Evidence Vindicating Citizenship referendum

President4Life

I regard the following report (shown in part) in today's Irish Independent as proof that the basis for Citizenship referendum was sound. It shows a large fall in the numbers of immigrant mothers turning up at the hospital in late pregnancy. Do you agree or not.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1461990&issue_id=12956

Drop in foreign mums arriving late in pregnancy

ADVERTISEMENT



A DRAMATIC fall-off in the number of non-national mothers turning up late for deliveries has been reported from one of the country's busiest maternity hospitals.

Last year and in 2003, nearly one in three immigrant mothers were either showing up in labour or within 10 days prior to delivery at Dublin's Rotunda Hospital.

Dr Michael Geary, master of the Rotunda, revealed that such deliveries were now down to a "trickle".

He was commenting after the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street said deliveries in Dublin were down about 3pc this year.

Dr Geary said the Rotunda expected around 7,000 deliveries this year - on a par with last year. The fall-off in the number of non-national mothers turning up for late deliveries was "dramatic", he said.

Dr Geary would not say whether the change was due to last year's citizenship referendum where the law was changed so children born to non-nationals were no longer due automatic citizenship. He would let the figures speak for themselves and allow people to make up their own minds.

He said: "People were getting on planes very late in the day and travelling while in labour from UK, France and Holland." It was good that this had discontinued.

lostexpectation

they always were a trickle

President4Life

lostexpectation wrote:

they always were a trickle

How do you know?

AngelofFire

Everything that is written in the Indo should be taken with a grain of salt.

President4Life

AngelofFire wrote:

Everything that is written in the Indo should be taken with a grain of salt.

Why?

Hobbes

It has already been discussed in detail the totals coming in. Truth of the matter is the count dropped long before the citizenship referendum.

President4Life

Hobbes wrote:

It has already been discussed in detail the totals coming in. Truth of the matter is the count dropped long before the citizenship referendum.

Oh? What evidence have you for that?

zuma

I despise the term "Non-National"!!!!

Are non-nationals:
a)People with no nationality,
b)Non Irish nationals or
c)Non EU nationals???

Its one of the most stupid and idiotic terms ever to be popularised in Ireland!!!

Hobbes

President4Life wrote:

Oh? What evidence have you for that?

I am too tired to go through and dig through the referendum thread..
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=160726

You should read it, its quite intresting. However there is a link off there that a particular court case caused the number of asylum seekers in Ireland dropped off a lot.

It shows a large fall in the numbers of immigrant mothers turning up at the hospital in late pregnancy.

Btw, the percentage of those was extremly low.

Lastly do not mix up immigrant (legal/illegal), refugee, Asylum Seeker. They are all totally different.

Sam Vimes

zuma wrote:

I despise the term "Non-National"!!!!

Are non-nationals:
a)People with no nationality,
b)Non Irish nationals or
c)Non EU nationals???

Its one of the most stupid and idiotic terms ever to be popularised in Ireland!!!

b), where's the confusion

AngelofFire

Why?

Because it is a biased newspaper

AndyWarhol

AngelofFire wrote:

Because it is a biased newspaper

Sure what newspaper/journalist isn't?

Orion

Hobbes wrote:

Lastly do not mix up immigrant (legal/illegal), refugee, Asylum Seeker. They are all totally different.

Well refugees and asylum seekers are immigrants in fact. But not all immigrants are asylum seekers or refugees

Hobbes

Macros42 wrote:

Well refugees and asylum seekers are immigrants in fact. But not all immigrants are asylum seekers or refugees

No they are not.

Immigrants implies that the person is coming to the country to settle.

Asylum seekers are generally fleeing their country (most cases against their will) and refugees are temporary placement due to something happening in their home country (and plan to go back).

Orion

Hobbes wrote:

No they are not.

Immigrants implies that the person is coming to the country to settle.

Fair point

President4Life

Hobbes wrote:

No they are not.

Immigrants implies that the person is coming to the country to settle.

Asylum seekers are generally fleeing their country (most cases against their will) and refugees are temporary placement due to something happening in their home country (and plan to go back).

If that is true why do the vast majority of asylum-claims fail? I find it hard to believe they couldn't have claimed asylum at an earlier country along the route instead of Ireland.

Hobbes

President4Life wrote:

If that is true why do the vast majority of asylum-claims fail? I find it hard to believe they couldn't have claimed asylum at an earlier country along the route instead of Ireland.

