Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

Montage of Feck

The Brazilians are a post colonial, majority catholic nation like ourselves with relatively liberal social values so should fit right in.

Hamachi

dominatinMC wrote: »

As a casual follower of this item, what are the actual chances of this bill being passed? There was an overwhelming majority (>80%) against it last time. Without delving into hyperbole, how likely is this really expected to change? Bearing in mind that a lot of people, regardless of how they might present themselves or wish to be perceived, will probably be more self serving post-pandemic.

I wouldn’t be jumping to any conclusions just yet. Helen McEntee has already pointed out the ramifications of this bill with respect to Brexit and the common travel area. I suspect that the bill will be brought forward, but will be so thoroughly watered down by amendments as to be rendered almost meaningless.

Certainly, it’s concerning that an unelectable, undemocratic buffoon like Ivana Bacik appears to be getting her way. My hope is that logic will prevail when this bill is subject to some scrutiny. Surely, somebody will see that is placing a giant bullseye on Ireland if it’s implemented in its current format.

Regardless of the outcome, Labour is finished as a political force in this country. If only there was some way to remove toxic elements like Bacik from public life.

Macu17ab

Montage of Feck wrote: »

The Brazilians are a post colonial, majority catholic nation like ourselves with relatively liberal social values so should fit right in.

They could be our next Poles.

Hamachi

Montage of Feck wrote: »

The Brazilians are a post colonial, majority catholic nation like ourselves with relatively liberal social values so should fit right in.

That’s fine as long as they are arriving and staying here legally. The problem is that many are over-staying their temporary language student visas by multiple years.

Personally, I know a Brazilian woman who has now over-stayed by 3 years, yet is somehow employed in a nursing home. She is also currently playing several guys online in the hopes of finding a husband to legalize her status.

She is far from a model immigrant and there are many more Brazilians here operating in a similar manner.

ExMachina1000

Hamachi wrote: »

That’s fine as long as they are arriving and staying here legally. The problem is that many are over-staying their temporary language student visas by multiple years.

Personally, I know a Brazilian woman who has now over-stayed by 3 years, yet is somehow employed in a nursing home. She is also currently playing several guys online in the hopes of finding a husband to legalize her status.

She is far from a model immigrant and there are many more Brazilians here operating in a similar manner.

Is it not your civic responsibility and duty to report her?

Hamachi

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Is it not your civic responsibility and duty to report her?

Yes, it is. However, I find it hard to reconcile my desire to do the right thing with not wanting to totally f**k up another person’s life.

I’m annoyed at myself, I’m annoyed at her, and most of all, I’m deeply frustrated by our virtually non-existent immigration controls that permit this kind of scenario.

Macu17ab

Hamachi wrote: »

That’s fine as long as they are arriving and staying here legally. The problem is that many are over-staying their temporary language student visas by multiple years.

Personally, I know a Brazilian woman who has now over-stayed by 3 years, yet is somehow employed in a nursing home. She is also currently playing several guys online in the hopes of finding a husband to legalize her status.

She is far from a model immigrant and there are many more Brazilians here operating in a similar manner.

I haven't heard about any instances of them arriving illegally, seeing as our government makes it quite easy for them to come here on a student visa. I will be the first one to say that the rate at which we take immigrants, including Brazilians is too much. But when they are compared to other immigrant groups they are in the top tier regarding cultural assimilation, work ethic, and shared values.

Excluding the complete minority that come here and turn to crime, the rest of them are here working and keeping landlord's pockets bursting while sharing a room with 3-6 others (Male and female). Their tenacity to stay and pay their way in a stressful and uncertain environment shows they haven't much to go back to, which is sad as many of the language students that come here have degrees that can't be put to good use because of their visa conditions.

Hamachi

Macu17ab wrote: »

I haven't heard about any instances of them arriving illegally, seeing as our government makes it quite easy for them to come here on a student visa. I will be the first one to say that the rate at which we take immigrants, including Brazilians is too much. But when they are compared to other immigrant groups they are in the top tier regarding cultural assimilation, work ethic, and shared values.

Excluding the complete minority that come here and turn to crime, the rest of them are here working and keeping landlord's pockets bursting while sharing a room with 3-6 others (Male and female). Their tenacity to stay and pay their way in a stressful and uncertain environment shows they haven't much to go back to, which is sad as many of the language students that come here have degrees that can't be put to good use because of their visa conditions.

