Labour want to bring back auto-birthright citizenship

kildare lad

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Now you're talking about other stuff. If what was linked above was the government's case for changing the Constitution, it was a weak one.

I don't know the peak non-EU migration figures, but even if it was higher in that period, it still wouldn't prove that it was linked to Ireland's citizenship conditions, as we'd have to know how many of those migrants were pregnant, and what stage of pregnancy they were at, whether they were joining family or a partner here, etc.

I didn't say anything about Ireland or anywhere being multicultural.

A large majority voted for it, true, but that was nearly 20 years ago. The Eight Amendment passed resoundingly too, but opinion went the other way eventually. I believe opinion polls have found strong levels of support for reversing this. That may change if on foot of a campaign, but there is nothing undemocratic about proposing that we revisit this.

And what benefits do the Irish taxpayers get out of it , by reversing the law ??

WhenPigsCry

kildare lad wrote: »

And what benefits do the Irish taxpayers get out of it , by reversing the law ??

Do Irish taxpayers include the many many non-Irish citizens who pay tax here? Are tax and citizenship intrinsically linked. If someone pays their taxes here, should they get citizenship?

kildare lad

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Do Irish taxpayers include the many many non-Irish citizens who pay tax here? Are tax and citizenship intrinsically linked. If someone pays their taxes here, should they get citizenship?

Again, what benefits do the Irish taxpayer get out of this ???

DelaneyIn

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Hey but anecdotes about mothers arriving from the UK late in pregnancy and guesses at numbers by a maternity hospital are a solid basis for changing the constitution.

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. This is a statement of fact. No way should we allow these slugs reverse the citizenship referendum and create a situation were this happens again.

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

WhenPigsCry

kildare lad wrote: »

Again, what benefits do the Irish taxpayer get out of this ???

It's an incoherent question. We don't determine our citizenship laws on the basis of some narrow tax benefit calculation, and as I note above, not all taxpayers are citizens and not all citizens are taxpayers.

What benefit does the Irish taxpayer get from offering non-tax resident Irish citizens consular assistance in foreign countries? None; it actually costs taxpayers in Ireland (including non-citizens) money to do that. But it is one of the entitlements that come with Irish citizenship.

kildare lad

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Do Irish taxpayers include the many many non-Irish citizens who pay tax here? Are tax and citizenship intrinsically linked. If someone pays their taxes here, should they get citizenship?

You only have to look at balbriggan, ongar , tyrellstown to see the type of immigrant we got before that law was done away with. They've been a nothing but a taxpayer black hole since they got here. That law was flouted by welfare spongers who only came here for free houses , welfare, children's allowance etc.

statesaver

kildare lad wrote: »

Again, what benefits do the Irish taxpayer get out of this ???

Woke points. We get woke points and a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

WhenPigsCry

kildare lad wrote: »

You only have to look at balbriggan, ongar , tyrellstown to see the type of immigrant we got before that law was done away with. They've been a nothing but a taxpayer black hole since they got here. That law was flouted by welfare spongers who only came here for free houses , welfare, children's allowance etc.

I heard some of them don't even know how to write in English properly.

One eyed Jack

mohawk wrote: »

I can’t get my head around their position. If you believe in a welfare state then you know that you need there to be more people paying for it then those who are receiving.

Bringing in immigrants that don’t have the skills or education to support themselves and pay taxes means the state will have to step in and help with things like housing. Controlled immigration of those who will have jobs they can fully support themselves with and pay taxes means we can pay for things like pensions.

If we don’t have enough taxpayers who give more to the state then they receive then we can’t have a welfare state.

I don’t believe in a Welfare State but that’s not the conditions are necessary for a Welfare State in any case. In order to support a Welfare State, it has nothing to do with the amount of people paying in, and everything to do with the amount of revenue the State takes in through numerous revenue streams - Corporations tax being the main one, PAYE tax being the smallest one (our economy is heavily dependent upon a handful of pharmaceutical multinationals).

Bringing in unskilled immigrants to create jobs in a low paying services economy is just a means to inflate a consumer economy, that lynx spray won’t spray itself for €2 as you’re walking out of the jax basking in your crippling debt funded ambience while not even thinking about putting money towards your pension.

Leo was floating multiculturalism from an economic perspective long before Labour even cottoned on to the idea from a social perspective. We already have an assortment of universal schemes - welfare, education. health and universal pensions were floated by Leo when he was Minister for Social Protection back in 2016, meaning the same number of people working will have even more taken at source from their pay packets to fund pensions for all.

