The Citezenship Referendum: The Aftermath

omnicorp

Can I just take this chance to say That I am disgusted by the people who voted yes in the Referendum.
If this were an International law I wouldn't have been a citizen of any country until I was 4 as I was born in the US and then moved to Scotland and then Ireland.

Remember, Bad laws are elected by good citizens who don't vote.
I blame it on a low turnout.

Well now we can reap the damages...

JohnK

Don't blame me, I voted No. To be honest, I still can't understand why anybody voted yes. All that was needed was the proper application of existing laws to counter those taking advantage of the system.

arcadegame2004

This poll was very unrepresentative of the referendum result last time. It is a poll of internet-users, not registered voters.Let's just be clear on that first. It would again pass. I voted Yes and would still do so. To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country I say:if you dislike your country so much, then there are 146 others for you to go to.

No other EU state allowed citizenship solely deriving from being born here. So if we are to be charged with acting wrongly on this issue so should they.

To say that we broke International law on citizenship by voting yes is to accuse the entire EU of breaching international-law. Take that to the World Court and be laughed out of Court.

McDowell, hurry up and ratify the referendum result!

The_Conductor

Ok this is a far better venue for debating the relative merits of the citzenship referendum than the thread on migrant workers......
I voted yes in the referendum, and were I given the opportunity would do the exact same again tomorrow.
All the bashing of McDowell and scaremongering were wrong- the entire issue was made into an emotive issue, when in actual fact all it was doing was closing loopholes in our laws and obligations to our EU neighbours.
The reason the NI parties were more than a little non-plussed- was that it did effectively dilute the right of people born in NI along with those in the Rebublic, to automatically claim citizenship, solely by virtue of the fact of where they were born. British emmigration lawyers were cheerfully sending their pregnant clients to Belfast to give birth- allowing their offspring claim Irish and hence EU citizenship, and through this, effectively shortcircuiting the rights of the British to implement their own immigration policies.

I am not even going to address the perceived abuses that are alleged to have occurred both in the past and present here- I'm sure Arcadegame2004 has lots to say on this.......


Shane

Hobbes

omnicorp wrote:

If this were an International law I wouldn't have been a citizen of any country until I was 4 as I was born in the US and then moved to Scotland and then Ireland.

It is an international law. You would of been the nationality of your parents, failing that where you were born.

bobbyjoe

Still would vote No. Whole thing was a sham.

The joke is that its going to make no difference except take away an important part of our constitution and give the racists ammunition and divide our society.

when in actual fact all it was doing was closing loopholes in our laws and obligations to our EU neighbours.

In fact anyone born on the island of Ireland has been entitled to citizenship since the foundation of the state this wasn't some new loophole which suddenly appeared. Regarding obligations to our EU neighbours they've never had any problem with our citizenship laws.

You'd think it would be enacted asap considering the floods of pregnant asylum seekers landing at the airport. Also remember all the hysteria generated about maternity hospitals etc... All bull...........

arcadegame2004

I blame it on a low turnout.

What? 59.5%. A VERY high turnout for an Irish referendum, and just 3% points lower than the General Election turnout of 2002.

If anything the referendum put the turnout up.

AngelofFire

If anything the referendum put the turnout up.

exactly, the governments cunning plan to deflect public attention from cutbacks and increase in stealth taxes worked.They targeted innocent children for the purpose of political points scoring.

arcadegame2004

If you gave the children citizenship then in the real world, citizenship for the parent(s) would eventually follow, irrespective of what the law does or does not say. The Pandora's box had to be closed.

Nowhere in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does it mention the right of children of all women from the Third World to citizenship in the First World.

The_Conductor

AngelofFire wrote:

exactly, the governments cunning plan to deflect public attention from cutbacks and increase in stealth taxes worked.They targeted innocent children for the purpose of political points scoring.

Really?
The stated reason for holding both polls on the one day, was indeed to encourage turnout, but also to minimise expenditure.
And if it really was a cunning plan to deflect public attention- it didn't really work very well did it?
By the way I'd love to see what your definition of cutback is?
According to several commentators cutbacks were not actual, rather they were a deferal or a cancellation of expected expenditure. Actual expenditure in many cases of perceived cutbacks (the healthboards being a case in point) was in actual fact increased. The reason there are so many empty facilities scattered around the country- has more to do with the manner in which NDP funding was lavished around the place for capital expenditure, with total disregard as to what to do once the capital facilities being funded were in actual fact in place. Brilliant- Mullingar got a new hospital- but they never bothered to check whether they had any workers to staff it...... bit of an oversight there don't you think?
Then there is the likes of the NWHB who mysteriously managed to build a nice Euro 9million headquarters in Leitrim, somehow without ever even having to request the money from the DoHC. ????? What the hell is going on?

