remain in Ireland solely on the basis of giving birth to a child? The hospitals are already at breaking point. We don't want to make it worse. Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing. The current system we have differs from EVERY other state in the EU and is therefore being used as a backdoor into the EU, i.e. people giving birth in Ireland to get an EU passport. Our Health-Service cannot and must not be turned into the Passport Office of Europe. It has enough problems already. And that's after its budget was doubled.

Ireland is a soft-touch on illegal-immigration and it's time that changed.

TuathaDeDanaan

Well im voting yes, because I dont like to see so much welfare tourism and secondly that I believe large scale immigration and diversity arent generally good things. Minaly because in many societies, from what I see around the world they tend to go hand in hand with ethnic conflict, division and class resentment.
As for the people already sponging, well I blame the socialist programs of the government, welfare should only exist for the hardest cases of those with an unfair hand in life, In its current condition it encourages the Idle to stay at home and degenerate while banging out more tax spongers.*

In regards to west africa, a lot of the most talented people leave such countries to go to west dont you feel bad that by voting no you would add to the woes of such countries by draining their best and brightest from thier economies (consider that these people have money enough that they can travel to Ireland and frequently claim to have higher education backgrounds). Theres no reason to feel bad.

* sorry, i dont think social mobility isnt that high guys. generally smart parents will have smart kids.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
You'd just be making sure their asylum claim is dealt with in the first EU state they entered, as required under the Dublin Convention.

I still haven't seen a single Yay-sayer explain exactly how this works.

Lets see :


"Excuse me sir. We know you didn't come directly from there to here. You can't stay here. What was your first EU port of call".

"Ireland"

"Ah, now, come on sir. We said we know thats not true. Where was your first port of call?"

"Ireland"

Now...see....where exactly do you send these guys? Back home without them ever being offered any form of asylum?

And what if, they have no passport?


"Ah, right sir. YOu can't stay here, and we don't know which country to send you to, so its home with you. Where are you from?"

"Ireland".


So where do we send them?

And what about :


"Ah...your boat came here from France. We'll send you there"

"Hello, is this France? Ireland calling. We have an asylum seeker who came here from your country. Take him back"

"Hello Ireland. We are sorry, but you cannot prove that France was the first EU country that this person stopped in, so we are not obliged to take him. He's your problem, you sort it out."


And this is what gets me....everyone saying that there is a problem with the system seems to also be of the opinion that this referendum will fix that problem. Get rid of the citizenship thing, and no-one will come here any more. The > 70% who come here without using/abusing the citizenship laws at present...they'll all disappear along with the others. And no-one will ever try coming into the country again, either.

Nope...its all great and easy.

I mean...I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone can propose the Dublin Convention as part of the solution. If it is, then why isn't it making a difference today? Why isn't it sorting out all the allegedly bogus asylum claims from majority of asylum seekers who don't have kids born on this island?????

Arcade is presenting us with a great picture of how it will all work...except that the parts don't add up.

Remember also that when a work-permit is issued by the Department of Enterprise and Employment, it happens in such a way as to protect Irish workers from cheap labour.

The minimum wage is whats supposed to protect Irish workers from cheap labour. And the problem isn't workers willing to work for less - its employers willing to break the law to make some more cash. But we shouldn't try dealing with those employers....no....we should try and make sure that the only people they can abuse are Irish.

Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing.

Why? Do such high birth rates not exist in other countries amongst similar-sized asylum groups of the same ethnicity/culture ?

jc

ArthurDent

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
(Superman)

Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing.

Just listening to the 1 o'clock news - the goverment issued 48,000 work permits last year. Any chance that some of the "foreigners" are these people that are contributing to our country?

And can you explain what you mean by foreign - French, German, Polish...., oh let me guess when you say foreign you mean black?

I am so sick of the assumption that all "foreigners" are spongers - go to any of the multinational companies in the country they have all applied to allow non-nationals come and work here because they can't find the workforce here.

Imposter

Originally posted by bonkey
I still haven't seen a single Yay-sayer explain exactly how this works....

And this is what gets me....everyone saying that there is a problem with the system seems to also be of the opinion that this referendum will fix that problem. Get rid of the citizenship thing, and no-one will come here any more. The > 70% who come here without using/abusing the citizenship laws at present...they'll all disappear along with the others. And no-one will ever try coming into the country again, either.

I agree that this referendum if passed is not going to stop a large percentage of asylum seekers and also that there are problems with the Dublin convention but the result of voting yes qould mean that the loophole that exists cannot be exploited anymore by people looking for an Irish or an EU passport. I don't see that as a bad thing and I also think that while the number abusing this at the moment is relatively low it has the potential to become a bigger problem. Moving our rules in line with the EU is a good move here imo.

