Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/labour/status/1325858794920939520

I'm not quite old enough to remember fully but I do recall reading about so-called "boat babies" in the late 90's being a serious issue for the asylum system in this country. Not only people arriving pregnant but apparently some literally giving birth on ferries in Irish waters.


Also just looking at the replies and seen this...




The law was changed by referendum in 2004 (in fact looks like the big decline arrivals started actually in 2003).

I think Irish people might have questions about going back to such a regime.

Anyhow Labour want to do just that.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, I don't know but i'd have concerns because I think we are lax enough to be perfectly honest.

markodaly

The referendum passed by almost 80% margin, I would imagine today, it would be similar.

This is not a vote getter for Labour, it just simply isn't. It may play well with some progressives in Dublin but for the working class.... nope!!
Then again, Labour don't represent the working class and haven't for ages.

Simi

I didn't agree with the referendum in 2004. I wasn't old enough to vote against it at the time. Populist politics at it's worst. I remember the result being celebrated by the KKK.

I don't think they will garner enough support for repeal, but the mood may change in the future.

biko

Countries with jus soli

markodaly

biko wrote: »

Countries with jus soli

Interesting.

Since we are forever comparing ourselves to the Utopia that is Scandanavia, perhaps we should stay the course on this one?

Larbre34

Thats what their priority is? Jaysis, read the room lads.

Apart from the 80% majority at the time, floating it for reconsideration ahead of the mammoth task of refloating the economy, wherein immigration is an issue at the best of times, is simply naive and tone deaf.

MrMusician18

If labour want to make themselves more unelectable then this policy is perfect for them.

There are other issues though. Ireland had to get the British - Irish agreement amended to make this change (rather uncontroversial as the Brits wanted to see this back door to the UK closed too). I doubt they'd have any time to see it reopened. In the context of Brexit and borders, it's a total non runner.

But as I said, if labour want to engage in a bit of electoral hari kari, who am I to stop them?

Yurt2

Anyone who wants to make us the only state in the EU with jus soli citizenship is seriously soft in the head.

Edit: And as aside, the case where this latest round of activism around citizenship laws is based off was one where the mother commited passport fraud*, hence the deportation order (the father is curiously off the radar in this hard-case). She earned her marching orders.

*The Chinese kid in Bray.

jimmycrackcorm

Simi wrote: »

I didn't agree with the referendum in 2004. I wasn't old enough to vote against it at the time. Populist politics at it's worst. I remember the result being celebrated by the KKK.

I don't think they will garner enough support for repeal, but the mood may change in the future.

I don't know how it can be viewed as populist. No other country in the EU offers birthright citizenship. Babies born here acquire the citizenship of one or both their parents so it's not exactly as if they are being born stateless.

There aren't many cases to be found where it could be argued that birthright citizenship should be allowed given how extensive it is possible to gain citizenship; as the info on Wikipedia points out:

"the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland or in Northern Ireland; or a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[49] The amendment was prompted by the case of Man Chen, a Chinese woman living in mainland United Kingdom who travelled to Belfast (Northern Ireland, part of the UK) to give birth in order to benefit from the previous rule whereby anyone born on any part of the island of Ireland was automatically granted Irish citizenship. The Chinese parents used their daughter's Irish (and thereby European Union) citizenship to obtain permanent residence in the UK as parents of a dependent EU citizen. Ireland was the last country in Europe to abolish unrestricted jus soli."


This seems like a ploy by Labour to try to make themselves feel progressive and relevant. I'm sure SF will jump on the bandwagon also. But it will be difficult to overturn as the obvious question will be - why should we be different than the rest of Europe. What is Labour looking for? To get Ryanair to sell a birth package along with hotel rooms and car hire on their website?

Wibbs

Simi wrote: »

I didn't agree with the referendum in 2004. I wasn't old enough to vote against it at the time. Populist politics at it's worst. I remember the result being celebrated by the KKK.