AngelofFire

By the way I'd love to see what your definition of cutback is?

in 2002 the government cut money from clinical physchology courses in TCD,that was the same year that the mid western healthboard were looking to recruit more clinical physchologists, not to mention the cut in spending on 3rd level education and failing to increase funding for special needs people, and the withdrawl of 30,000 medical cards despte the fact that the government had made promises to provide 200,000 medical cards and to increase funding for the handicapped which had increased every year from 1989 to 2001.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Nowhere in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does it mention the right of children of all women from the Third World to citizenship in the First World.

Your looking in the wrong place and that is a pretty racist and elitist comment.

So if an Irish guy marries a woman from the third world his children should be denied citizenship here?

Sparks

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I voted Yes and would still do so. To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country I say:if you dislike your country so much, then there are 146 others for you to go to.

192 actually. Or don't the other 46 count because they're full of ****, spicks, wogs, jews, and other durty foreigners, arcarde?

Tuars

smccarrick wrote:

I am not even going to address the perceived abuses that are alleged to have occurred both in the past and present here- I'm sure Arcadegame2004 has lots to say on this.......

perceived is the operative word in that sentence. arcadegame2004 has said a lot about this alright and it's been pointed out numerous times that the referendum does not address these perceived abuses.

Changing the citizenship law will not affect the asylum-seeking process since that does not involve citizenship in the first place.

The intention of the referendum was to stop so-called citizenship tourists i.e. people who wanted Irish citizenship as a means to EU residency but never intended to stay in Ireland long enough to abuse the system.

It was also a handy way for the government to claim they were tackling illegal immigration without actually having to do anything at all.

Can we close this thread now and put a link back to one of the pre-referendum threads on this subject. It would save us a lot of time and energy cutting-and-pasting our arguments. Nothing has changed.

Tuars

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country I say:if you dislike your country so much, then there are 146 others for you to go to.

Not if the likes of you have their way. As long as they have laws like those that you're cheerleading then they won't let us in. So I'm afraid your stuck with us. As I warned before the referendum there will be unintended side-effects.

Tough luck arcade but them's the breaks .

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

If you gave the children citizenship then in the real world, citizenship for the parent(s) would eventually follow, irrespective of what the law does or does not say. The Pandora's box had to be closed.

Nowhere in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does it mention the right of children of all women from the Third World to citizenship in the First World.

Since you brought it up...It does not say that...but it does say
Principle 6

The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

The current situation opens the possibility that the parents of a child born in this country are deported and that the child whilst having a perfect right to remain as a citizen of the Republic may be forcibly removed from the country, subjected to the distress of deportation and possible separation from its mother and is possibly placed back into harms way. This raises the question of whether it is in the child's interest that it remain in the republic.

DadaKopf

I wasn't in the country to vote but would have voted 'no'. I did everything I could to piece together what happened over there. When I came back, I asked around, asked people who had been here, who had voted about what went wrong.

Without fail, people dodged the question and chaged the subject.

*Shrugs*

dahamsta

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country

Umm, how would voting no be "running down the country" exactly? Or "unpatriotic" for that matter. I can't wait to hear the logic behind this garbage...

adam

MadsL

Oh and Arcade you still have not responded to the question I asked in the EU Migrant thread...
You said in this post

"With 6% of the population identifying themselves as "not Irish" on the Census form in 2002, it is clear that the ability of the immigrants to assimilate is open to question."

The census form asks this question...

What is your Nationality?
If you have more than one nationality, please declare all of them.
Irish ____
Other Nationality _______
No Nationality __________

Can you please explain to me how the fact that I truthfully wrote my Nationality in a box when legally obligated to do so by the Government makes it clear that my "ability ... to assimilate is open to question"

Now you have me worried...will the culture police come knocking down my door..."Resistance is futile...you will be assimilated!"

C'mon Arcade - wft????

Lennoxschips

The UN stated in their Human Development Report that the best way for immigrants to succeed and integrage into a new society is for them to maintain their own unique identity and not to try too musch to assimilate. A multinational society, they concluded, was the best way forward for everyone involved.