As for the problems with the Dublin convention and what can be done with it's problems, surely if people are claiming asylum they would have to state where they came from and why they feel they are persecuted. If they can't divulge this information then surely they should be jailed until they are willing to cooperate. If we know where they come from we have some way of tackling the question of how they got here and then eventually (maybe not with this person) should be able to put pressure on the countries they've travelled through.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Hey! Where are you going to get the money to build all the hospitals we would need if we allow asylum-seekers to remain in Ireland solely on the basis of giving birth to a child? The hospitals are already at breaking point.

Yep, the hospitals are bad enough as it is. Why is there not the same effort put into sorting out this problem as their is scapegoating foreign people?

Go into any maternity-ward in Dublin and you'll see about one-third of the women there are foreigners. This is clear evidence of the passport-tourism we are facing.

This is clear evidence that there is more foreign people living here and having families here. Anything else is just you speculating.

bobbyjoe

If they can't divulge this information then surely they should be jailed until they are willing to cooperate.

Nice!!!!
Why not torture them too make some ass pyramids and take photo's?

Maybe they are escaping from a country where people are persecuted by the authorities or where information you give is then used against you.

Dublin Convention is unworkable and also nothing to do with the referendum.

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, the new Eurodac fingerprint-database which has recently been created could help find out which asylum-seekers already claimed asylum in other EU states. Thereby breaching the Dublin Convention. In my opinion though, all non-nationals entering the EU should be fingerprinted and their finger-prints should also be stored in this database (at present only asylum-seekers are fingerprinted) and that would allow us to discover whop has already entered a previous EU state. We could then send them back to the first EU state they entered.

"Why? Do such high birth rates not exist in other countries amongst similar-sized asylum groups of the same ethnicity/culture ?"

Well even if that's true, it's not on to expect the Irish taxpayer to have to pay the costs of so many foreigners givign birth. A bigger EU state would be better able to cope with it. It is clear that these people are coming here pregnant to claim citizenship for their Irish-born child and EU-residency for themselves and an EU-passport.


"The minimum wage is whats supposed to protect Irish workers from cheap labour. And the problem isn't workers willing to work for less - its employers willing to break the law to make some more cash. But we shouldn't try dealing with those employers....no....we should try and make sure that the only people they can abuse are Irish."

The fact that we have problems already merely strengthens my case that we deter others from outside this state from adding to those problems by welfare and passport/residency tourism.

I can't see why else so many of these people are arriving here pregnant. It didn't happen when Ireland was a poor country. These people are not genuine asylum-seekers.

arcadegame2004

"Just listening to the 1 o'clock news - the goverment issued 48,000 work permits last year. Any chance that some of the "foreigners" are these people that are contributing to our country?" (ArthurDent)

Mostly no, because as I quoted from one of the 2 other debates today by referring to an Irish Independent article by Jim Cusack, the minutes of the meeting at whic the Masters fo the Rotunda warned of a catastrophe if the system wasn't changed, it mentioned that the majority of non-national births in our hospitals were to asylum-seekers.

"Maybe they are escaping from a country where people are persecuted by the authorities or where information you give is then used against you.

Dublin Convention is unworkable and also nothing to do with the referendum." (bobbyjoe)

It is workable as I have explained above.

They were not fleeing persecution when the got on the ferry in Calais or when they drove across the NI border (as 80% of asylum-seekers do accoridng to estimates) to get here.

Imposter

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Nice!!!!
Why not torture them too make some ass pyramids and take photo's?

Maybe they are escaping from a country where people are persecuted by the authorities or where information you give is then used against you.

Dublin Convention is unworkable and also nothing to do with the referendum.

Did I say that? If they are applying for asylum and they don't know where or what they are fleeing from what exactly do you propose should be done? How exactly could that information be used against them?

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, the new Eurodac fingerprint-database which has recently been created could help find out which asylum-seekers already claimed asylum in other EU states.

Do they fingerprint unsuccessful applicants?

Thereby breaching the Dublin Convention.

No-one has yet shown that it is a breach of the Dublin Convention to seek asylum in more than one country. AS far as I am aware, if a nation refuses you asylum, they are supposed to return you to your country of origin.

If they do that, and you subsequently make your way to another country, are you still in breach of the Dublin Convention?

In my opinion though, all non-nationals entering the EU should be fingerprinted and their finger-prints should also be stored in this database

If you want to do that, why be in any way biased. Why not fingerprint all nationals as well?

that would allow us to discover whop has already entered a previous EU state. We could then send them back to the first EU state they entered.

Sure we could. I mean...these people declare themselves at every country they pass through...right?

You are aware that currently, in order to get into the EU they should have a valid passport, which should be stamped in their country of entry (edited: originally read "country of origin" in error)??? With that information, we should also be able to determine the first country...but guess what.....it doesn't work too well in practice.