As you say, the fundamental issue is numbers. There are simply far too many Brazilians arriving here to attend dubious English language colleges and then failing to leave when their visas expire. They see temporary student visas as a path to permanent residency. This behavior has to be discouraged and the sooner this backdoor migration channel is closed, the better.

To reiterate, I have nothing against Brazilians personally. They are usually affable and have a decent work ethic. However, the fact remains that a significant % are subverting our immigration rules by over-staying. It’s not the responsibility of Ireland to provide a future for citizens of the largest country in Latin America, regardless of how adaptable or tenacious they may be.

We can accommodate small numbers of high skilled migrants certainly, but the current situation where thousands of Brazilians are over-staying to work in precarious, low skilled roles isn’t tenable and should not be tolerated by any country with a functioning immigration system.

https://www.thejournal.ie/hiv-diagnoses-rose-2016-3628641-Oct2017/

2016:
508 new HIV cases.
2/3 of the 140 heterosexual cases were from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Over half of the total cases were gay men, 42% of which had been diagnosed abroad before moving here.

https://www.hivireland.ie/hiv/hiv-in-ireland/
2018:
523 diagnoses
42% previously diagnosed in another country.
Of the diagnoses in 2018, 21% (n=109) were born in Ireland, 71% (n=370) were born abroad and 8% (n=44) did not have information on country of birth.
Of the 370 HIV diagnoses among those born outside Ireland, 34% were born in sub-Saharan Africa and 36% were born in Latin America and the Caribbean, 9% from countries in Central and Eastern Europe and 11% from countries in Western Europe.

It's great altogether and all that it shows is that our incidence of HIV increasing is because of a lack of education in our schools obviously.

weldoninhio

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its all coming together for them, Britain goes bye bye , the ferry routes open up to countries who want rid of these people, hate speech laws to stop you condemning them, increased pressure to build social housing which might translate into a giant building boom.

we're going to end up with an Ireland like east London.

the worst part is, with so little political will to do anything , next election we could very well end up with some sort of SF/NP coalition the people vote for purely to stop the madness.

people have been playing chicken little screaming about fascists in europe since 2016, this perfect storm is how you make it seem reasonable to elect actual fascists.

Sinn Fein support this free for all.

weldoninhio

Hamachi wrote: »

Yes, it is. However, I find it hard to reconcile my desire to do the right thing with not wanting to totally f**k up another person’s life.

I’m annoyed at myself, I’m annoyed at her, and most of all, I’m deeply frustrated by our virtually non-existent immigration controls that permit this kind of scenario.

Do you think our immigration services is some Minority Report type of service? If people aren’t reported, they aren’t psychicly gonna find her!!

Bonniedog

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sinn Fein support this free for all.

They do but they are very adept at speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

They still have a nationalist cache which currently co-exists with an appeal to the former constituency of the Labour Party so it is strong electorally.

I know a lot of SF voters who have completely differing views to the party on issues like abortion, immigration, trans genderism, etc, etc. Most voters vote on the basis of perception rather than reality and when a party is not in power they can get away with all sorts of dissimulation.

Most Dublin SF voters would be amazed at the fact that SF in Stormont implements all of the "oz-terr - ty" that they whinge about down here.

It won't last forever, and it is a pity in a way that they are not currently in coalition because if they ever get into power as the main party then we are truly fked.

Montage of Feck

Montage of Feck wrote: »

The Brazilians are a post colonial, majority catholic nation like ourselves with relatively liberal social values so should fit right in.

That's grand, except you tend to see a response in terms of migrant behavior due to the current state of their own countries, because culture is a vital background for determining values and general behavioral norms. Brazil is a mess, and has been a mess for a very long time. Crime, murder rates, women's rights, corruption, etc.

For all the common cultural connections, there is far more about their culture which has moved away from ours, namely their approach to violence, drugs, and appreciation of the law.

And yes, many Brazilians are wonderful, law abiding people... but there are a rather lot of them, and many are not wonderful, law abiding people...

dominatinMC

Hamachi wrote: »

I wouldn’t be jumping to any conclusions just yet. Helen McEntee has already pointed out the ramifications of this bill with respect to Brexit and the common travel area. I suspect that the bill will be brought forward, but will be so thoroughly watered down by amendments as to be rendered almost meaningless.

Certainly, it’s concerning that an unelectable, undemocratic buffoon like Ivana Bacik appears to be getting her way. My hope is that logic will prevail when this bill is subject to some scrutiny. Surely, somebody will see that is placing a giant bullseye on Ireland if it’s implemented in its current format.