Redleslie2

Voted no and would do again. The impression I got from talking to people who voted yes was that they were convinced there were hordes of africans on the way to the country to drop their sprogs. Where did they get that idea I wonder.

The amendment should have been worded as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a Darkie born on the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.

Sparks

One of the things that bothered me about this was that many of those who said they were voting yes, turned out when I talked to them to in fact think they were voting on whether or not to accept the government's proposed amendment - very, very, very few knew that in fact they were voting on letting the government make up whatever law they wanted to. That's just plain disturbing - a nation voting on something and the majority don't know what they're voting for?

arcadegame2004

Umm, how would voting no be "running down the country" exactly? Or "unpatriotic" for that matter. I can't wait to hear the logic behind this garbage...

I am not saying that voting "No" makes the person unpatriotic. I said that those who love running down the country all the time are unpatriotic (if they are Irish).

MadsL, your quoting of the UN Declaration actually strengthens my arguments. The parents and child ideally should not be separated. By removing the ability of a non-national woman to use her child as a legal weapon aimed at staying in Ireland, we deter such women from coming here, hence the precursor to potential separation after giving birth in Ireland is prevented. Thereby supporting the ideals of keeping the family together.

I would want to come to Ireland too if I lived in the Third World. But then, I would like not to have to pay tax aswell, nor to have to pay when I go into a shop. We would all like things to be like that. But in the real world, the well-being of the nation requires that certain rules pertain. Without rules, you will have anarchy.

MadsL

Why are you ignoring my question about the census??????

arcadegame2004

MadsL, comparing most of the immigrants coming to Ireland nowadays with immigrant from the UK where you came from is not comparing like with like, because being a fellow rich country, the UK is not going to be a cause of mass-migration to Ireland, and conseqently nor will it put a serious burden on the Health-Service. And there would hardly be a risk of cheap labour from the UK! :rolleyes:

But many of the African and Middle Eastern Muslim migrants in particular come from cultures where the local mullah extoles the 'virtues' of suicide bombings every Friday at the mosque. Experience in the UK has been that unfortunately, the Muslim community there includes a lot of these kind of wackos. We do NOT need this in Ireland. We have had enough experience of terrorism as it is. That is not to scapegoat the entire Muslim populace who immigrate here or to the West. But it is untrue to deny that a substantial minority of Middle Eastern Muslims espouse these crazy ideologies. Look at the opinion-polls in some of these countries.

MadsL

But in the real world, the well-being of the nation requires that certain rules pertain.

In the real world the well-being of a nation generally require immigration to counter the effects of emigration.

It behoves a nation to treat it's immigrants according to the law (due process - not losing faxes and the like) and with consideration...there is no reason that immigrants children should not have citizenship once they are legally resident.

By removing the ability of a non-national woman to use her child as a legal weapon aimed at staying in Ireland, we deter such women from coming here, hence the precursor to potential separation after giving birth in Ireland is prevented. Thereby supporting the ideals of keeping the family together.

More pejorotive language - legal weapon!

The govt has only recently allowed spouses of Filipino Nurses to stay in the country ffs! You will be hard pushed to find examples of this country's "ideals of keeping the family together".

There is nothing that the Citizenship Referendum achieved that a well-managed and humane immigration policy couldn't have done 100 times better...as has been shown recently the GNIB are generally unfair and incompetant, this should have been addressed before all the alarmist nonsense pre-referendum.

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

MadsL, comparing most of the immigrants coming to Ireland nowadays with immigrant from the UK where you came from is not comparing like with like, because being a fellow rich country, the UK is not going to be a cause of mass-migration to Ireland, and conseqently nor will it put a serious burden on the Health-Service. And there would hardly be a risk of cheap labour from the UK! :rolleyes: .

My point was that by answering a question about my nationality on the census which I am required to do (€25,000 fine) you seem to jump to the conclusion that anyone who ticks non-Irish doesn't want to assimilate.
I want you to either justify or withdraw that racist remark!

Actually there are more immigrants in Ireland from USA and Germany than there are Africans. Germans and Americans get free health care too.(Census 2002)

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But many of the African and Middle Eastern Muslim migrants in particular come from cultures where the local mullah extoles the 'virtues' of suicide bombings every Friday at the mosque. Experience in the UK has been that unfortunately, the Muslim community there includes a lot of these kind of wackos. We do NOT need this in Ireland. We have had enough experience of terrorism as it is. That is not to scapegoat the entire Muslim populace who immigrate here or to the West. But it is untrue to deny that a substantial minority of Middle Eastern Muslims espouse these crazy ideologies. Look at the opinion-polls in some of these countries.