Now, what makes you think a different type of information, but taken at the same place as the passport-stamping would occur, is going to be any different? Surely they can avoid that in exactly the same manner?

Well even if that's true,

You mean you don't know? You mean you've been drawing all these conclusions without knowing the facts on which those conclusions are based???

it's not on to expect the Irish taxpayer to have to pay the costs of so many foreigners givign birth.

And the referendum will do absaolutely nothing to change that if your unproven suggestion of citizenship-shopping proves to be grossly exaggerated and/or plain wrong. If the amendment passes, and we see no real decrease in pregnancy or asylum-seeker rates, we still have to pay the cost of so many foreigners giving birth.

So now, even more is hanging on the assumptions that you haven't checked / aren't willing to check / won't admit to having checked the full story behind at all....

It is clear that these people are coming here pregnant to claim citizenship for their Irish-born child and EU-residency for themselves and an EU-passport.

And here we go again. In a reply where you admit to not checking the actual facts that might show this to be complete bollox, and so - in effect - admitting it is nothing but a speculative notion, you resort again to stating that it is "clear".

The only thing that is clear arcade is that you have no inclination to stop making allegations that you cannot defend against critical analysis, and yet have gone overboard insulting others for exactly the same thing.

Do you not find that approach somewhat hypocritical? Does this amendment mean so much to you that truth and honesty are only worth a second seat to obtaining the desired result?

I can't see why else so many of these people are arriving here pregnant. It didn't happen when Ireland was a poor country

Wow!

You harp on, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this being about the change made during the GFA, and now - all of a sudden - its because we're rich!!!

And, despite being told what figures you need to compare to be able to show why else so many of these people are arriving here pregnant you admit to not being bothered to check them, and now...not being able to see any other explanations....you try and assert your conclusions must again be right - that they are coming here for citizenship.

These people are not genuine asylum-seekers.

You clearly haven't done enough research to be able to make any such statement with any degree of certainty. The gap in your information has been pointed out, and yet you couldn't be bothered checking it out...

You've a really "strong"* case there arcade, and the more you repeat yourself, contradict yourself, and employ the tactics you insulted others for employing, the "stronger"* it will get.

* sarcastic.

jc

arcadegame2004

Well Bonkey, if you consider the near impossibility of an asylum-seeker getting to Ireland without crossing several other EU states, it makes their claims to be "refugees" extremely hard to believe.

Does a genuine refugee need to board the ferry at Calais or Holyhead to escape persecution? Are they being persecuted in France or the UK?

I think not.

bobbyjoe

How exactly could that information be used against them?

I wasn't talking about where they were coming from. My point was that in some countries people don't trust the authorities and are unwilling to give information, for example Rwanda where records of people details and religion were gathered for the purpose of butchering them with machetes.

Suppose the Dublin Convention would be workable if we fingerprinted and bio analysed everyone. That would be great, lets just plug ourselves into the Matrix while we are at it and forget about free will, democracy and humanitarianism.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Bonkey, if you consider the near impossibility of an asylum-seeker getting to Ireland without crossing several other EU states, it makes their claims to be "refugees" extremely hard to believe.

You should have a look at all those countries to the west of Ireland in mainland europe that ships have to cross to in order to reach our shores.

D'OH!!! Someone's gone and moved them.

Does a genuine refugee need to board the ferry at Calais or Holyhead to escape persecution? Are they being persecuted in France or the UK?

I think not.

I'm a buit confused. Was this supposed to be a response to my last post? If so, could you actually address the issues I raised, rather than starting over with the dogma I was pointing out the flaws in???

jc

TuathaDeDanaan

what issues bonkey?, and for your 5000th post perhaps you could write something coherant. Its funny that a moderator for a politics forum could be as liberally biased and unpersuasive as you.

Imposter

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
I wasn't talking about where they were coming from. My point was that in some countries people don't trust the authorities and are unwilling to give information, for example Rwanda where records of people details and religion were gathered for the purpose of butchering them with machetes.

Are you actually reading and understanding this thread? We are talking about people applying for asylum in Ireland. What does Rwanda have to do with any of this? Yes they may come from Rwanda but in order to apply for asylum in Ireland they must tell the authorities that they are coming from Rwanda and tell them why they should get asylum. If asylum seekers don't trust the Irish authorities then they wouldn't be applying for asylum here in the first place, would they?

kahlua

This might be an ignorant question but if this new referendum comes into effect and no baby born to irish parents is given automatic citizenship, does this mean that everyone will have to apply for citizenship and is that workable? Considering the government can't even get the penalty points system working properly.

bonkey

Originally posted by kahlua
This might be an ignorant question but`...

If you download the pdf here, and have a read of it, it will outline reasonably accurately what the changes will be.