Populist? Is it only populist if the result doesn't agree with your viewpoint? It was passed by the largest majority of Irish people in any recent referendum. Even in leafy south Dublin which is traditionally more progressive it was the resounding choice to remove it. Never mind that Ireland was alone in having this law and loophole and it was a loophole very much exploited. A large percentage of those who got Irish citizenship this way came from nations that today would have a near 100% rejection rate by the immigration authorities. Did they magically have better reasons back then? Oh and just in case the "race" bit gets people looking for pearls to clutch that list also includes White Europeans in origin.

Plus that vote was held at the height of the celtic tiger where confidence was very high, employment was full and people had cash to flash, which tends to make voters more easy going and sure isn't the bit of exotic nice after all and we were in the very early stages of multiculturalism, yet 80% still voted to remove that loophole.

I don't think they will garner enough support for repeal, but the mood may change in the future.

If anything it will harden as evidenced by every other European nation that is dealing with the failed politic of multiculturalism. Though I suspect it will be pushed by the usual vested governmental and NGO interests, but I further suspect they won't risk putting it to a vote of the Irish people because they know it'll be rejected. There was bugger all support for it then, there will be even less now. Would you hope for the "mood to change" with repealing the 8th, divorce? They passed with much lower majorities.

Pkiernan

How can Labour be considered a party with 6 seats?

They could all be in one house and still not violate Covid 19 rules!


How was your party at the weekend...ah yeah it was great, 5 of the lads came over to my gaff.

Mad_maxx

markodaly wrote: »

The referendum passed by almost 80% margin, I would imagine today, it would be similar.

This is not a vote getter for Labour, it just simply isn't. It may play well with some progressives in Dublin but for the working class.... nope!!
Then again, Labour don't represent the working class and haven't for ages.

It's about three things

Keeping an eye on the social democrats who often out WOKE them and an attempt to steal Green party votes

Ensuring that RTE - Irish Times know they are solid on the progressive agenda

Virtue signalling

antimatterx

Yeah, I would not vote for this. It should be based off where your parent are from, not where you are born.

antimatterx

antimatterx wrote: »

Yeah, I would not vote for this. It should be based off where your parent are from, not where you are born.

Follow that logic.

I'm born in Ireland to an English mother, so I am English but....

My mother was born in England to a Jamaican mother so is Jamaican

Were only at my grandmother and I'm already an Irish Jamaican!

CrabRevolution

Unfortunately the amendment includes the phrasing "unless provided for by law.". Not that the rule of law is bad, but it means that it won't take another referendum to change the law back to birthright citizenship.

Given that in recent years we have crept more and more in the direction of "government by NGO", it wouldn't surprise me if legislation to restore birthright citizenship is passed, backed solely by a report from the migrant council. The public won't get a say in the matter.

Smee_Again

Just fix the asylum process so that people don't end up living hear for a decade while their claim is rejected or approved.

Do that and this problem goes away.

screamer

Won’t happen, we’d be slapped down by Europe for opening the back door, and when we see the issues there are with the new Europeans being shipped in by the boatload, do we really want to bring this down on our heads?????

Gatling

So they want to bring back the Lagos express , with buses and ambulances taking women in labor straight off a plane to the coombe hospital .

timmyntc

Just when you think they can't get any more unelectable - the Labour party delivers

Outkast_IRE

Labour take another step towards eroding their voter base.

What group do they think they are appealing to with this ? Votes will simply not materialise on any election day with these types of policies.

Donald Trump

Lads, think of all the lost opportunities we missed out on by removing the right to citizenship (which was only added to the constitution in the late 90's)

Imagine if we had never put it in? We would never have had the good fortune to be able to house, feed and "educate" such luminaries as the great Dr. E J herself who would be able to tell us that we needed to feel guilty that there are statues outside a hotel

How many other EJ's did we miss out on by bringing in this terrible rule? We could have had thousands and thousands more had we remained the outlier in Europe and just spread the word

Nabber

Such hypocrisy with this. Populist in Ireland wag their finger at other countries for not accepting migrants. Particularly when it comes to USA Mexico border. We don't have such issues, but what we do is make sure that any child born here doesn't have automatic citizenship and can be deported back to a country that is not their birth place.