There are wackos in every culture. But it is deeply wrong to assume that they are wacko as a result of their religion...have the experiences of Ireland not taught you that yet??

I notice that in another thread you were asking for Muslim kids to be integrated into Irish schools, well I guess we had better get those wacky priests outta there first!

Perhaps you should read up on Africa and Islam before spouting more scaremongering...The Economist doesn't seem to agree with you...
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1880209

MadsL

Oh, and Arcade (Mr Authority on the middle east) - can you name me one muslim country you have ever visited???

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

arcadegame2004

The govt has only recently allowed spouses of Filipino Nurses to stay in the country ffs! You will be hard pushed to find examples of this country's "ideals of keeping the family together".

Filipino nurses are legally in this country and were invited by the Government. They therefore do not constitute people who arrived illegally and pregnant to have citizenship-babies for cynical purposes. Please do not mirepresent my position. I have repeatedly made the point that I accept the need for limited migration to fill job vacancies where they arise, while doggedly resisting excessive uncontrolled migration of the kind that would cause a race to the bottom in wages in parts of industry not experiencing labour-shortages (especially after the rise in unemployment to 5.1%).

My point was that by answering a question about my nationality on the census which I am required to do (€25,000 fine) you seem to jump to the conclusion that anyone who ticks non-Irish doesn't want to assimilate.

My "assimilation" point in an earlier thread was not aimed at ALL migrants. It largely relates to the Muslim ones. Please do not tell me that the extremist clerics I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Muslim world. A minority maybe. But a large one.

The_Conductor

AngelofFire wrote:

in 2002 the government cut money from clinical physchology courses in TCD,that was the same year that the mid western healthboard were looking to recruit more clinical physchologists, not to mention the cut in spending on 3rd level education and failing to increase funding for special needs people, and the withdrawl of 30,000 medical cards despte the fact that the government had made promises to provide 200,000 medical cards and to increase funding for the handicapped which had increased every year from 1989 to 2001.

As you are no doubt well aware, TCD has the highest capitation per student of any university in Ireland. FYI - the intake in Clinical psychology in Maynooth was up 1% in 2002. SFI funding (which are exchequer funds) rose for the Hamilton institute in 2002.
If my memory serves me correctly- the clinical psychology course in trinity was to have had 12 students on it- but was cancelled at short notice, because Trinity neglected to secure funding for the course at short notice and decided to keep on staff on research measures instead (including newly appointed staff members in Developmental Psychology and a specialist in Neuropsychology (I distinctly remember an interview with Dr. Henry at the time....)
Also- while you are mentioning the 12 places that were cut in Trinity- in 2002 35 places were offered by direct access in UCD on their clinical psychology programme for the first time (along with a further 35 places being ring fenced for NUI college students).

I believe this addresses your definition sufficiently......

S.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am not saying that voting "No" makes the person unpatriotic. I said that those who love running down the country all the time are unpatriotic (if they are Irish).

So you are saying that people who question or complain are unpatriotic? What if the vote had gone the other way? That would of made you unpatriotic. No?

Also quit with the racist crap.

The_Conductor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Filipino nurses are legally in this country and were invited by the Government. They therefore do not constitute people who arrived illegally and pregnant to have citizenship-babies for cynical purposes. Please do not mirepresent my position. I have repeatedly made the point that I accept the need for limited migration to fill job vacancies where they arise, while doggedly resisting excessive uncontrolled migration of the kind that would cause a race to the bottom in wages in parts of industry not experiencing labour-shortages (especially after the rise in unemployment to 5.1%).
My "assimilation" point in an earlier thread was not aimed at ALL migrants. It largely relates to the Muslim ones. Please do not tell me that the extremist clerics I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Muslim world. A minority maybe. But a large one.

First of all- Filipino nurses are deserting Ireland in droves, because their partners and families are having difficulty in visiting or residing here- last time I checked we had zero problems with any Filipino people here- they are some of the most hard working and decent people on the face of the planet- so please stop with the cynical attempt to somehow associated them with the so-called "social migrants".

