"Yes" landslide

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I've said it in another post, the Supreme Court judgment last year stated that the child's nationality had no bearing on the asylum application of the parents.
And there was a deportation order served against the two families as their asylum application was rejected.

I was talking about how some FAKE "asylum" seekers would now no longer be able to cynically abuse their kids born here by having citizenship bestowed on their babies.
Of course That has been said already.
The people have spoken and four times as many agree with my position than do with yours.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to have it implimented when 80% of the voters on a respectably high turn out ( 60% approx ) patently disagree with you.
This is after all a democracy, you should accept that

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Blade
Also this referendum had nothing to do with Asylum seekers, it was about citizenship rights.

Judging by some of the posts here and some things I've heard from people who intended to vote yes, I don't think alot of people got this fact.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Rock Climber
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to have it implimented when 80% of the voters on a respectably high turn out ( 60% approx ) patently disagree with you.
This is after all a democracy, you should accept that

I don't accept that the constitution should be changed when there is no need for it to be done.
The only reason you can give for a yes vote is this vague notion of "abuse of the system" by people using their children to gain citizenship. This does not happen. My opinion nor the opinion of the electorate will change the fact that Supreme Court ruling last year prevents people using their Irish born children to gain citizenship.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I don't accept that the constitution should be changed when there is no need for it to be done.

Well clearly you are very much in the minority in that view as 80% of the people who voted on a high 60% turn out did feel that it needed to be changed.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
Well clearly you are very much in the minority in that view as 80% of the people who voted on a high 60% turn out did feel that it needed to be changed.

Well, as far as the government were concerned with the first Nice referendum the majority had made the wrong decision. Why is this one any different?

Elmolove

Originally posted by Elessar
Here Here!

The Irish people made the right choice. Myself and many of my friends voted Yes and we are not racists. We are friends with several African nationals. If the No voters crowd were to see first-hand just how much benefit immigrants are getting and how many of them are literally abusing the system, they would finally realise what utter boll**ks some of their views are.

Personally, I'm pleased how mature my nation has showed itself to be.

Ok, can you please please please tell me what all these "benefits" are that you speak of.

Are you familiar with a system called direct provision?

How about dispersal?

What about not being allowed to work?

How about the residency rule for the new EU states?

What about all the low paid jobs that Irish people won't do that immigrants fill - immigration is key to Ireland's economy.

You say that immigrants are abusing the system - show me your stats to prove your point.

halkar

I voted Yes. I am not racist and never believed this was a racist referendum. Turnout was high comparing to other referendums we had in recent years. Close to 60% :eek: First Nice had around 33% and second had close to 50%.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Well, as far as the government were concerned with the first Nice referendum the majority had made the wrong decision. Why is this one any different?

The turn out and the size of the majority

PHB

Just because the majority has accepted it in absolutely no way jusitifies the decesioin.

Cases and point:

Apartheid
Civil rights for blacks in America
Universal Suffereage in almost every country
Germany

The voice of the people is absolutely not hte voice of god.
However it is the majority, and thats the way it goes.

I myself am disapoiinted with the public, not because I think its racist(although I think if you look at the exit polls and for the reason people voted there is a strong argument to be made that people voted that way because of racist tendancies), but because I'm disappointed people were so easily manipulated by the government.

They allowed them to lie time after time, and when they got caught, they just made up a new lie, which the public swallowed.

Whether or not this referendum is racist, McDowell is racist, and lets hope to god this guy gets shot in the head and the world will be a better place.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
The turn out and the size of the majority

So it just depends on how many people are in the majority for a decision to be correct?
Interesting concept, given that people who don't agree with this decision are being given lectures in democracy.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by PHB
but because I'm disappointed people were so easily manipulated by the government.

I agree with you on that, I don't think most people who voted yes were racists for doing so. I just think they were not presented with the proper facts and reasons for voting either way on the amendment.
The whole "just vote yes" attitude the government has come out with yet again (Nice mk 1 and 2 being the others in recent memory) shows nothing but comtempt for the public and is setting a dangerous precident.
They're not too happy with the media of late, if we're asked to vote on letting them control the news media will we all be so easily lead?

bullit

FRANK GRIMES:

Judging by some of the posts here and some things I've heard from people who intended to vote yes, I don't think alot of people got this fact.

All the people I knew and asked which way they intended to vote and why, basically said 'YES' and 'because there's too many of them here' or variations thereof.

This is a small sample, but worrying...

PHB:

Whether or not this referendum is racist, McDowell is racist, and lets hope to god this guy gets shot in the head and the world will be a better place.

Lovely. Just lovely.:dunno:

bullit

FRANK GRIMES:

They're not too happy with the media of late, if we're asked to vote on letting them control the news media will we all be so easily lead?