The rule almost always impacts African, Asian, S.America and Middle East.
We as a nation voted this in by 80%, then we should shut our mouth when other countries maintain/protect their citizenship and borders.

Mad_maxx

Simi wrote: »

I didn't agree with the referendum in 2004. I wasn't old enough to vote against it at the time. Populist politics at it's worst. I remember the result being celebrated by the KKK.

I don't think they will garner enough support for repeal, but the mood may change in the future.

you seriously think the KKK would be aware of a referendum result in this country :rolleyes:

Mad_maxx

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Unfortunately the amendment includes the phrasing "unless provided for by law.". Not that the rule of law is bad, but it means that it won't take another referendum to change the law back to birthright citizenship.

Given that in recent years we have crept more and more in the direction of "government by NGO", it wouldn't surprise me if legislation to restore birthright citizenship is passed, backed solely by a report from the migrant council. The public won't get a say in the matter.

what might happen is a " citizens assembly " is organised to study it and whatever they conclude is spun as being reflective of the general population :rolleyes:

Donald Trump

Nabber wrote: »

Such hypocrisy with this. Populist in Ireland wag their finger at other countries for not accepting migrants. Particularly when it comes to USA Mexico border. We don't have such issues, but what we do is make sure that any child born here doesn't have automatic citizenship and can be deported back to a country that is not their birth place.

The rule almost always impacts African, Asian, S.America and Middle East.
We as a nation voted this in by 80%, then we should shut our mouth when other countries maintain/protect their citizenship and borders.

It was only added to the constitution in the late 90's and was an entirely unintended consequence of the Good Friday agreement. The purpose of the referendum was only to remove it as a constitutional right. That allows it to be controlled by legislation. Children of people who are in the country legally generally obtain citizenship.

It is not about "accepting migrants" as you say, because if the migrant is "accepted" then their child will get citizenship! It is a completely different point.


Other countries which have Jus soli generally do not have the associated benefits extending to the family the same as in Ireland/Europe. If you moved to the US for a year or two to work and had a child then that child is a US citizen. If your work and visa finishes then you have to leave the country. The child is always a citizen. It generally confers no real rights to you - despite the usage of the "anchor baby" term. When the child is 18 it could go back to the US and petition for you to join it. But there is no such thing as landing off a boat to the US, straight to hospital, have a baby and leave the hospital and be put into accommodation and welfare supports. There are wealthy Chinese women who do take advantage of the US system but it is just so their baby has the citizenship. They fly in, go to an expensive hospital, then return to China afterwards. What we had were wealthy (relative to their peers), generally African, woman who saw a loophole and were able to exploit it and then get on the pigs back for a relatively handy life in Europe.



You also need to remember that Irish citizenship is European citizenship. We cannot be the only outlier and leaving a back door open. It was crazy at the time. Maternity hospitals were literally being packed with woman who had only entered the country to give birth. Plenty were coming off the boat from the UK etc. just as they were about to pop!

statesaver

The Uk government and the EU won't want this.

Wibbs

Nabber wrote: »

Such hypocrisy with this. Populist in Ireland wag their finger at other countries for not accepting migrants. Particularly when it comes to USA Mexico border. We don't have such issues, but what we do is make sure that any child born here doesn't have automatic citizenship and can be deported back to a country that is not their birth place.

The rule almost always impacts African, Asian, S.America and Middle East.
We as a nation voted this in by 80%, then we should shut our mouth when other countries maintain/protect their citizenship and borders.

Actually quite the few Ukrainian and Russian and Georgian gained citizenship this way. And I would agree, other countries should indeed protect their borders and citizenship.

One singular difference between the US and Mexico that you seem to miss is the USA was a European colony based on and requiring inward migration to even exist and function. Bring your "huddled masses" and all that. Now that they have enough people for the most part they're dialling right back on their need for huddled masses and their ethnic schisms aren't exactly going too well, or going away.