BTW- So what if unemployment is 5.1%? Unemployment is a measure of "people actively seeking work". How many of the 5.1% are not- quite a few I assure you. You also seem to have conveniently glossed over the statistics from the CSO that I posted for you on the Migrant workers thread- which explained the rise to 5.1%, namely those in education going on the dole over the summer months and showing in the statistics in the month of July. Its an annual cycle- it happens every year- and if you would like proof of our actual employment trends- our unemployment figures for July 2004 are a little over 8,000 lower than they are for July 2003- surely a more comparable measure than pulling a figure out of the sky and trying to base it as justification on which to limit migration of those who I hasten to add, are willing to enter the workforce.......

Re: extremist clerics- being a large minority in the Muslim world? Really? I'd never have guessed. Every cleric has his or her followers (along with his or her detractors). There are different branches of the faith- much as there is with Christianity- think of the Coptics, Protestants, Catholics etc...... (think of the Sunni, the Shia etc)
If you know anything of the history between a) christians and muslims (over the last 800 years- think Portugal), b) the British and Palestinians (think of their "procterate"), c) the americans and their bizzare foreign politics...... is it any wonder that a few people feel disenfranchised and in more extreme cases militant? I am not in any manner trying to excuse behaviour of anyone- but I am simply pointing out that your "Mulim clerics are in a large minority" is waffle. By the same brush- Firebrand lutheran preachers proclaiming death to Catholics and the Pope are in a large minority too...... it simply is not the case......

Also your definition of "assimilation" seems to be a wandering roving definition- that changes to suit your mood. Why does, or does not, it include all migrants (or indeed all the indigenous population)? Why is it only the Muslims who have to assimilate? Surely if 400,000 Spanish and Italians, who are largely catholic, not muslim- came over here you would trying to encourage them to assimilate? Once again, its posturing to suit a single statement- not thought out, and quite infuriatingly designed to draw attention and play on people's emotions about Muslims. I hasten to add that I know several Muslims here- they are singularly the most peaceful, law-abiding, nicest group of people that I know of. Their biggest worry, and its a massive one- is meeting someone like you, or influenced by someone like you, in the street. They have to chaperone their children to and from classes on Angier Street- for fear that they may be attacked....... Nnnnnngggggg!!!!!!

Grow up.

The_Conductor

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ok- there are 191 countries represented at the United Nations. There are a number of independent countries who choose not to be represented at the UN (eg. the Vatican).

There are further a number of countries not recognised as independent, regardless of the facts on the ground (eg. Taiwan).

There are also dozens of territories and colonies that are sometimes erroneously called "countries" but don't count at all - they're governed by other countries- who are seperately represented at the olympics etc- think Western Sahara, Puerto Rico, Greenland etc.

A "Country" has -
space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
Has economic activity and an organized economy.
A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
Has a government which provides public services and police power.
Has sovereignty.
No other State should have power over the country's territory.
Has external recognition.
A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.
There are currently 193 independent countries or States around the world. Territories of countries or individual parts of a country are not countries in their own right.
Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries

A "state" (with a lower-case "s") is usually a division of a federal State such as the states of the United States of America.

Nations and Nation-States

Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience.

When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand are excellent examples of nation-states. There are some States which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Even with its multicultural society, the United States is also referred to as a nation-state because of the shared American "culture."

There are nations without States.
For example, the Kurds are stateless people.


S.

The_Conductor

Tuars wrote:

perceived is the operative word in that sentence. arcadegame2004 has said a lot about this alright and it's been pointed out numerous times that the referendum does not address these perceived abuses.
.

Yes
I was quite deliberate in using the word "perceived".

S.

Imposter

MadsL wrote:

Since you brought it up...It does not say that...but it does say
Principle 6

The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

The current situation opens the possibility that the parents of a child born in this country are deported and that the child whilst having a perfect right to remain as a citizen of the Republic may be forcibly removed from the country, subjected to the distress of deportation and possible separation from its mother and is possibly placed back into harms way. This raises the question of whether it is in the child's interest that it remain in the republic.

When you say the current situation do you mean the old constitution and legislation or the one that is yet to be implemented? If you mean the new constitution and legislation then that is wrong as the child is not a citizen (depending on the legislation).

Why is it the states responsibility of whether it is in the childs best interest that they remain or not? Say the child had 2 american parents and the government decided that perhaps Ireland is a better place than America to grow up. Should the child then get citizenship in your view? Imo the parents should be ultimately responsible for the child not the state and if the parents are to be deported then the child should be too. If the child has citizenship of Ireland then it complicates matters and aids the parents with appealing their deportation (largely appealing to the emotions of a judge). The child in most cases also has no real links to Ireland other than being born there.