Again, you are already talking about something that has been talked to death. As part of an agreement (I forget which one) Ireland is required to take a number of Asylum Seekers that enter the EU.

Why do a lot fail? Because they are not classed as genuine Asylum seekers and sent back. I don't understand what your trying to imply?

President4Life

Hobbes wrote:

Again, you are already talking about something that has been talked to death. As part of an agreement (I forget which one) Ireland is required to take a number of Asylum Seekers that enter the EU.

Why do a lot fail? Because they are not classed as genuine Asylum seekers and sent back. I don't understand what your trying to imply?

There is no requirement under the law that we accept a certain % of the asylum-seekers who enter the EU. However, the Government has recently agreed to increase the number of UN-verified refugees we take in to a couple of hundred. Clearly this does not justify the vast majority of asylum-claims as they are overwhelmingly rejected.

If they were genuine, then the majority of asylum-seekers who are rejected would not have only been coming to Ireland since the Celtic Tiger. They would have been coming in the 80's too, which they weren't. Let's call a spade a spade and admit they are economic migrants.

Hobbes

If they were economic migrants they wouldn't be Asylum seekers. In order to migrate you do have to be able to self sustain yourself while here and pay taxes. They don't just let anybody show up.

President4Life

Hobbes wrote:

If they were economic migrants they wouldn't be Asylum seekers. In order to migrate you do have to be able to self sustain yourself while here and pay taxes. They don't just let anybody show up.

But asylum-seekers are barred from working so how are they supposed to pay taxes? They live off the State who house them at taxpayer's expense. They are coming here for economic reasons, in that they want to work (assuming their application succeeds or a future government removes the bar on them working). Even the state-sponsored housing in this country is bound to be far more comfortable than the pitiful conditions in Lagos etc.

Why weren't they coming here in the 80's Hobbes?

Talliesin

President4Life wrote:

How do you know?

The number of women coming in late into hospitals who weren't Irish. Duh!

Hobbes

President4Life wrote:

But asylum-seekers are barred from working so how are they supposed to pay taxes?

By that train of logic, how the heck are they supposed to be economic migrants when what they get as an asylum seeker is just enough to live on (board, food, pittance of a pocket money).

They live off the State who house them at taxpayer's expense.

Please quote off those expenses each asylum seeker costs. Go on.. I want to make sure you actually know.

Why weren't they coming here in the 80's Hobbes?

Ireland has been accepting Asylum seekers since 1956. AFAIR from 1980s Ireland agreed to accept more refugees/asylum seekers as part of the EU.

dathi1

Ireland has been accepting Asylum seekers since 1956. AFAIR from 1980s Ireland agreed to accept more refugees/asylum seekers as part of the EU.

The amount of people seeking asylum then was negligible. We've had in excess of 11,000 non nationals annually "seeking asylum" via other EU states late 90's - 2002.

Hobbes

He asked why they weren't coming in the 80's. They were and have been since 1956 (which is the earliest recorded time I could find). They increased in the 80's. If you check the recent figures you will see that they are dropping off before the referendum and drastically recently and have been for a while (hence the reason the scaremongers pick a date a few years back. Not directed at you Daithi1).

the_syco

zuma wrote:

a)People with no nationality

They seem to forget where they're from, but where they were from is gastly, and they never want to return there. If you don't know where they came from, they can't be sent back there.

Also if you came from England, got your son/daughter an EU passport (by being born in Ireland), and then went back to England (where you were applying from refugee status) it was all nice and legal.

President4Life wrote:

I find it hard to believe they couldn't have claimed asylum at an earlier country along the route

We're late into this game. France, or example, once took in a few hundred refugee's from Spain, due to some war (before WW1, I think). After that, they proberly set down some ground rules, when political correctness was not the norm. It is now, so we have to hold referendums, and not just make a rule and expect the people of the country to follow it.

President4Life wrote:

Let's call a spade a spade and admit they are economic migrants.

To be an economic migrant, you have to apply to be one. You must have a skill set, that is recongnized by the country you're entering. You must be able to do that job, and prove beforehand that you can. Finally, the goverment has the right to deny your application, if there is no need for that skill set, there is enough people with that skill set already working, or if unemployment is high, thus allowing people in from foreign places will keep unemployment high.

President4Life wrote:

Even the state-sponsored housing in this country is bound to be far more comfortable than the pitiful conditions in Lagos etc.