That should answer your question.

jc

kahlua

Thanks, I am now fully informed. It seems like a good thing, it stops people abusing this system while still giving a chance to people who really want to become Irish citizens to meet the requirements.

gandalf

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
what issues bonkey?, and for your 5000th post perhaps you could write something coherant. Its funny that a moderator for a politics forum could be as liberally biased and unpersuasive as you.

Maybe you should read the forum rules where it clearly states that personal attacks will not be tolerated.

This is a warning I see another post like this from you and I will be very persuasive in banning you from here!

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well Bonkey, if you consider the near impossibility of an asylum-seeker getting to Ireland without crossing several other EU states

Why do you use the words "impossibility" and "several" when you also say many asylum seekers also come through the UK. Couldn't someone get on a plane, fly to Heathrow and get a connecting flight to Dublin? In cases like this how many EU states have they crossed?

arcadegame2004

If that happened then they should apply for asylum in the UK, in keeping with the Dublin Convention.

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
If that happened then they should apply for asylum in the UK, in keeping with the Dublin Convention.

Can I point out something which I thought was obvious but which you may have missed? I noticed you saying it a while ago but I was banned and could not post, this post reminds me of it.

Earlier in another thread you said that as there were no direct flight from some of the countries the asylum seekers were coming from proved that they came through another EU country. For me it doesn't prove that. It proves that they came through another country that has direct flights to Ireland, it is likely that this was an EU country, but not certain as you insist.

MrP

RainyDay

Isn't it a bit strange how when one wealthy Chinese lady has a baby in Belfast and we can rush into a constitutional referendum, but a judge gets off a child pornography charge on a technicality and we have to go through 'due process' and inquiries etc etc - Priorities eh?

arcadegame2004

Rainyday you should know from precedent, e.g. Roe Vs, Wade in the US, that even one legal ruling like Chen can be a precedent for big changes in the law.

arcadegame2004

But I think Rainyday that both Chen and a certain judge have abused the Irish Constitution for their own ends, albeit in different ways.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by RainyDay
Isn't it a bit strange how when one wealthy Chinese lady has a baby in Belfast and we can rush into a constitutional referendum, but a judge gets off a child pornography charge on a technicality and we have to go through 'due process' and inquiries etc etc - Priorities eh?

I thought the inquiries into the judge's case has required the Oireachtas to urgently pass two pieces of legislation, so to be honest its not really a valid point.

The only point that might arise from consideration of these two different cases is the need to provide for reasonable eventualities, rather than rushing legislation in after the event. Just as it would have been prudent for some system to have been put in place to handle the impeachment of a judge before a potential case arose, it would seem reasonable to close off the loophole highlighted by the Chen case rather than waiting to see if things go from being silly to being very silly.

RainyDay

Screwing round with the constitution in knee-jerk fashion is not a good idea (as the pro-lifers found out when their amendment in the 80's had exactly the opposite effect to their intention in the 90's). There has been no serious data presented as to what problem we are supposed to be solving here. Mullah McDowell made no attempt to get cross-party consensus - the Dail committee on constitutional reform was not consulted.

This referendum is a diversion - McDowell is simply trying to divert attention from the abysmal performance of the Govt parties in recent years in advance of the local elections. Don't fall into his trap.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by RainyDay
Screwing round with the constitution in knee-jerk fashion is not a good idea

True, which is a good reason for leaving the detailed legislation to the Oireachtas as is intended. That was the real flaw in the pro life amendment, and, as you say, they managed to undermine the very law they were seeking to defend.

Whatever about the government motivations, its a sensible proposal. There's really no case against it.

Trebor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
True, which is a good reason for leaving the detailed legislation to the Oireachtas as is intended. That was the real flaw in the pro life amendment, and, as you say, they managed to undermine the very law they were seeking to defend.

Whatever about the government motivations, its a sensible proposal. There's really no case against it.

a good case against it in my view is the fact that the government did not follow proper procedure when dealing with this issue. they threw it in at the last minute and put it on the same day as two other elections. whats the rush? it won't have that much effect if we leave it till the end of the year to vote on thus giving everyone enough time to consider it.

also by rejecting this amendmant maybe we can force this government into actually doing something about our immagration policy and have them enforce our laws in the same way the americans do.

bobbyjoe

Whatever about the government motivations, its a sensible proposal. There's really no case against it.

Every arguement for it has been shot down in other threads.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by bobbyjoe
Every arguement for it has been shot down in other threads.

That's a rather optimistic reading of the situation. The 'yes' case is being overstated by a contributor called Arcadegame, and he is being batted about like a little kid trying to get his ball back. But 'Arcadegame is like totally out there' is not a case against the referendum (although I notice someone has this as their sig at the moment).