In the case of children who have no nationality surely the legislation should allow for this. France has quite a good solution to this issue.

dahamsta

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am not saying that voting "No" makes the person unpatriotic.

That's exactly what you were trying to say, but you're incapable of supporting it. Which makes you a liar and a weasel.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

"I voted Yes and would still do so. To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country I say:if you dislike your country so much, then there are 146 others for you to go to."

arcadegame2004

No dahamasta. I respect the views of those who voted no but gracefully accept the result of the referendum as the democratic expression of the wishes of the people. My remark on the "unpatriotic" tendencies was reserved for those who, instead of accepting the result, expres their vitriol for their fellow Irishman/woman.

gandalf

Kept clear of this but I have to wade in. Personally I felt that the Yes vote was a violation and corruption of our Constitution. With that view I do not think I am unpatriotic.

Arcade I get the impression from you if the vote had gone the other way you would be one of those that "express their vitriol for their fellow Irishman/woman".

This thread is covering ground that at this stage has been well trodden in here already. I will review it tomorrow and decide if its worthwhile leaving it open, at the moment I am edging towards a Cesar like "thumbs down".

ionapaul

DadaKopf wrote:

I wasn't in the country to vote but would have voted 'no'. I did everything I could to piece together what happened over there. When I came back, I asked around, asked people who had been here, who had voted about what went wrong.

Without fail, people dodged the question and chaged the subject.

*Shrugs*

I can explain what happened, with some degree of confidence. I have said it before. A number of my friends voted Yes - the usual blather about 'discouraging citizen-tourists...overrun maternity wards...etc...' was spouted when they were asked why they planned to vote us. Many reasons were given.

However, the main reason the Yes side won so convincingly in Ireland was people voted Yes to 'get the Nigs out'. Plain and simple. Not all who voted yes voted because of racist leanings, but I am utterly and completely convinced that many of those who did vote Yes did so because they don't want any more blacks/asians/non-whites in Ireland.

People can quote all the exit-poll numbers and reasons they want...no-one would admit to a stranger their real racist feelings on this matter, so those numbers and reasons are invalid in many respects. I am sorry if this is shocking to people, or if it is unpatriotic (like I care) to run down the country, but a majority of people in Ireland are racists who want to get 'the blacks' out (what with the free cars / houses / shiny gold pennies they get FOR NOTHING!!! from the Irish).

In mitigation, most humans (regardless of ethnicity or culture) are racists, so this result should surprise no-one.

Lennoxschips

I suppose Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were unpatriotic too.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No dahamasta. I respect the views of those who voted no but gracefully accept the result of the referendum as the democratic expression of the wishes of the people. My remark on the "unpatriotic" tendencies was reserved for those who, instead of accepting the result, expres their vitriol for their fellow Irishman/woman.

He said this a while ago:
"The tactics of the Left in the Citizenship-referendum are being used again, i.e. tarring all who favour restrictions on immigration as the most profoundly evil scum of the earth."

While his tactics are to accuse anyone who voted no as being unpatriotic hatemongers.

He's always criticising the state's immigration policy. Surely that's unpatriotic and expressing vitriol for fellow countrymen eh?

Tuars

ionapaul wrote:

However, the main reason the Yes side won so convincingly in Ireland was people voted Yes to 'get the Nigs out'. Plain and simple. Not all who voted yes voted because of racist leanings, but I am utterly and completely convinced that many of those who did vote Yes did so because they don't want any more blacks/asians/non-whites in Ireland.

I think this is a bit strong. I don't think the motivation is pure racism, I think it's closer to arcadegame2004's motivation i.e. "we don't want foreigners taking our jobs, women, houses etc." . I don't think it's a colour-of-skin issue, it's a colour-of-money one.

Of course, I disagree with both these propostions as a valid reason to vote yes.

omnicorp

The Government, The EU and the "yes" voters are, in my opinion, racist;
If it was a problem with say, french or Australian imigrants we would never have heard of this referendum.

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Filipino nurses are legally in this country and were invited by the Government. They therefore do not constitute people who arrived illegally and pregnant to have citizenship-babies for cynical purposes.

Except under this legislation their children will not now have any automatic right of citizenship despite the very positive contribution their mothers make to the country. It has taken enormous amounts of pressure just to get these workers permanant contracts and permits (instead of short-term rolling contracts and temporary permissions) and to obtain permits for their spouces to remain and work....and they are invited by the Government. Nice welcome to our 'guests'.