Why weren't they coming here in the 80's Hobbes?

They were coming in the 80's. Maybe only 20 or so a year, but they were coming.

Also, it costs alot to travel. If they were poor, they would goto where ever it was cheap to goto. If they had enough money, then they could proberly goto the far end of Europe. Oh, we are the far end, aren't we?

bonkey

President4Life wrote:

They are coming here for economic reasons

Yes and no.

They are coming here because there is nothing in the various international agreements regarding asylum which says that they cannot choose their destination according to their means to get there and/or any other factors.

Genuine asylum seekers who come to Ireland are seeking asylum and choosing the nation they would most like to do so in, for whatever reasons. They are fully entitled to do so, despite what begrudgers and others would often have us believe. Whether or not it should be so is another question, but it is not true to say that someone fleeing for their life is an economic migrant because the system allows them the freedom to choose who's door to knock on for help and they choose ours.

Put it another way - given the choice, would you present yourself at a refugee camp in a third-world nation when you could instead legitimately ask a first-world nation to take you in? If not, then why blame others for also doing the same when they are allowed to???

As for the whole citizenship referendum connection....I'm sorry, but I've heard no credible explanation as to how that logic holds. The increase in numbers started before the constitutional amendment which changed citizenship from a judicial to a constitutional issue, and reversed before the so-called citizenship referendum....and yet we are supposed to believe that there is a correlation there and not with the explosive increase in the Irish economy and subsequent global downturn, the dates of which are a far closer match to the increase/fall-off in numbers.

Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a dearth of mathematical / statistical experts offering explanations as to why this time-shifted correlation supposedly makes sense. I'm not saying there's no explanation...just that I haven't heard (or don't recall hearing) a credible one yet. The best thats managed is that somehow the asylum-seekers heard about our referendum before it happened and came here en masse to capitalise on a loophole our own experts hadn't yet forseen, and then decided to stop coming here once they heard that we were going to put a stop to it.

As to the original article...I find it telling that the total number of births etc. remains approximately the same. Are the Irish suddenly going through a burst of virility to make up for the fall-off in foreign nationals presenting? Or is there something to be noticed by the fact that the article constantly singles out the decrease in last minute and late term presentations by foreign nationals? Could it be that these have been significantly reduced and are now replaced by properly scheduled presentations by foreign nationals, and that the total number of births to foreign nationals hasn't actually changed significantly?

Course, that wouldn't make any sort of a story at all. "Foreign nationals now presenting earlier and easing scheduling nightmare" doesn't really allow anyone to conclude anything sensationalistic.....but as an interpretation of the information presented, I'd argue that its no less valid an interpretation, and probably moreso.

At the very least, it shows that the article is heavily lacking on the very detail needed to draw the conclusions that its so clearly trying to point us to.

jc

President4Life

Bonkey, you are not allowed to travel to Ireland on false papers. The vast majority of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland either have no papers or forged ones - underlying the necessity for the government and the EU generally to introduce biometric passports which are harder to forge. To forge current passports you just need to forge a signature.

http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ6D6ER3-en

Destruction and Concealment of Identity and Travel Documents

Section 11B of the Refugee Act 1996 requires the RAC and the RAT, as the case may be to have regard to a broad range of criteria in assessing the credibility of an application. These include:

accounts of identity documents including loss and destruction,
travel history to the State,
failure to seek protection in the first safe country
For instance, some 88% of the 1174 Nigerian nationals without documents stated to ORAC that they travelled by air at some stage in their journey. Large numbers of other nationals are also arriving without travel documents but indicate to ORAC that they travelled by air: Romania 40%; DR Congo 100%; Ukraine 42%; Moldova 33%.

It is almost impossible, for instance, for Nigerians to travel to Europe by air without such documents. There are no direct scheduled air flights between Ireland and Nigeria. The inescapable conclusion is that destruction and concealment of travel documents is a central feature of a well developed trafficking strategy.