Regardless of the outcome, Labour is finished as a political force in this country. If only there was some way to remove toxic elements like Bacik from public life.

Well said. When you say that the bill will be watered down, are you suggesting that the loophole will effectively remain closed? And the birth right won't be instated?

Bonniedog

dominatinMC wrote: »

Well said. When you say that the bill will be watered down, are you suggesting that the loophole will effectively remain closed? And the birth right won't be instated?

Having listened to the "debate" it is clear that the state agrees with the leftie desire to legalise everyone, but that as worded the Bill would have same implications for EU as it did in 2004.

Sad to say, they care more about what Brussels think than the its own citizens.

So. Will they change the law short of granting birthright but legalise all the illegals, thereby encouraging more freeholders?

Or will they grant birthright, but in a way that doesn't bequesth same rights as all other EU citizens. Hard to see how that is possible, but never under-estimate the woke rabbit hole the Blueshirts and FF have disappeared into.

Kermit.de.frog

dominatinMC wrote: »

Well said. When you say that the bill will be watered down, are you suggesting that the loophole will effectively remain closed? And the birth right won't be instated?

I don't think it's even about that.

The 2,000 children they are referring to, who they want to regularise, their parents have no right to be in this country receiving anything from this state. Nor do their children.

This is not about being heartless or cruel, as the Labour Party would have you believe.

It is about upholding the integrity of the immigration system which is there to protect all Irish citizens first and foremost. To prevent the country being exploited.

We either have an immigration system or we don't.

The message stunts like this send out is don't worry about the rules. Tie the state up in court, tap every NGO, and in 10 or 20 years we'll just regularise you anyway.

This is no way to run any country. It's absurd. It makes us vulnerable and it makes us a target, a destination.

There are mechanisms for people to come here legally.

If we are not going to enforce basic rules what's the point? May as well just open the doors and have no rules.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If we are not going to enforce basic rules what's the point? May as well just open the doors and have no rules.

And considering the welfare state costs, the extra need for education, and supply of services (regardless of any social unrest), Ireland will quickly go the way of less prosperous countries, with massive expenditure, and very dubious revenue intake.

Eric Cartman

Macu17ab wrote: »

That's bollox. The landlords are the ones putting 4-6 beds per room and charging them 400 each, they aren't setting up like a hive in a well-intentioned landlord's property - they are being exploited as the landlords know they have no recourse or alternative.

As for the drug trade, that was around long before the Brazilians - You're obviously going to get the worst of people who can't get a taxable job falling into that.

50/50, come on.

The landlords havent a clue, all of those slums are created by other brazillians. The phenomenon of 4 bunkbeds in a 2 bed apartment never occured before the brazillians got here and look at the ‘rent in dublin’ facebook group, always the same brazillian profiles posting these slums. Its a racket that irish landlords fear as they always bear the financial birden.

Theres no excuse for coming to another country to deal drugs, they should he deported asap

Mad_maxx

Macu17ab wrote: »

That's bollox. The landlords are the ones putting 4-6 beds per room and charging them 400 each, they aren't setting up like a hive in a well-intentioned landlord's property - they are being exploited as the landlords know they have no recourse or alternative.

As for the drug trade, that was around long before the Brazilians - You're obviously going to get the worst of people who can't get a taxable job falling into that.

50/50, come on.

thats the media narrative alright , the reality is that " packed in like sardines " is something quite specific to the brazilian immigrant community , they choose this

Randy Archer

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.

Populists ? You understand what that term means? Clearly not

The asylum process was heavily abused by heavily pregnant women, most of whom came from safe nations , (and proven by their failure rates as per the public records for each EU member State At the time ) . The only way that they were permitted to enter a country like Ireland Without visas and real passports was by applying for asylum .

When the kid was born, they withdrew their asylum cases Immediately and applied for leave to remain. They didn’t of course, walk out of the state funded accommodation offered , of course .

These numbers 10-13 000 a year blocked up the process for real genuine asylum seeekers

As of 2004, Ireland and Belgium were the only European nations with Jus soli rules. The ECJ case of Chen v U.K. 2004 (just before the referendum) highlighted the need to change the rules as Ireland was being used as a back door into Europe for illegals .

grassylawn

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The landlords havent a clue, all of those slums are created by other brazillians. The phenomenon of 4 bunkbeds in a 2 bed apartment never occured before the brazillians got here and look at the ‘rent in dublin’ facebook group, always the same brazillian profiles posting these slums. Its a racket that irish landlords fear as they always bear the financial birden.