Ireland has a very different culture and background and history. We were a colony of sorts for a time and that didn't go down to well for the locals and often the colonists. However we're not a new world colony in need of immigration and never were.

Never mind that this much vaunted multiculturalist politic(much of it coming from the US where they've been forced to deal with it) is increasingly looking like a busted flush in the European nations where it took hold. Not least for many in the non native population generations in. But yeah, this time, Ireland of all places will get it right... Oh wait... in just two decades we're already seeing the negatives of multiculturalism beginning.

Wibbs

Mad_maxx wrote: »

what might happen is a " citizens assembly " is organised to study it and whatever they conclude is spun as being reflective of the general population :rolleyes:

You can be sure that whatever happens no way in hell will the risk be taken of putting it to a democratic vote. The answer would almost certainly not be the "acceptable" one, even if it were the will of the Irish people.

Richard Hillman

I can just imagine the Labour think tanks sitting in and asking why they don't appeal to working class men anymore.

I know, we can ignore the referendum on anchor babies and reintroduce citizenship through birth. That will get tradespeople, factory workers, delivery drivers back on out side. Motion passed.

They are a parody of the UK Labour Party who absolutely dumped on their voter base and got murdered by it.

Unfortunately if this did go to referendum again, they will have the full arm of the media, NGO Industry and Big tech fighting for the cause. No political party would oppose it. I still don't think they'd win but it would be worrying.

TomTomTim

Mad_maxx wrote: »

you seriously think the KKK would be aware of a referendum result in this country :rolleyes:

I wish these types would all move to America. They seriously can't help themselves, they constantly have to try and transpose Americanisms on the Irish.

Eric Cartman

talk about a way to lose votes. Birthright citizenship is a nightmare for any country with a welfare state. Encourages anchor children. Keep it illegal.

seamus

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland. There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

But a change back seems like it would be equally unnecessary. I'd love to know what the specific issues are that are trying to be fixed?

I know there's a specific blind spot in regards to citizenship for people who've been here a long time in direct provision or otherwise without an official visa. Children especially. But that seems to me to be easily solved with legislation rather than a modification to the consitution.

antimatterx wrote: »

Yeah, I would not vote for this. It should be based off where your parent are from, not where you are born.

Personally I think that's too simplistic. Citizenship or "belonging" to a country is more than where your parents are from or on what soil you were born.

I'm happy with an open enough regime that allows people to gain citizenship without reguiring archaic tests of lineage or knowlede, but that doesn't just throw it out like confetti.

For example, an automatic right for anyone to apply for citizenship if they have been in residence for ten years or more, regardless of whether that residence is legal or not. This would include a general analysis of the individual's circumstances; convictions would disqualify them, but further education and/or a solid record of employment/self-employment (legal or otherwise) would help them.

For children, granting automatic citizenship to any child over 3 that has been in continuous residence for 2 years before the age of six, 5 years before they turn ten, or 8 years before they turn 18. Any child who has been here that long, knows no other place as "home". It is cruel and spiteful to deny them the right to live here for life.

Eric Cartman

seamus wrote: »

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland. There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

But a change back seems like it would be equally unnecessary. I'd love to know what the specific issues are that are trying to be fixed?

I know there's a specific blind spot in regards to citizenship for people who've been here a long time in direct provision or otherwise without an official visa. Children especially. But that seems to me to be easily solved with legislation rather than a modification to the consitution.

Personally I think that's too simplistic. Citizenship or "belonging" to a country is more than where your parents are from or on what soil you were born.

I'm happy with an open enough regime that allows people to gain citizenship without reguiring archaic tests of lineage or knowlede, but that doesn't just throw it out like confetti.

For example, an automatic right for anyone to apply for citizenship if they have been in residence for ten years or more, regardless of whether that residence is legal or not. This would include a general analysis of the individual's circumstances; convictions would disqualify them, but further education and/or a solid record of employment/self-employment (legal or otherwise) would help them.