A series of joint operations between the GNIB and the UK authorities have thrown up cases of flagrant and often simultaneous abuse of national immigration law. These include individuals intercepted at airports in Belfast and Dublin carrying forged passports/travel documents and persons found to have multiple identities. Several non-nationals were also discovered to have current and previous asylum applications in the United Kingdom and Ireland again in some cases using multiple identities to pursue multiple asylum

It is internationally-recognised that the vast majority for example of Nigerian asylum-seekers (the single biggest source of asylum-seekers in Ireland) are bogus. Observe the following statistics from other EU states compared with Ireland on rates of acceptance of asylum claims, from the Dept. of Justice website:

http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ6D6ER3-en
Recognition Rates

Ireland's recognition rate for refugee status at first instance compares favourably to other European countries as follows:

Denmark 4.9%; Ireland 6.2%; Spain 2.6%; Norway 3.6%; Germany 3.3%; UK 3%.
.....
A good deal of media comment has concentrated on the cases of individual Nigerian applicants and families.

In the case of asylum applications from Nigerian nationals, which represent the highest source country in terms of asylum applications (some 37% of applications in 2004 and 41% in 2005), comparative statistics also indicate that our recognition rate at first instance is very much in line with other European States which receive high volumes of applications from nationals of Nigeria.

Ireland received the second highest number of asylum applications in main industrialised countries from nationals of Nigeria in 2004. The recognition rate at first instance for 2004 is as follows:

Ireland 0.6%; Netherlands 0.6%; Austria 0.3%; Spain 0.1%

Less than 1%, therefore, of all Nigerian national asylum seekers succeed at first instance in the European Union member states that receive most Nigerian applications.

So let's be clear about this. The vast majority of asylum-claims are bogus. They are coming here for economic reasons. In 1992, just 15 people claimed asylum. Last year, 5,000 did so. 11,000 did so in 2002. Let's get real here. They are coming here to find a job. What some on this forum say about "oh they would need skills etc. to get one" is just codswallop. You don't need to be highly skilled to wash dishes for slave pay-rates in some restaurant. But you'd still be earning tonnes more than you would in $1 a day countries like Nigeria. This is economic migration, and includes working illegally.

Yes and no.

They are coming here because there is nothing in the various international agreements regarding asylum which says that they cannot choose their destination according to their means to get there and/or any other factors.

Genuine asylum seekers who come to Ireland are seeking asylum and choosing the nation they would most like to do so in, for whatever reasons. They are fully entitled to do so, despite what begrudgers and others would often have us believe. Whether or not it should be so is another question, but it is not true to say that someone fleeing for their life is an economic migrant because the system allows them the freedom to choose who's door to knock on for help and they choose ours.

Put it another way - given the choice, would you present yourself at a refugee camp in a third-world nation when you could instead legitimately ask a first-world nation to take you in? If not, then why blame others for also doing the same when they are allowed to???

Bonkey, these people are already in the First World long before they get here.

The Dublin II Regulation allows us to send asylum-seekers back to a previous EU country of entry.

http://www.ria.gov.ie/the_asylum_process/dublin_II_regulation/

Dublin II Regulation
WHAT IS THE DUBLIN II REGULATION?

With effect from 1 September 2003, the Dublin II Regulation provides the legal basis for establishing the criteria and mechanism for determining the State responsible for examining an asylum application in one of the Member States of the EU (excluding Denmark but including Iceland and Norway) by a third country national. However, from that date, the Dublin Convention remains in force between Denmark and other Member States of the EU (including Iceland and Norway) (see 4.8 below).

....

WRITTN REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER IN DUBLIN II REGULATION CASES

....

In some cases, applicants may be required to participate in a separate interview relating specifically to the consideration of an application under the Dublin II Regulation. However, more usually, such information will be gathered during the course of the initial interview carried out in accordance with section 8 of the Refugee Act as set out in Section 3.2 above or on foot of fingerprint evidence as set out in Section 3.3.

TIME LIMITS FOR REQUESTS TO OTHER REGULATIONS STATESTO TAKE CHARGE/TAKE BACK APPLICANTS FOR ASYLUM

If at any stage during the course of the investigation of your application, it appears that your application should be dealt with in another Dublin II Regulation State, your application may be dealt with in accordance with the Regulation.

Your cae may be one where Ireland requests another Regulation State to take charge of your application. For example, this would include a transfer for family unity purposes or where another State has issued you with a visa or work permit or where you irregularly crossed the frontier of another Regulation State prior to applying for asylum in Ireland.

Or

Ireland may request that another Regulation State take back your application because, for example, you have made an asylum claim in another Regulation State and that claim has not yet been finalised, or you made an asylum claim in another Regulation State and you withdrew your asylum claim in that State, or your application for asylum was rejected and you are in Ireland without permission....