This idea for a government appointed/controlled Press council is one of the most worrying proposals put forward in recent years.
If this goes through, be afraid - be very afraid.

(Don't think the great unwashed will get a say in it somehow)

Samson

Originally posted by Elmolove
What about all the low paid jobs that Irish people won't do that immigrants fill - immigration is key to Ireland's economy.

Agreed, we do need immigrants to contribute to our economy, and a valuable contribution they can make too.
However, these must be legal immigrants who wish to come here to work, pay taxes and contribute in a meaningful way. There should be no place for hangers-on who wish to come here to suckle resources, as I already stated, we have enough of our own indigenous brand here already.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by bullit
(Don't think the great unwashed will get a say in it somehow)

I can't see that happening either, it's just the best example I can think of at the moment whereby if something that would affect all of our liberties were put to the vote.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
So it just depends on how many people are in the majority for a decision to be correct?
Interesting concept, given that people who don't agree with this decision are being given lectures in democracy.

no.
At 51% with a small turnout you can reasonably expect that another referendum may turn up a different result as those that did not vote first time may turn out.

With a high turn out at 60% and an overwhelming majority for this change at 80% it would be unreasonable to expect that another referendum would turn a different result.
Thats reality.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
With a high turn out at 60% and an overwhelming majority for this change at 80% it would be unreasonable to expect that another referendum would turn a different result.
Thats reality.

We don't have quotas here so that argument is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if there was a 100% turnout, if people were mis-informed it wouldn't make the decision more correct than a 50% turnout of informed voters would it?

Tuars

Originally posted by oscarBravo
The burning question is: how many people realised that? What was it - 36% of people voted yes because the immigration system is being abused, and 22% because there are too many immigrants? That doesn't exactly suggest a clear grasp of the issue.

I would say very few people were able to focus solely on the citizenship issue without bringing in the broader issues relating to immigration.

If you look back at the threads relating to this topic on boards.ie you will see that both sides continually expanded the scope of the debate to include broader issues which had nothing to do with the substantive issue.

My experiences debating the issue off-line were similiar. 'Yes' voters expanded the scope to include every alleged abuse of the system that was possible and more, while 'No' voters spoke of the spectre of us becoming a fascist state.

Both sides were guilty of scare mongering and distraction.

I believe that there will be unintended side-effects to this amendment which have nothing to do with asylum seekers but which will have real effects for those who should be entitled to citizenship by right.

I believe that none of these issues were studied in enough detail because of the smokescreens coming from both sides. It eas impossible to say 'Whoa! Hold the horses a moment' without being called a right-wing fascist/racist or a left wing lily livered pinko.

I can see a re-run of this referendum a la divorce, abortion and Nice when one of these side effects manifests itself.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Tuars
I believe that none of these issues were studied in enough detail because of the smokescreens coming from both sides.

Most of the No side were asking for more time to debate/discuss and not to have it rushed through on an election day.
If this whole thing was explained properly to the public, I would accept the decision even though I don't agree with it.
As it stands, I believe it wasn't and I don't agree.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes

It doesn't matter if there was a 100% turnout, if people were mis-informed it wouldn't make the decision more correct than a 50% turnout of informed voters would it?

Are you suggesting that people en masse voted because they were mis informed...
Was there absolutely no one who voted no mis informed?

Show me you evidence of this,just so I can clear away the musty grape smell here...

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
Show me you evidence of this,just so I can clear away the musty grape smell here...

I've said before I've no vested interest in seeing the referendum get rejected, so would you cut out the sour grapes crap?
I think if you read through this and other threads here regarding the referendum you'll clearly see mis-informed opinions about what voting yes will result in.
Unfortunatly, as I cannot provide you with links to the inner workings of people's brains you'll have to make do with what has been shared here.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
My opinion nor the opinion of the electorate will change the fact that Supreme Court ruling last year prevents people using their Irish born children to gain citizenship.

Hmmmm. I don't accept that the ruling was THAT clear cut. The ruling was that having an Irish citizen - born in Ireland -as your child did not AUTOMATICALLY make you an Irish citizen. I don't interpret that as meaning, however, that such a parent COULD NOT get citizenship/residency based PARTLY on the fact that they have an Irish-born child.

The Chen judgement, at the very least, gave rich people who give birth to a child in Ireland the right to resident anywhere in the EU. At worst, it may have meant that anyone in that position, regardless of wealth, could do so.

Why do the socialists seek to defend the principle of the rich getting passports in preference to the poor? Thought they favoured class-equality? Hmmmmm...