For children, granting automatic citizenship to any child over 3 that has been in continuous residence for 2 years before the age of six, 5 years before they turn ten, or 8 years before they turn 18. Any child who has been here that long, knows no other place as "home". It is cruel and spiteful to deny them the right to live here for life.

It was pushed by mainstream political parties to protect our country. The amount of people coming from Nigeria fell off a cliff afterwards. The unemployment rate of Nigerians here absolutely suggest it was necessary and is still necessary. If they ran the referendum again, Im pretty sure we would gladly keep it.

Gatling

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It was pushed by mainstream political parties to protect our country. The amount of people coming from Nigeria fell off a cliff afterwards. The unemployment rate of Nigerians here absolutely suggest it was necessary and is still necessary. If they ran the referendum again, Im pretty sure we would gladly keep it.

It didn't take long for sure it's all fake news posts

donaghs

Same problem as the Labour Party in UK. Totally captured by the Middle Class block (former student trotskyists and marxists) and their concerns. The idea of helping the lower social classes in their own country takes a back seat.
More interesting in posturing and signaling they're up to date on the latest trends.

As UK Labour Andrew Adonis says: "Labour, dominated recently by posturing middle-class leftists who regard the ability to wield a placard (or social media post) as a great feat".

John Hutton

seamus wrote: »

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland. There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

But a change back seems like it would be equally unnecessary. I'd love to know what the specific issues are that are trying to be fixed?

I know there's a specific blind spot in regards to citizenship for people who've been here a long time in direct provision or otherwise without an official visa. Children especially. But that seems to me to be easily solved with legislation rather than a modification to the consitution.

Personally I think that's too simplistic. Citizenship or "belonging" to a country is more than where your parents are from or on what soil you were born.

I'm happy with an open enough regime that allows people to gain citizenship without reguiring archaic tests of lineage or knowlede, but that doesn't just throw it out like confetti.

For example, an automatic right for anyone to apply for citizenship if they have been in residence for ten years or more, regardless of whether that residence is legal or not. This would include a general analysis of the individual's circumstances; convictions would disqualify them, but further education and/or a solid record of employment/self-employment (legal or otherwise) would help them.

For children, granting automatic citizenship to any child over 3 that has been in continuous residence for 2 years before the age of six, 5 years before they turn ten, or 8 years before they turn 18. Any child who has been here that long, knows no other place as "home". It is cruel and spiteful to deny them the right to live here for life.

Blind spot? The reason there are so many is because the system is overwhelmed and false asylum seekers are incentivized to drag it out as long as possible with judicial reviews etc. It is telling that when the sob stories hit the media they are usually something along the line of "I've lived here for ages and have a life/school/university etc." Not "I'll definitely be murdered if I go back home, which is why I left home and passed through many other safe nations before reaching Ireland. Here is strong evidence."

But you propose further incentivizing them dragging out the process even more with an effective guarantee of citizenship after x amount of years, or even less if they have a kid? Madness, absolute madness. Couple this with the proposal to do away with direct provision (i.e. give them HAP or a council house) and we have a recipe for disaster.

This is more nonsense from the well heeled, more determined to feel "right on" than to actually address inequality and social deprecation in Ireland. They say that the Greens are FG on bikes, Labour are FG for people who want to feel righteous - unfortunately for them FG are no longer socially conservative, hence labours irrelevance and need to reach for extremes like this proposal.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland.

Yeah the mainstream parties were racist. And 80% of Irish people.

There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

Nonsense. Here's a link from that renowned right wing nazi mouthpiece wikipedia...

The first significant mass-migration of Nigerians to Ireland comprised Nigerians from the United Kingdom. Most came only with the intention of extending their UK visas and then returning, but the ones who failed settled down in Ireland as illegal immigrants.[4] After the landmark High Court case Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice, which prohibited deportation of parents of Irish-born children, more Nigerians began coming to Ireland.[5] Then, from around 1996, during Ireland's "Celtic Tiger" period of rapid economic expansion, they came seeking either opportunities for jobs, benefits or to set up niche businesses aimed at other African migrants providing goods and services which they expected would not otherwise be available in the Irish market.[6] Between 2002 and 2006, the population of Nigerian citizens in Ireland grew by 81.7%, according to census figures, making them the country's fourth-largest migrant group at the time.[7] Many recent migrants are asylum-seekers.[8] However, from 2002 to 2009 the number of Nigerian applicants for asylum fell sharply, dropping from a peak of 4,050 to just 569.[9] The sharp drop in Nigerian asylum applicants was due to the obtaining residency via parentage of Irish citizen children or marriage to Irish and EU spouses and due to the high failure rates in the granting of asylum and the granting of leave to remain.