Other evidence that asylum-seekes coming here are bogus is as follows:

Reporting Requirements

The accelerated procedure includes the use of dedicated accommodation centres and a requirement for residents in these centres to report daily to Reception and Integration Agency staff.

Some 33% of asylum seekers are not complying with this daily reporting requirement. Broken down by nationality this represents 31% of Nigerian nationals; 58% of Romania nationals; 25% of Croatian nationals and 33% of nationals from South Africa.

The accelerated procedure also requires failed asylum applicants to report regularly to the Garda National Immigration Bureau.

46% of those who have failed the asylum process and who are seeking leave to remain in the State have not complied with their daily signing requirement which is broken down as follows: Nigerians 40%; Romanians 91%; Croatians 75%; South Africans 50%.

An analysis of claims from those seeking protection who have been processed under the accelerated procedure and who have been found not to be in need of protection illustrate a significant number of common grounds such as:

Many cite fears of persecution from a secret cult as the basis of their claims. Other reasons for seeking asylum which were cited include:
Fear of local tribal customs as the first born son of a royal family;
Fear of village elders arising from requirement to replace grandmother as head of the village;
Successor to be king after father's death;
Heir to father's throne;
Treated as a domestic servant by his mother's friends;
Sacrifice of first born child;
Fears persecution as he lost money which belonged to his boss
Fear that a former employer may kill her and place body parts around his house;
Fear of persecution for failing to bring home the bodies of deceased family members killed in a fire;
Male members of tribe carry out ritual sacrifices of children.

The site also confirms that over 90% of asylum-claims are unfounded:

the large number of unfounded asylum claims which are being received which represent over 90% of the total asylum applications being processed annually

So please. Enough of the excuses.

supersheep

AndyWarhol wrote:

Sure what newspaper/journalist isn't?

Yeah, but there's a difference between the slight biases of reasonable newspapers and the rabid right-wing views of the Independent (a slight exaggeration, true...). As for the tabloids... don't get me started...
That people are trying to claim that the referendum resulted in a decrease in 'non-national' pregnancies presenting is unsurprising. If you wanted to, in the days before the referendum, you could have read reports saying that the numbers of 'non-national' mothers were negligible. But, of course, they were buried.
There was a survey done just after the referendum, saying that approximately 30% of people surveyed voted in favour of the referendum for racist reasons. Meaning, accounting for turnout and voting population, and assuming everyone else ISN'T, about 10% of the population of this country are WILLING to identify themselves as racists... Wonder why the referendum passed?

bonkey

President4Life wrote:

So please. Enough of the excuses.

Excuses? What excuses?

I questioned the assertion that the drop in late-term presentation by foreign nationals without an accompanying drop in overall births somehow shows that the citizenship referendum was either necessary or a good thing.

I also questioned that "they" are coming here for economic reasons, because "they" are not so simply-defined a group as you suggest. Asylum seekers come here for a variety of reasons, and it benefits no-one to oversimplify to a single issue.

I have not once suggested that there isn't a high number of bogus applications, nor have I given so much as a hint as to what I believe should be done with such cases.

All I have done is refuse to accept that asylum seekers en masse should be classed as economic migrants...without even pointing out that such a classification appears almost deliberately chosen so as to blur the distinction between genuine economic migrants and asylum seekers of any type.

Well, that and point out that there is still nothing connecting the citizenship referendum to the drop in numbers, which - looking at the topic of this thread - would seem to be the more relevant point.

I'm not even saying the correlation isn't there. I'm saying that I have unanswered questions. Attacking me on other fronts doesn't answer those questions, and still leaves me questioning the validity of your initial conclusions.

President4Life

supersheep wrote:

Yeah, but there's a difference between the slight biases of reasonable newspapers and the rabid right-wing views of the Independent (a slight exaggeration, true...). As for the tabloids... don't get me started...
That people are trying to claim that the referendum resulted in a decrease in 'non-national' pregnancies presenting is unsurprising. If you wanted to, in the days before the referendum, you could have read reports saying that the numbers of 'non-national' mothers were negligible. But, of course, they were buried.
There was a survey done just after the referendum, saying that approximately 30% of people surveyed voted in favour of the referendum for racist reasons. Meaning, accounting for turnout and voting population, and assuming everyone else ISN'T, about 10% of the population of this country are WILLING to identify themselves as racists... Wonder why the referendum passed?