But no-one has been really been able to explain why a no vote is needed, and why it is so essential that citizenship should be extended to people using it as a device to live in another EU state.

MadsL

Because
1. It is just.
2. It is a simple test of citizenship.
3. It has a historical precedent.
4. There are better and more effective way to combat asylum abuses.
5. Voting YES will not change the amount of non-nationals coming to Ireland as much as you may wish it to.
6. It makes more sense to give citizenship to those born here than to
a) 3rd generation Americans who have not even set foot on Irish soil
b) children of Irish passport holders that FF sold passports too in exchange
for a million quid.
c) Those 'a bit good at football'
7. I prefer the test of citizenship to be 'where were you born' as opposed to 'whatever FF think in future'.

arcadegame2004

MadsL, I hope you do not take this as an offence. But I would like to point out something.

Now, I am NOT attacking your nationality. But in your country, the UK, the automatic right to citizenship solely on the basis of birth is not applicable.

So if its not acceptable for your country, why should it be for ours?

arcadegame2004

It is just

Why?

2. It is a simple test of citizenship.

In other words, it makes it too easy to get citizenship, especially for organised criminals.

3. It has a historical precedent.

Although it was part of our law as early as 1921, no-one really cared until Ireland became rich and enshrined jus-soli into our Constitution. Now our hospitals are under siege and when circumstances change, so too do certain aspects of law to cope with it, especially when the law becomes the source of the problem. With 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age being pregnant on arrival last year, and with Mrs.Chen's antics I feel our system is now a cause of problems and must be altered.

4. There are better and more effective way to combat asylum abuses.

Like what? I feel that removing the underlying incentive the come here will go a long way towards cutting the numbers of illegals. The birth matter is a huge part of the incentive to come here.

5. Voting YES will not change the amount of non-nationals coming to Ireland as much as you may wish it to.

Have a crystal-ball do you? I feel that it will. This is not about race. It is about unsustainable pressure on our Health-Service and about ending absue of our laws by non-nationals.

6. It makes more sense to give citizenship to those born here than to a) 3rd generation Americans who have not even set foot on Irish soil
b) children of Irish passport holders that FF sold passports too in exchange
for a million quid.
c) Those 'a bit good at football'

It's actually equally ludicrous as b and c. But at least 3rd-generation Americans don't have the economic incentive to flood Ireland's hospitals etc.

7. I prefer the test of citizenship to be 'where were you born' as opposed to 'whatever FF think in future'.

That argument assumes that FF will always be in power which is silly.

RainyDay

Originally posted by ishmael whale
True, which is a good reason for leaving the detailed legislation to the Oireachtas as is intended. That was the real flaw in the pro life amendment, and, as you say, they managed to undermine the very law they were seeking to defend.

Whatever about the government motivations, its a sensible proposal. There's really no case against it.

Hi Ishmael - There doesn't have to be case against it! The Govt are proposing the change, so they need to present the case for the change. They have presented no hard data to identify what problem we are really trying to solve here.

And for the record, I'm not happy to leave matters of citizenship in the hands of the Oireachtas. While McDowell's current proposal (must be resident for 3 years) is not totally unreasonable, who knows what the next amendment to these rules will be in five years time?

arcadegame2004

Raninyday, you are so out of touch. Up and down this country people are sick and tired of the illegals cming in here and taking over the hospitals to give birth to an "Irish" baby in order to get Irish Citizenship, getting free houses that Irish people have to wait years to get, and of the criminal behavious of the Nigerian, triad, and Russian mafia gangs that use our laws to get a foothold here.

There almost doesn't need to be a case made for this, such is the obviousness of its necessity to all but the most bleeding of bleeding heart lefties who think anything short of an open-door is fascism. They break up meetings of groups like the Immigration Control Platform that try to discuss greater controls on immigration. (I am in no way linked to that body and I agree that some of their language is extreme. But freedom of speech should mean freedom of speech even for those with whom we politically disagree). Yet they have the cheek to call these groups fascist. Fascism involved breaking up meetings of political opponents so I find this ironic.

We are entitled to debate this issue. We are entitled to restrict illegal immigration and the "No" sides only real argument is that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist. This is deeply insulting the 54% who say they will vote "Yes". Another poll came out a few days ago showing that in Leinster there is 62% support for this proposal. The "No" side is going down in flames because of their own failure to communicate real reasons for voting "No".

The arguments though for a "Yes" are clear.

A: 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age are pregnant on arrival. Go to the "Immigration Referendum" thread and go to ai_ing's links to see the proof of this. 1,893 pregnant woman are the numerical equivalent of this and this number is also mentioned. This has been pretty consistent since 1998 so clearly there is a link with the current Constitutional position.