Yeah the ease of entry and gaining of citizenship had bugger all to do with it. And that's just from one non EU source. Interestingly or worryingly further down that page under Langauge we have this snippet: However, they are strongly likely to feel that they do not have many values in common with Irish people.[36] Oh yeah, that's the kinda demographic we need. :rolleyes:

DelaneyIn

seamus wrote: »

The 2004 referendum was heavily pushed by racist groups, when such a thing had less profile in Ireland. There was a lot of disinformation flying around and made up stories of boats and planes filled with pregnant Nigerians. The change was unnecessary. "Anchor" children was an overblown boogeyman, but it was the foundation of the campaign to make the change.

It wasn’t unnecessary at all. In the years prior to the referendum, 58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon making their application for asylum.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/information%20note.pdf/Files/information%20note.pdf

kildare lad

Ah sure what could go wrong ??? We didn't really get the best and brightest when that birthright law was in place. We got a load of tax dependant , work shy immigrants who are still milking the system 20 odd years later. Nothing against immigrants but what ever happened to going to another country , getting set up ina job, working hard then when you're financially sound then start a family . It's seems to be the opposite here, get pregnant as soon as you can , head down the social welfare office and try and get a gaf, have more kids so we can pay you more money . We don't need that type of immigrant anymore, they've been nothing but a burden on taxpayers since they got here.

kildare lad

DelaneyIn wrote: »

It wasn’t unnecessary at all. In the years prior to the referendum, 58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon making their application for asylum.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/information%20note.pdf/Files/information%20note.pdf

There was a stage here that 1 in 4 babies born in Ireland was to foreigners. The land of milk and honey to spongers/ work shy

Wibbs

DelaneyIn wrote: »

It wasn’t unnecessary at all. In the years prior to the referendum, 58% of all asylum seeking women over the age of 16 were pregnant upon making their application for asylum.

Wow, seeking asylum must increase fertility remarkably well...

Reading that study comes up with this:

However, recent trends have indicated that the scale of the problem is even greater outside of the asylum seeker framework, with very large numbers of non-EEA nationals now coming to Ireland to give birth. The Minister has been informed of the growing concern among health care professionals about the rate of non-nationals coming to Ireland to give birth and the strains which this is placing on services. Data supplied by the Masters of the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals show that those hospitals alone have had 2,816 births to non-nationals in the first six months of last year. The total figure for births to non-nationals for the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals for 2003 was 4,824. The percentage of such births was between 20% and 25% of the total number of births in public hospitals in the Dublin area. The Minister has been informed that this trend has not substantially abated since the Supreme Court decision in the L&O cases. When births in other hospitals, in particular, Drogheda, are taken into account, the national figures are likely to be even higher. The Dublin maternity hospitals estimate that two thirds of the births to non-nationals last year will have been to persons other than asylum seekers, many of whom follow the pattern of a very late arrival in the State to give birth.

But oh no, no way were chancers firing out kids for passports. :rolleyes: If this legislation were reversed you can be sure that the near 100% that are currently rejected from places like Nigeria, Georgia and Ukraine would again become remarkably fecund in due course.

Eric Cartman

kildare lad wrote: »

Ah sure what could go wrong ??? We didn't really get the best and brightest when that birthright law was in place. We got a load of tax dependant , work shy immigrants who are still milking the system 20 odd years later. Nothing against immigrants but what ever happened to going to another country , getting set up ina job, working hard then when you're financially sound then start a family . It's seems to be the opposite here, get pregnant as soon as you can , head down the social welfare office and try and get a gaf, have more kids so we can pay you more money . We don't need that type of immigrant anymore, they've been nothing but a burden on taxpayers since they got here.