I wouldn't agree that the 30% said it was "racist reasons". Nor would I accept that the 27% who cited "Too many immigrants coming into the country" or the 36% who said "The country is being exploited by immigrants" are racist individuals. If the assertions are factually correct, then they are not racist. Political-correctness should not be allowed obscure facts, and no policy areas should be immune from critical debate on the grounds of a fear of offending someone. You can't please all the people all of the time. Whenever a particular issue is sectioned off from political-debate democracy suffers. I personally want tighter controls and fear that the Irish national identity is going to be subsumed if we continue down this road. and I also see the chronic overcrowding of our hospitals due to policies pursued with the support of the Opposition that are actively leading to mass-migration into this country on a scale far higher than the asylum numbers alone, e.g. non-EU work-permits, failure to impose controls on immigration from the new EU member states similar to those imposed by 12 of the original 15 member states.

Regarding the turnout, it was 59% - among the highest turnouts for Irish referenda - and just 1% behind the GFA referendum turnout. There is no reason for assuming that all of those or even a majority of those who stayed at home were opposed to the referendum. Polls had always shown a majority in favour of the Citizenship amendment. The people supported the amendment and in a democracy the people decide and the losers abide.

Originally posted by Bonkey
I questioned the assertion that the drop in late-term presentation by foreign nationals without an accompanying drop in overall births somehow shows that the citizenship referendum was either necessary or a good thing.

I also questioned that "they" are coming here for economic reasons, because "they" are not so simply-defined a group as you suggest. Asylum seekers come here for a variety of reasons, and it benefits no-one to oversimplify to a single issue.

I have not once suggested that there isn't a high number of bogus applications, nor have I given so much as a hint as to what I believe should be done with such cases.

All I have done is refuse to accept that asylum seekers en masse should be classed as economic migrants...without even pointing out that such a classification appears almost deliberately chosen so as to blur the distinction between genuine economic migrants and asylum seekers of any type.

Well, that and point out that there is still nothing connecting the citizenship referendum to the drop in numbers, which - looking at the topic of this thread - would seem to be the more relevant point.

I'm not even saying the correlation isn't there. I'm saying that I have unanswered questions. Attacking me on other fronts doesn't answer those questions, and still leaves me questioning the validity of your initial conclusions.

Why is it, in your view, that we didn't have thousands of asylum-seekers travelling to Ireland in the 1980's? What do you think has changed to lead to so many of them coming here, if not the economic circumstances?

Hobbes

President4Life wrote:

underlying the necessity for the government and the EU generally to introduce biometric passports which are harder to forge.

And here it was me thinking it was because of terrorists.

So let's be clear about this. The vast majority of asylum-claims are bogus. They are coming here for economic reasons.

You mean the ones that come here, refused entry and sent back are for economic reasons?

In 1992, just 15 people claimed asylum. Last year, 5,000 did so. 11,000 did so in 2002. Let's get real here.

Yes lets get real. Post the figures for 2003,2004,2005 (to date). You will find they are going down. Why else did they recently close down 3 refugee centers in Ireland?

But you'd still be earning tonnes more than you would in $1 a day countries like Nigeria. This is economic migration, and includes working illegally.

Not really in relation to the cost of living here.

I don't understand the issue your trying to bring across? That there are too many here? That isn't the case. That there are too many false Asylum seekers? Well they are sent back? That the numbers are dropping because of the referendum? The numbers don't corrolate.

supersheep

President4Life wrote:

I wouldn't agree that the 30% said it was "racist reasons". Nor would I accept that the 27% who cited "Too many immigrants coming into the country" or the 36% who said "The country is being exploited by immigrants" are racist individuals. If the assertions are factually correct, then they are not racist.

I can't remember the survey too well - not as well as you do it seems, unless we're talking about different surveys - but I do remember seeing the survey and working out that a minimum of 10% of people were willing to classify themselves as racist, at least in my mind.
As for saying those statements are factually correct, that is not true. Yes, some immigrants exploit this country. However, saying "the country is being exploited by immigrants" IS racist, because it implies that ALL immigrants exploit the country, and ignores the fact that Irish people exploit it too. As for saying "too many immigrants coming into the country", how do you define too many?

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

Yes lets get real. Post the figures for 2003,2004,2005 (to date). You will find they are going down.

The year before the referendum, the year of the referendum and the year after the referendum. And you were trying to show that the fall in the numbers had nothing to do with the referendum?

That the numbers are dropping because of the referendum? The numbers don't corrolate.