B: The Masters of the Rotunda, in spite of their public coyness, DID call for a change in the law. The minuites of their meetings with Michael McDowell and Michael Martin clearly show this. They warned the latter thata 4th Maternity-Hospital might have to be built in Dublin to cope with the flood of non-national births.

C:These are NOT Filipino nurses or Brazilian factory workers giving birth. Look at my thread on the Irish Examiner report yesterday by an obstetrician explain this.

D:National identity in undermined if Irish people are likely to become a minority in their own country.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Raninyday, you are so out of touch. Up and down this country people are sick and tired of the illegals cming in here and taking over the hospitals to give birth to an "Irish" baby in order to get Irish Citizenship, getting free houses that Irish people have to wait years to get, and of the criminal behavious of the Nigerian, triad, and Russian mafia gangs that use our laws to get a foothold here.

It doesn't matter how many times you continue with this mantra. Saying something over and over again will not make it true.

They break up meetings of groups like the Immigration Control Platform that try to discuss greater controls on immigration.

Their idea of immigration control would consist of deporting all foreigners and not allowing any more in from what I can gather.

The "No" side is going down in flames because of their own failure to communicate real reasons for voting "No".

Ever hear of saying involving a Pot slandering another common item found in most kitchens?

The arguments though for a "Yes" are clear.

You seemed to have left out "Ireland for the Irish" from that list.

EDIT: I missed this little gem somehow!

D:National identity in undermined if Irish people are likely to become a minority in their own country.

RainyDay

Hi arcadegame2004

It's a bit hard to take seriously your complaints about Yes voters being labelled as racists when you play the same game yourself, labelling No voters as bleeding heart lefties.

Just for your information, I would bet a fiver that I spent more time in maternity hospitals over the last year than you (as my wife/child were in hospital for about 50 nights in the last year). I didn't find the hospital to be 'full' of non-nationals. There was a fair contingent of African & Oriental mothers (my own guess would be something like 20%-30%), but that's just my own personal experience, and it is no basis for making an important decision like this.

That Dept of Justice document is interesting - but the data presented is quite limited. It refers to one specific 6 month period only, and to be honest, I would be somewhat sceptical about accepting documents from Mullah McDowell's own Dept as independent.

I really don't see the relevance of the statements from the Masters of the maternity hospitals either. Firstly, from the interviews I heard, they had no formal data collection processes in place, and the figures being bandied around were 'off the cuff' figures. Secondly, I wouldn't be too keen on accepting advice on constitutional citizenship from the Masters of the maternity hospitals. I would accept their advice on running maternity hospitals, but the matters involved here are outside of their professional expertise. Let them tell us their experiences, and let society as a whole decide where to go.

I'm not saying that there is no problem here. Maybe their is. I am saying that there has been insufficient data and insufficient debate on this matter. Rushing into constitutional changes is not a good idea, and we may well live to regret the haste.

PS I'd love the see the maths to show how 2k non-national births will lead to native Irish becoming a minority.

arcadegame2004

Rushing into constitutional changes is not a good idea, and we may well live to regret the haste.

SIX YEARS since the GFA? You call that a rush?

There was a fair contingent of African & Oriental mothers (my own guess would be something like 20%-30%),

Correct. And remember only 6% of the population are supposed to be non-national. Why are they having so many babies? Citizenship.

You are very much mistaken if you think that it's only your personal experience that is's 20-30%.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Correct. And remember only 6% of the population are supposed to be non-national. Why are they having so many babies? Citizenship.

Maybe the people he saw were Irish citizens? Crazy I know, but some Irish people aren't members of the Ayrian race.
Maybe they're having babies because people tend to reproduce, another "bleeding heart leftie" statement I know.

MadsL

Raninyday, you are so out of touch. Up and down this country people are sick and tired of the illegals cming in here and taking over the hospitals to give birth to an "Irish" baby in order to get Irish Citizenship, getting free houses that Irish people have to wait years to get, and of the criminal behavious of the Nigerian, triad, and Russian mafia gangs that use our laws to get a foothold here.

taking over the hospitals .... Again no sources for this...
People are sick and tired, the health service is under pressure, and it is because of lack of funding NOT asylum applications.

When are the YES campaign going to come clean and admit that the numbers of asylum applications are actually FALLING,

Applications
No. of new applications for a declaration as a refugee *
2001 - 10316
2002 - 11598
2003 - 7483
2004 to end April - 1466

Total No. of applications for a declaration as a refugee *
2001 - 10325
2002 - 11634
2003 - 7900
2004 to end April 1633

source ORAC

There almost doesn't need to be a case made for this

There most certainly does, there should be a stronger case made for changing a constitution than for leaving the status quo.

They break up meetings of groups like the Immigration Control Platform that try to discuss greater controls on immigration. (I am in no way linked to that body and I agree that some of their language is extreme. But freedom of speech should mean freedom of speech even for those with whom we politically disagree). Yet they have the cheek to call these groups fascist. Fascism involved breaking up meetings of political opponents so I find this ironic.