This is why our nation should be basically closed to anyone outside the EU coming here without work sponsorship and a 10 year social welfare ban.

Gervais08

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah the mainstream parties were racist. And 80% of Irish people.
Nonsense. Here's a link from that renowned right wing nazi mouthpiece wikipedia...

The first significant mass-migration of Nigerians to Ireland comprised Nigerians from the United Kingdom. Most came only with the intention of extending their UK visas and then returning, but the ones who failed settled down in Ireland as illegal immigrants.[4] After the landmark High Court case Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice, which prohibited deportation of parents of Irish-born children, more Nigerians began coming to Ireland.[5] Then, from around 1996, during Ireland's "Celtic Tiger" period of rapid economic expansion, they came seeking either opportunities for jobs, benefits or to set up niche businesses aimed at other African migrants providing goods and services which they expected would not otherwise be available in the Irish market.[6] Between 2002 and 2006, the population of Nigerian citizens in Ireland grew by 81.7%, according to census figures, making them the country's fourth-largest migrant group at the time.[7] Many recent migrants are asylum-seekers.[8] However, from 2002 to 2009 the number of Nigerian applicants for asylum fell sharply, dropping from a peak of 4,050 to just 569.[9] The sharp drop in Nigerian asylum applicants was due to the obtaining residency via parentage of Irish citizen children or marriage to Irish and EU spouses and due to the high failure rates in the granting of asylum and the granting of leave to remain.

Yeah the ease of entry and gaining of citizenship had bugger all to do with it. And that's just from one non EU source. Interestingly or worryingly further down that page under Langauge we have this snippet: However, they are strongly likely to feel that they do not have many values in common with Irish people.[36] Oh yeah, that's the kinda demographic we need. :rolleyes:

How absolutely DARE you counter bollocks with calm, rational facts you monster!!!! 😉😉😉😉

Grab All Association

He’s labour youth? Jesus Christ, Young Fine Gael get criticised for having members approaching their 30s, he must at least 65

suicide_circus

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

timmyntc

suicide_circus wrote: »

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

New voters for the Labour Party?

Wibbs

Gervais08 wrote: »

How absolutely DARE you counter bollocks with calm, rational facts you monster!!!!

The joke is G in all of the referenda I've voted on since I was able to vote back in the late 80's I've voted for the "progressive" side. Divorce, repeal the 8th, marriage rights. Given I support social welfare, social healthcare and education, Gay rights etc I'm actually very "left wing". I'd be a damned commie liberal to some. I looked at the facts and looked at the possible positives and negatives for our country and culture and people and even when I might have had some misgivings at times I figured they were all overall very much positives for Ireland and voted accordingly. However when I looked more at the multiculturalist/diversity politic, a politic I like most once thought sounded overall game ball, even a good goal, I was genuinely surprised to find it stood up to remarkably little critique, was much more about some misguided exoticism and emotionals and then I looked at the rest of Europe...

In the 2004 vote I voted with the 80%, because again I looked at the facts and the experiences of other nations struggling with the multiculturalist politic and though I thought and still do think it was too little too late to save us from that nonsense in many ways, it was at least something to try and reduce the negatives going forward.

Wibbs

timmyntc wrote: »

New voters for the Labour Party?

That was one of my first thoughts on it too. A hail mary hope to get more of the "New Irish" vote, with a side order of the leafy suburban "liberals".

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

"Diversity", pensions, insert some other waffle here, appeal to charity a bonus, mention The Irish Were Immigrants Once for full effect.

breezy1985

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats what their priority is? Jaysis, read the room lads.

.

It's not their priority it's a tweet. They send out a ton of them every week. I'm sure it's not going to be a red line for government formation for them

kildare lad

suicide_circus wrote: »

In what way would this benefit Ireland?

More Nigerian taxi drivers in Dublin ?