According to the article from the Independent, there was a drop in overall births of about 3% and there was a 'dramatic' drop in the number of immigrants turning up for late deliveries. Until you can give a more plausible explanation for why there were so many immigrants turning up late to give birth prior to the referendum and why the fall-off in numbers coincided with the change in the constitution, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it had something to do with the referendum. The master of the Rotunda hospital himself said in the article that immigrants were coming to Ireland when they were in the late stages of pregnancy and that this has now 'discontinued'.

supersheep wrote:

As for saying "too many immigrants coming into the country", how do you define too many?

I would define 'too many' as being more than what the people want. Until we have a referendum in this country asking people how many immigrants they would like to see entering the country, we'll never know for sure if we have too many. I'm fairly sure though that if we had the chance to vote on it, most Irish people would consider the current number to be too many.

ArthurDent

Macmorris wrote:

I would define 'too many' as being more than what the people want. Until we have a referendum in this country asking people how many immigrants they would like to see entering the country, we'll never know for sure if we have too many. I'm fairly sure though that if we had the chance to vote on it, most Irish people would consider the current number to be too many.

So when we ask people how many immigrants they would like to see entering the country, are you talking about a) immigrants from other EU states entitled to live and work here, b) immigrants from non-EU states that have been given visa's because the work in an industry experiencing shortages of workers, c)asylum seekers or d)refugees?
Cos if that's the question my answer would be

a) we don't have any choice all are entitled to enter
b) we need a huge number particularly in nursing/IT sector
c) and d) I think we have a moral obligation to take those we can afford to help (I personally would like the total number accepted by the EU to be divided up on the basis of GDP, but can't see it happening)

Macmorris

ArthurDent wrote:

a) we don't have any choice all are entitled to enter

Since when did we stop living in a democracy? Of course we have a choice.

b) we need a huge number particularly in nursing/IT sector

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

c) and d) I think we have a moral obligation to take those we can afford to help

The moral obligation to our own people is much greater, especially when you consider that we have plenty of people in this country who are far more deserving of help than bogus asylum-seekers.

ArthurDent

Macmorris wrote:

Since when did we stop living in a democracy? Of course we have a choice. .

Sorry to burst your bubble - if they are EU citizens they have every right to live and work here - same as we have in the other 24 states

Macmorris wrote:

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

We've currently 4.7% unemployment (slightly over 1% long term unemployed) you think this 4% is going to meet employment needs of Ireland? The Government doesn't think so
http://www.entemp.ie/press/2005/20050413.htm

Macmorris wrote:

The moral obligation to our own people is much greater, especially when you consider that we have plenty of people in this country who are far more deserving of help than bogus asylum-seekers.

Agre with you on bogus asylum seekers, but what about genuine refugees and asylum seekers- don't we have a moral obligation to help them?

President4Life

ArthurDent wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble - if they are EU citizens they have every right to live and work here - same as we have in the other 24 states

No. Most of the original EU states imposed controls on immigration from the new EU states, and are allowed to retain them until 2009 after which they can apply to the EU Commission to extend them until 2011. There is nothing stopping us doing the same until they agree to lift their controls. Then the spread of immigrants would be shared more fairly between the rich EU states.

ArthurDent wrote:

you think this 4% is going to meet employment needs of Ireland? The Government doesn't think so
http://www.entemp.ie/press/2005/20050413.htm

The Government and all the political Establishment just say things like that in my opinion because their patrons in industry are looking for cheap labour instead of Irish people who are not prepared to work for 8 euro an hour, and who - largely due to language difficulties - are less aware of their rights under employment legislation in this country. I find it terribly suspicious that, as Seamus Brennan pointed out recently, 120,000 new EU citizens were able to find work so quickly in this country when a similar number are still unemployed. It's because of what I say at the start of this paragraph. We are only sustaining the unemployment of our native people by letting so many in. If the Government removed this stupid cap on medical college places for Irish students then maybe we wouldn't be as hard-pressed to find more health-service workers too.

In this respect see http://www.unison.ie/features/worldcup2002/stories.php?ca=237&si=1091567

u on bogus asylum seekers, but what about genuine refugees and asylum seekers- don't we have a moral obligation to help them?

They should stay in the first EU state they enter.

ArthurDent

President4Life wrote:

No. Most of the original EU states imposed controls on immigration from the new EU states, and are allowed to retain them until 2009 after which they can apply to the EU Commission to extend them until 2011. There is nothing stopping us doing the same until they agree to lift their controls. Then the spread of immigrants would be shared more fairly between the rich EU states..