What's a citizenship-baby? Does it get born attached to a lawyer??

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I have repeatedly made the point that I accept the need for limited migration to fill job vacancies where they arise.

No, you have repeatedly pointed our that employers should employ (illegally) Irish first, EU second, johnny foriegner last..Ireland for the Irish I think was the phrase you used.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

My "assimilation" point in an earlier thread was not aimed at ALL migrants. It largely relates to the Muslim ones. Please do not tell me that the extremist clerics I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Muslim world. A minority maybe. But a large one.

So perhaps what you meant to say was that ""With 0.5% of the population identifying themselves as "Muslim" on the Census form in 2002, it is clear that the ability of the immigrants to assimilate is open to question." *

In other words this was you attacking a tiny minority (0.5%) in this country for their ability to 'assimilate'...I could attack Irish priests in the same manner;

<sarcasm>Please do not tell me that the child molesting priests I see on the news are a tiny minority in the Catholic world. A minority maybe. But a large one....and whats up with that weird celibacy thing?</sarcasm>
Or homosexuals;
<sarcasm>Please do not tell me that these cross-dressing drag queens I see on the news are a tiny minority in the gay world. A minority maybe. But a large one....</sarcasm>

So do you think it is ok to question someones ability to integrate into society on the basis of a question they answered on the census. That's fúcked up arcade. I insist that you withdraw and apologise for your racist remark.







* link to the data
http://www.cso.ie/census/pdfs/pdr_2002.pdf

omnicorp

Madsl is right

Stabshauptmann

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To those unpatriotic types who love running down the country I say:if you dislike your country so much, then there are 146 others for you to go to.

To say that we broke International law on citizenship by voting yes is to accuse the entire EU of breaching international-law. Take that to the World Court and be laughed out of Court.

The "love it or leave it" arguement is one of the most flawed and ignorant pieces of rehtoric to be used in the US, glad to see it finally made its way here with the rest of their culture. A true patriot would want to do what he can to improce his country, if his country made a mistake he would oppose it for the good of said country. The only way to maintain a healthy democracy is through opposition and constant questioning.

One of the many reasons I wouldnt have supported the referendum was the PD campaign appealing to Patriots to protect the purity of our land [sic].

Nobody said we broke international law, what was said was thank god its not the international law.

omnicorp

You know, Necromancer makes a lot of sense.
He wasn't banned was he?
If so, why?
I don't think he should have been.
He seems to agree with me.
Not a lot of people do.

gandalf

He was banned for personal insults on one of the threads I had to move :rolleyes:

omnicorp

Well I have to congratulate the government on their clever ploy of putting the referendum on the same day as the local elections.

arcadegame2004

a majority of people in Ireland are racists

If that's not running down the country then I don't know what is.


Gandalf in response to what you said about how I might be running down the country if my side had lost the referendum, my reply is that my reaction would have been "I am extremely disappointed, by as a democrat I accept the people's decision". I would not have gone around proclaming "I am ashamed to be Irish etc." from the rooftops. Now many "No" voters similarly have gracefully accepted the referendum-result. My criticism of what I see as unpatriotic remarks is aimed at those of them that make these kind of proclamations.

I suppose Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were unpatriotic too.

No. I have never and would never argue what some in the US media seem to have espoused since Sept.11th i.e. the idea that criticism of the Government of a country by its citizens is unpatriotic. Far from it. These people were true patriots who fought for the rights of their citizens. Nothing to do with immigration so I am uncertain why they are being dragged into this debate.

Tarring 80% of the Irish nation with the racist brush seems very unpatriotic to me though. We are not racists. We just do not see why immigrants living in Western countries far better able to cater for their needs than us (as they have more taxpayers) have to travel to Ireland to escape from supposed dangers.

Well I have to congratulate the government on their clever ploy of putting the referendum on the same day as the local elections.

I cannot understand that argument. I might have before the referendum. But the fact that the Government parties lost votes while the Opposition opposing the referendum gained makes that argument seem lacking in veracity to me.

Oh and MadSL, you comparison with wackos in the Catholic Church and the extent of support for them in the West (including Ireland) with the support for extremist clerics in the Muslim world is not comparing like with like, especially when you consider the vast crowds that turn out in the Middle East in support of such extremists. Don't deny what you see on the television screen just to fit in with political-correctness.