Who is They? Please explain. And post your sources.

We are entitled to debate this issue. We are entitled to restrict illegal immigration and the "No" sides only real argument is that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist.

When have I said that anyone who agrees with you is a racist?

"entitled to restrict illegal immigration" - this is not the focus of the referendum

The "No" side is going down in flames because of their own failure to communicate real reasons for voting "No".

Really. Maybe we should try the YES tack and drag in everything from Al Qeeda to Columbine...:rolleyes:

A: 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age are pregnant on arrival. Go to the "Immigration Referendum" thread and go to ai_ing's links to see the proof of this. 1,893 pregnant woman are the numerical equivalent of this and this number is also mentioned. This has been pretty consistent since 1998 so clearly there is a link with the current Constitutional position.

would it kill you to post a link! :rolleyes:

And as I pointed out in the same thread your 1,893 is a drop in the ocean of the 20,000 Irish who emigrated the same year. http://www.cso.ie/publications/demog/popmig.pdf

B: The Masters of the Rotunda, in spite of their public coyness, DID call for a change in the law. The minuites of their meetings with Michael McDowell and Michael Martin clearly show this. They warned the latter thata 4th Maternity-Hospital might have to be built in Dublin to cope with the flood of non-national births.

They denied it. http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0313/citizenship.html

Post me a link to the minutes. Can't seem to find it. Odd that.

C:These are NOT Filipino nurses or Brazilian factory workers giving birth. Look at my thread on the Irish Examiner report yesterday by an obstetrician explain this.

You mean the one where the obstetrician in question, Dr Paul Byrne explains that the problems are mostly (90%) unbooked Irish.

They tend to be either terrified teenagers, living at home and afraid to tell anyone, or women from disadvantaged backgrounds. They could be drug addicts, or women not keen on being pregnant and in poor social circumstances

You can read the original report here unmolested by the Irish Examiner's slant.
Nowhere does the 'good doctor' put the blame on refugees in this study. In fact of the 11,522 deliveries "Eleven of the unbooked women were refugees who had newly arrived in Ireland and a further nine were refugees who had booked in their country of origin but arrived to the Rotunda with no record of this care. "

You mean the thread where the 'report' is so obviously hokum that you haven't bothered to reply to the points made.

D:National identity in undermined if Irish people are likely to become a minority in their own country.

You are a minority already. You represent about 3.5 million of the 70 odd million that claim to be 'Irish' - that doesn't seem to undermine you national identity - whatever that is..??

On your other devastating assessments of the No argument;

1. Why?

Because it is an historical, simple and logical test of nationality.

2. In other words, it makes it too easy to get citizenship, especially for organised criminals.
WTF?? What 'organised criminals' - show me a shred of evidence of this in Ireland...the most organised criminals I've seen in seven years here have been in FF!

3. Although it was part of our law as early as 1921, no-one really cared until Ireland became rich and enshrined jus-soli into our Constitution. Now our hospitals are under siege and when circumstances change, so too do certain aspects of law to cope with it, especially when the law becomes the source of the problem. With 58% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age being pregnant on arrival last year, and with Mrs.Chen's antics I feel our system is now a cause of problems and must be altered.

"hospitals are under siege" - nonsense, there is a baby boom and that is an Irish problem.

"our system is now a cause of problems and must be altered" - unilaterally, thus jeapodising the GFA. brilliant - all for less than 2,000 people :rolleyes:

4. Like what? I feel that removing the underlying incentive the come here will go a long way towards cutting the numbers of illegals. The birth matter is a huge part of the incentive to come here.

"I feel that removing the underlying incentive the come here will go a long way towards cutting the numbers of illegals" - great idea, everyone speak Irish and bingo no more problem. Can't you figure it out yet, it is not the citizenship law that attracts asylum-seekers, it's the language.

5. Have a crystal-ball do you? I feel that it will. This is not about race. It is about unsustainable pressure on our Health-Service and about ending absue of our laws by non-nationals.

Look at the money numbers. Health service spending is being cut. Scary non-nationals get the blame. FF get re-elected.

"absue of our laws by non-nationals" - what laws are being broken?

6. "flood Ireland's hospitals " - you are a stuck record...prove this with figures.

3rd gen Americans - will you be removing this right as well then. Your cousins in the states won't be impressed with you.

7. That argument assumes that FF will always be in power which is silly.

I agree. The concept of FF always in power is silly - but the point is that you hand over the control of the right of citizenship to whichever party is in power. Isn't it better that the people of Ireland make a constitutional decision that is free of party interference after the fact.

Finally...

But in your country, the UK, the automatic right to citizenship solely on the basis of birth is not applicable.