The idea being that the universal education provided will enable social mobility for the children of immigrants in the same way as it enables social mobility for everyone, and there will be a small number of those who will contribute more in taxation and consumer spending in the economy to pay for services provided to all citizens regardless of their ethnicity in order to keep the economic boom and bust cycle going.

sdanseo

Miscalculated muppetry of this magnitude is why the Labour party has faded into near irrelevance and has 6 Dáil seats.

kildare lad

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

It's an incoherent question. We don't determine our citizenship laws on the basis of some narrow tax benefit calculation, and as I note above, not all taxpayers are citizens and not all citizens are taxpayers.

What benefit does the Irish taxpayer get from offering non-tax resident Irish citizens consular assistance in foreign countries? None; it actually costs taxpayers in Ireland (including non-citizens) money to do that. But it is one of the entitlements that come with Irish citizenship.

It's not an incoherent question... Stop talking about Irish citizens in other countries, the cost to the Irish taxpayer is miniscule in giving consular assistance compared to what we've been paying to anchor baby families over the last 25 years.

kildare lad

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

I heard some of them don't even know how to write in English properly.

You still haven't answered my question yet ??

kildare lad

sdanseo wrote: »

Miscalculated muppetry of this magnitude is why the Labour party has faded into near irrelevance and has 6 Dáil seats.

They're lucky to even have any seats they're so out of touch with reality

.anon.

kildare lad wrote: »

And what benefits do the Irish taxpayers get out of it , by reversing the law ??

With an aging population, more future taxpayers to help keep us afloat after we retire. Also, a sense of pride that we don't deport children who were born here, forcing them to live in whatever foreign country their parents came from. Basic common decency, really. Not 'woke'... not 'virtue signaling'... just decency. A foreign concept to some on here.

kildare lad

DelaneyIn wrote: »

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. This is a statement of fact. No way should we allow these slugs reverse the citizenship referendum and create a situation were this happens again.

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

All future doctors and engineers no doubt.....

kildare lad

.anon. wrote: »

With an aging population, more future taxpayers to help keep us afloat after we retire. Also, a sense of pride that we don't deport children who were born here, forcing them to live in whatever foreign country their parents came from. Basic common decency, really. Not 'woke'... not 'virtue signaling'... just decency. A foreign concept to some on here.

I've no problem with immigrants, as long as it's the ones that work and can support themselves . The anchor baby law attracted the ones who came here to play the system . They came here for a free ride . We don't need that type of immigrant again .

One eyed Jack

.anon. wrote: »

With an aging population, more future taxpayers to help keep us afloat after we retire. Also, a sense of pride that we don't deport children who were born here, forcing them to live in whatever foreign country their parents came from. Basic common decency, really. Not 'woke'... not 'virtue signaling'... just decency. A foreign concept to some on here.

I would simply have said “feck all, same as they put into it!”

The Irish taxpayer already gets far more from the State than they could ever afford to pay for privately, and that’s without even addressing the fact that people’s rights aren’t based upon how much they pay in tax - far more Irish people would lose out if such a system actually existed.

.anon.

kildare lad wrote: »

I've no problem with immigrants, as long as it's the ones that work and can support themselves . The anchor baby law attracted the ones who came here to play the system . They came here for a free ride . We don't need that type of immigrant again .

Most people don't come here looking for a free ride.

kildare lad

.anon. wrote: »

Most people don't come here looking for a free ride.

Ok.....

.anon.

kildare lad wrote: »

Ok.....

Glad we can agree on that.

DelaneyIn

.anon. wrote: »

Most people don't come here looking for a free ride.

The majority of Africans resident in Ireland don’t work. What are they here for, if not a “free ride?”

O’Connell and Kenny (2017) show that only about 40% of adult African nationals in Ireland are employed, far less than the average for Irish natives or for other immigrant groups. They also suffer much higher rates of unemployment than the national average. The pattern is similar in other European labour markets. This paper explores the underlying reasons for African disadvantage in the Irish labour market.

https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201816.pdf

kildare lad

DelaneyIn wrote: »

The majority of Africans resident in Ireland don’t work. What are they here for, if not a “free ride?”

https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201816.pdf

The gorgeous weather

kildare lad

DelaneyIn wrote: »

The majority of Africans resident in Ireland don’t work. What are they here for, if not a “free ride?”

https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201816.pdf

To show us all the joys of multiculturalism on the backs of the Irish taxpayer .