But here, currently we have no restrictions on immigration or employment from the 10 EU states - so my points stands - ANY EU citizen is fully entitled to be here.

President4Life wrote:

They should stay in the first EU state they enter.

So just because it is practically impossible for Ireland to be the first EU state refugees/asylum seekers enter - we have no moral obligations to them - nice!

President4Life

So just because it is practically impossible for Ireland to be the first EU state refugees/asylum seekers enter - we have no moral obligations to them - nice!

Correct.

ArthurDent

President4Life wrote:

Correct.

Great, at least we know where you stand now - everyone for themselves eh?
Don't hold with the Geneva Convention?http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/protect?id=3c0762ea4

President4Life

President4Life wrote:

There is nothing stopping us doing the same until they agree to lift their controls. Then the spread of immigrants would be shared more fairly between the rich EU states.

What a load of poop.
Practically every large country in the E.U has static or low growth rates compared to Ireland and relatively high unemployment.
We on the other hand need the labour, have low unemployment and money coming out our ears to such an extent that we dont even complain about the price of things much any more.
In other words a completely different circumstance.

You'll have to come up with something more plausable than you have thus far to convince any of us towards your agenda whatever that is...

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

More codswollop,I work with an employment agency that had to go to the Ukraine and Bulgaria pre enlargement to source workers having exhausted all possible avenues here including Fás.
They werent minimum wage jobs either.

the_syco

Macmorris wrote:

Most immigrants who have come here in the last few years are working in low-skilled jobs that could just as easily be filled by unemployed Irish people.

Actually, no. The lazy fúcks on the dole are still on the dole. You can walk into a pub, McDonalds, Burger King, etc, and apply for a job, and get one, if you have a work permit. The scum on the dole never bothered applying. I say scum, as there's alot of people who are on the dole as they physically can't work, due to injury, or mental incapacity, but the lazy fúcks who can, and don't are the scum.

In every low paid job I've been in, I've worked side by side with Pakistaini's, Indian's, Czec's, Polish, and Chinese, and they can work hard. Unemployed Irish? That 1% long term unemployed they speak of: 1% is quite a large number. The other 3% are proberly people on leave, looking for jobs, or in college.

ArthurDent wrote:

So just because it is practically impossible for Ireland to be the first EU state refugees/asylum seekers enter

Correct. You think that people get a direct flight from Africa?

Hobbes

Macmorris wrote:

The year before the referendum, the year of the referendum and the year after the referendum. And you were trying to show that the fall in the numbers had nothing to do with the referendum?

Yes because the drop had already started before the Referendum. The drop started over a court case which basically set a presedent to stop other people abusing the system.

I would define 'too many' as being more than what the people want. Until we have a referendum in this country asking people how many immigrants

We are talking about Asylum seekers. Not immigrants. They are totally different things and the referendum had no effect on immigration.

Wheely

In any case, the refeerendum was a waste of our time and money. It was unnecessary and this shuold have been spotted by the Government and their advisors sas it was by so many other experts. Onreading the Article of the Constitution from which citizenship was derived its perfectly plausible to argue that citizenship rights were never constittuional in nature stemming instead from legislation. All the government had to do if they wanted to tighten out borders or limit asylum seekers was draft a piece of legislation governing it. But instead, as is the Irish way, they caused a big hulabuloo. stirred up these emotions throughout the country and had a referendum! Will they ever learn? Why not go for a fourth referendum on abortion next? The govt, like it or not, did misrepresent figures in their case for the referendum and constantly changed the point and supposede effects of the referendum outcome in orer to confuse the public. It was a sham all round really.

Boston

And there would have been hell to pay for FF if they hadn't asked the people.

supersheep

President4Life wrote:

Correct.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were a refugee... Still every man for himself?

bonkey

Well, as I guessed would happen, the insistence on referring to asylum seekers as immigrants has given some an excuse to discuss actual immigrants as though they are part of the same issue(s).

Clearly, neither the thread-starter nor any other I-can't-or-won't-dsitinguish-immigrants-from-asylum-seekers poster are interested in discussing the supposed topic, and are instead apparently using it (as we've seen all too often before) as nothing more than a platform to launch yet another tired broadside against all those foreigners they don't want in their country.

For me, at least, thats the time to walk away - I've better things to waste my time on.

jc