Two points. The first of which is that you make the classic assumption that I will immediately leap to the defence of 'my country' - it is not 'my country' - I haven't lived there in over a decade.

Secondly, I don't support this policy, but I do see some historical reasons for this. Firstly the UK is a former colonial power and as such has a significantly larger potential population of 'subjects' many of which chose to travel (or were invited) to the UK and become 'citizens'. There have been a number of extensions of the rule, not the least of which was the freedom of travel afforded to the Irish citizens who have, since independence, remained free to reside in the UK and (even as non-citizens) to vote in UK elections and vice-versa. It is estimated that 1 in 5 Londoners have an Irish parent. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Irish citizens had the right to be treated as 'British

Equally up until 1962 there were no restrictions at all until the Notting Hill riots of 1958 proved the issue in the Uk and racist agitation forced the legislation of the The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of 1961.

The UK has always had a bi-polar approach to citizenship, given the list of countries that comprised the Commenwealth - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon, plus special provision in the Act for citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

To compare the citizenship history and background of Ireland and the UK is hardly like with like - is it now?

arcadegame2004

These figures are for the period BEFORE the Chen judgement. Your figures for asylum-applications only cover the period up to April. According to Minister McDowell, there has been a significant surge in non-national births in the past month.

Also, these figures were taken before the Chen judgement. That judgement, which ruled that the parents of Catherine Chen derived EU-residency from that baby's Irish/EU citizenship sets a dangerous precedent. No doubt huge numbers of illegal immigrants facing deportation from mainland EU and especially the UK will now flock to our shores.

May I add that in spite of the decline, the numbers of non-national births has NOT fallen. It has actually risen since 2003. And it is only May!

Do you want us to wait for the huge surge in numbers later in the year? Prevention is better than cure.

And anyway the principle of automatic citizenship on the basis of being solely of being born on this island is in itself unacceptable to me.

And we managed well enough when Dail Eireann had the power to decide citizenship law anyway, prior to 1998. It was not until then that the flood started.

Oh, and Frank Grimes, it is ludicrous to suggest that a large number of non-Caucasians giving birth in our hospitals are Irish-born.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Oh, and Frank Grimes, it is ludicrous to suggest that a large number of non-Caucasians giving birth in our hospitals are Irish-born.

Don't twist my words, I said Irish citizens.

MadsL

According to Minister McDowell, there has been a significant surge in non-national births in the past month.

Oh, so I publish the latest figures up until what...29 days ago. you clearly with much more up to date information have the latest figure that have 'surged'. Go on then - what are they? Publish a link for once in your life. Where are your figures for this.

non-national births

The phrase non-national is meaningless and you know it. Many 'non-nationals' have a perfect legal right to residence and ultimately citizenship. their children will likely become citizens whether you like it or not. Shame on you for trotting out the pityful 'non-national' nonsense

MadsL

McDowell + "significant surge"

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=McDowell+%2B+%22significant+surge%22&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryIE

Prisions yes, Births - err no.

So what did he actually say?

MadsL

Breakingnews.ie

Your Search Keyword(s): McDowell + "significant surge"
Translates to: mcdowell AND "significant surge"
Category : All
Viewing Records : 1 to 0 of 0
SORRY, No results were found matching your criteria.

MadsL

ireland.com
http://www.ireland.com/cgi-bin/dialogserver?SAVEDB=all&QUERY00=McDowell+%2B+%22significant+surge%22&STARTDATE0=&ENDDATE0=&DB=all&ORGANISE_CODED=&THRESHOLD=90&Search.x=57&Search.y=10
Searching all section(s) . No documents with a score of more than 90 found

dah, I know...he said it when he was round your gaff for a cup of tea...

RainyDay

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
SIX YEARS since the GFA? You call that a rush?

I guess I must have missed the six years of debate, consideration, review with all-party committee on the constitution on this topic then. That's the only logical explanation - as the possibility that Mad Mullah McDowell would try another diversionary tactic (like the one that doubled the PD's Dail seats in the last general election) is just out of the question, isn't it?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Why are they having so many babies? Citizenship.

Congratulations on your telepathic ability to read their minds? Is there just a chance that one or two of the non-national mothers just might want their babies to be born in a safer hospital? Nah - sure what kind of crazy mother would want that.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
You are very much mistaken if you think that it's only your personal experience that is's 20-30%.

I didn't comment on whether my experience was high or low, so it's just a little strange that you feel the need to point out possible errors in items that I haven't actually specified.

Victor

Originally posted by RainyDay
Is there just a chance that one or two of the non-national mothers just might want their babies to be born in a safer hospital?

Looking at the report on unbooked mothers, medical safety would appear to be a distinct factor - they are medical tourists, not citizenship tourists.