Hamachi

.anon. wrote: »

With an aging population, more future taxpayers to help keep us afloat after we retire. Also, a sense of pride that we don't deport children who were born here, forcing them to live in whatever foreign country their parents came from. Basic common decency, really. Not 'woke'... not 'virtue signaling'... just decency. A foreign concept to some on here.

The demographic angle is plain wrong. Ireland has the youngest population pyramid in the EU and the second youngest in greater Europe if Turkey is included. The current demographics ensure future population momentum for decades to come.

The rest of your post is a worthless diatribe. If we're talking 'pride' and 'basic common decency', those same standards should be applied to those who have subverted our asylum process and arrived here illegally. Where was their sense of decency landing in a country, on which they have no right to impose themselves?

Wibbs

kildare lad wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question yet ??

Because and as we have seen on the multicultural thread, they can't, or couch responses in vagueness, or run to the emotional and when that fails run to the "you're all racists/right wingers!". The sniff of that is already in the air.

.anon. wrote: »

With an aging population,

Highest birthrate in the EU.

Also, a sense of pride that we don't deport children who were born here, forcing them to live in whatever foreign country their parents came from. Basic common decency, really. Not 'woke'... not 'virtue signaling'... just decency. A foreign concept to some on here.

Well then their parents shouldn't have rocked up illegally from a "foreign country". If they were legal migrants and there are plenty of them, then there are avenues to citizenship open to them and their children. I know quite a few who have gone down this road. However and more importantly why should Ireland alone among the vast majority of nations on this planet and the only one in the EU return to a jui solis option? An option that was clearly abused in the past. If it hadn't been it wouldn't have even been on the political radar and certainly wouldn't have required the expense of a referendum.

Wibbs

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Yes, I hold an official government document, purporting to outline the evidence for why a constitutional change is necessary, to a far higher standard than some post on a poxy message board.

But apparently the evidence of a poll that agrees with your position is grand...

And actually, it was what I know at least one opinion poll found
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-citizenship-2-4345852-Nov2018/

Of course this was conducted in an atmosphere where people were considering the harsh reality of a kid potentially being deported from the country he was born and raised in, and not just innuendo about planeloads of heavily pregnant brown women.

It was most likely an appeal to emotion. Standard fare for twisting polls to suit the slant required and we are given no rundown of the questions and how they were framed. The comment section in contrast is heavily against to the point of going full nazi in places. The reality of an actual vote is likely somewhere in the middle, but unlike being polled on the street the real feelings on such a matter would come out in the ballot box.

And again I ask the question why would somebody be in favour of legislation that no other EU country has? Why would somebody be in favour of legislation that was soundly rejected by the highest majority of recent referenda 16 years ago? Why would somebody be in favour of legislation that was clearly abused in the past? "Decency" is not an answer. Are Germans, French, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, Italians, Greeks et al by default somehow indecent? Because none of them have a jui solis law. Even the nations that have one like the US have pretty strict applications of it.

TomTomTim

Wibbs wrote: »

More Irish self hating nonsense. We've become one of the most socially progressive nations in the EU.

It's never enough for posters like that. You can give them all they want, yet they'll still try and bludgeon the natives, just so they can continue smelling their own farts. There has to an inferior to satisfy their desire to be superior.

Geuze

.anon. wrote: »

With an aging population, more future taxpayers to help keep us afloat after we retire. Also, a sense of pride that we don't deport children who were born here, forcing them to live in whatever foreign country their parents came from. Basic common decency, really. Not 'woke'... not 'virtue signaling'... just decency. A foreign concept to some on here.

If we need more births, then encourage more births, no need for immigration.

We have massive unemployment, so no need for immigration there, either.

We are very decent, we are accepting 6,900 refugees.

We should not accept bogus AS.

Geuze

.anon. wrote: »

Most people don't come here looking for a free ride.

Yes, correct, of the 85,000 immigrants this year, most are fine.

Irish returning, EU migrants, all fine.


But the bogus AS are all illegal immigrants.

Donald Trump

.anon. wrote: »

Most people don't come here looking for a free ride.

I wonder why would you think then how, some people who come from countries where English is fairly widespread spoken, such as Nigeria, end up being in that 40% unemployed cohort for so long.

Whereas other people, who come from Eastern Europe where English is not that widespread, can arrive over and stay in employment most of the time.