Those countries with a jus-soli system are almost all countries built on immigration by colonists. Thus we are different from them.

MadsL

^^^^^^

Does he never stop? :rolleyes:

halkar

I don't understand all this racist, facist remarks because majority voted to change citizenship laws. Ireland was the only country in EU had such a law. Does that make all EU racist? facist? It was a loophole didn't exist in rest of Europe and needed to be closed. How many of EU countries went to referendum for something like this?

As long as we had a loophole like this left open there will always be someone to take advantage of it and unfortunately it was that minority that was given bad name to genuine immigrants and asylum seekers.

Tuars

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Those countries with a jus-soli system are almost all countries built on immigration by colonists. Thus we are different from them.

Equally, almost all the countries that have the provision that we are introducing are former colonists. The reason they have the provision in the first place is to keep the colonisation 'one-way' i.e. to stop the colonised trying to claim citizenship in the colonising country.

Staunch Gael that you are, do you think we have more in common with the colonisers or the colonised? Should we follow the mindset of our former masters or should we start to think for ourselves?

Originally posted by Frank Grimes

I think if you read through this and other threads here regarding the referendum you'll clearly see mis-informed opinions about what voting yes will result in.

And equally you will see mis informed opinions on what a no vote would have done from no voters...
So your point is moot.

Whats paramount though is the fact that generally people who make the effort to vote aren't stupid.
Suggesting that they are mis-informed is to attach a level of stupidity to them which is to deny the importance of their democratic right to express their opinion.

Those advocating a no vote were clearly unable to convince the vast majority of this high 60% turnout that a yes vote was wrong...
Trying to lable that as being a consequence of mis information and ergo stupidity on the part of those that voted yes, is disingenous in my view.

sceptre

Before posting I'd like to point out that you no longer need to keep misleading. You can now spend some time reading about that which you pretend to be familiar with.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Hmmmm. I don't accept that the ruling was THAT clear cut. The ruling was that having an Irish citizen - born in Ireland -as your child did not AUTOMATICALLY make you an Irish citizen.

Regardless of whether you don't "accept" it or whether you do:rolleyes:, the ruling was nothing of the sort. It had to do with residency rights and deportation rights. If you'd read the decision on the two cases you'd know that. I've posted links to the actual judgements so that people with a 12+ reading level could get there. Potential or possible Irish citizenship of the parent didn't come into the judgement as they were basing the decision on the rights of the child (do some reading that doesn't restrict you to the Sun eh?).

The Chen judgement, at the very least, gave rich people who give birth to a child in Ireland the right to resident anywhere in the EU.

Nope, not in Ireland. Seriously, read either the actual opinion of the Advocate-General or my summary of the same. Do yourself one favour today.

At worst, it may have meant that anyone in that position, regardless of wealth, could do so.

Nope, see above. Look carefully for a phrase equivalent to "where the children enjoy a right to reside in the host Member State" and pay some attention to the core of the case. Read, learn and be all you can be.

You've still got time to run with the core issue instead...

Cork

Originally posted by jd
Listening on Newstalk, there is some anecdotal evidence that some people were coming out just to vote on the referendum, and spoiling the other ballot papers.
(An examination of the % of spoiled votes is needed to verify this)
While I am in no way saying that it is/was racist to have voted YES, do people find this development worrying? What do you think the motivations of these people are.?

RTEs exit poll would back up this.

But, it should be rembered the magin of which the vote was carried - makes the motivations of a small group of voters which questionable motives irelevant.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Tuars
Equally, almost all the countries that have the provision that we are introducing are former colonists. The reason they have the provision in the first place is to keep the colonisation 'one-way' i.e. to stop the colonised trying to claim citizenship in the colonising country.

Staunch Gael that you are, do you think we have more in common with the colonisers or the colonised? Should we follow the mindset of our former masters or should we start to think for ourselves?

I don't want Irish people to go the way of the American-Indians.

seamus

Ugh. I can see this being a smoking ban one. People going on about for months, even though it's in and there's nothing that can be done. The difference being that the majority actually voted for it, so there can be no argument of it's rightness (I've talked about the issue of rightness before, for all intents and purposes, if it's been voted in by the people, then it can be accepted as being right for that country, disagree at will.).

In my personal opinion though, I do believe a lot of people voted the right way for the wrong reasons. I would firmly believe that a not insignificant portion of the Yes vote had xenophobic roots. Anyone who claimed/claims that a Yes vote is a rascist vote is a complete moron, but I would believe that many Oirish voted yes "cus of dem blackies cummin here takin our jobs and rapin our wimmen".

The issue of misinformation doesn't even come into it. Xenophobes will always vote in favour of more border controls regardless of the arguments put forward.

My 2c