Theres no excuse for coming to another country to deal drugs, they should he deported asap

I knew three people sharing a one bedroom apartment in 2000. One had to sleep in the sitting room. White Irish UCD students. Their landlord would also have been white and Irish.

Randy Archer

fly_agaric wrote: »

That is nonsense really. I'm long enough in the tooth to remember the campaign.

The opponents of the referendum (incl. Labour) were quite clear people voting for the change were just being bigoted, and the government (as embodied by the Minister of Justice at the time) was somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun for doing this!

People voting "yes" were quite clear IMO it was about getting an unintended loophole plugged which was causing problems at the time.
The "Right on" faithful and their braying priests & witchfinders on Twitter did not exist to same extent back then though.

Re read what Mike said

Then read the amended clause in the Constitution, Article 9. Get a copy of the pre 2004 constitution and a post 2004 constitution and compare the wording of Article 9

Perhaps people should actually read the wording of the text that was used for that referendum

You refer, correctly, to the motives for the amendment but Mike correctly points out the legal affect

Eric Cartman

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sinn Fein support this free for all.

For now , theyll go any way the wind blows to get in and then theyll become utlra nationalist and very anti immigrant

Eric Cartman

grassylawn wrote: »

I knew three people sharing a one bedroom apartment in 2000. One had to sleep in the sitting room. White Irish UCD students. Their landlord would also have been white and Irish.

That would be considered low density to these. I was doing work for a landlord before and he had a 1 bed off parnell st, went in and 2 sets of bunkbeds in the bedroom, 2 in the living room , 8 people in a 1 bed apartment, they had sold all his furniture and left him with thousands of euro in unpaid electricity with oil rads running 24/7

titan18

Deleted User wrote: »

And considering the welfare state costs, the extra need for education, and supply of services (regardless of any social unrest), Ireland will quickly go the way of less prosperous countries, with massive expenditure, and very dubious revenue intake.

All of us working saps have to pay for it of course. Extra few percent on to our tax bill to pay for it all

Randy Archer

Bonniedog wrote: »

Having listened to the "debate" it is clear that the state agrees with the leftie desire to legalise everyone, but that as worded the Bill would have same implications for EU as it did in 2004.

Sad to say, they care more about what Brussels think than the its own citizens.

So. Will they change the law short of granting birthright but legalise all the illegals, thereby encouraging more freeholders?

Or will they grant birthright, but in a way that doesn't bequesth same rights as all other EU citizens. Hard to see how that is possible, but never under-estimate the woke rabbit hole the Blueshirts and FF have disappeared into.

Actually, Brussels was screaming down McDowell’s phone to make sure that Ireland changed our citizenship laws in 2004, in the aftermath of a major ECJ case involving the U.K. and a Chinese National doing a spot of anchor baby in Northern Ireland

Wibbs

I'd say they could be on the phones over this too, if there's the suggestion of reversing the 04 decision in law.

titan18

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd say they could be on the phones over this too, if there's the suggestion of reversing the 04 decision in law.

Hopefully. Won't matter what we think, politicians will do their own thing anyway, but if there's pressure from UK and EU, they'll back off

Eric Cartman

titan18 wrote: »

Hopefully. Won't matter what we think, politicians will do their own thing anyway, but if there's pressure from UK and EU, they'll back off

funnily enough this is a weird time where we need Brussels to save us from the left.

fly_agaric

Randy Archer wrote: »

Re read what Mike said

Then read the amended clause in the Constitution, Article 9. Get a copy of the pre 2004 constitution and a post 2004 constitution and compare the wording of Article 9

Perhaps people should actually read the wording of the text that was used for that referendum

You refer, correctly, to the motives for the amendment but Mike correctly points out the legal affect

I have done part of what you asked & re-read it (the post) and see what you are getting at.
I took issue with the second part of what he wrote:

You say that people voted by 80% but if you don't know what they voted for 15 yesr on; how could you possibly claim they knew back then what they were voting for.

That seems to be distorting things, implying people (in general) back then hadn't a clue what would happen if they voted Yes because the poster might have made a technical error.

The main No argument was it is unfair & bigoted to deprive children born here of an automatic citizenship and cruel to deport anyone who has had given birth to a child here regardless of citizenship. The Yes argument was give us (govt.) the power to fix this citizenship "loophole".

We are not quite so bad with our referenda here (as yet) that the govt. politicians just put them up for the vote & it is unclear/unknown what they intend to do if it is passed.