Neil3030 wrote: » so a quick show of hands - ireland switching to left hand drive, yay or nay?
awec wrote: » We’ll win all round us when we no longer have the chains of Dublin 4 coiled tightly around us, holding us back.
Rigor Mortis wrote: » Will Heineken be sponsoring the Challenge Cup in your future nirvana
awec wrote: » After we’d just won our fourth Heineken cup in a row.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Ulster rugby CEO Awec in 5 years time: "Millner-Skudder is no longer welcome in Belfast - someone replaced him on the plane with an imposter, he is released from his contract, ULSTER SAYS NO".
Zzippy wrote: » If I won it my corporate box on the halfway line in Ravenhill would have a Harp tap made of solid gold...
awec wrote: » If I won it the secession of Ulster Rugby from its tyrannical oppressors would be pretty high on my agenda of philanthropy.
awec wrote: » If any of you won that 175 million remember your lovely moderators who have long protected you from trolls and spammers.
CatFromHue wrote: » Well legally he isn't. As far as I know the laws we have in place are standard in the rest of Europe too. If we were to run the referendum again I'm not sure if the result would change, it might end up closer but I'm not sure if it would change. Why is sending someone to China an extreme punishment? I know people who've moved there and seem quite happy.
Deleted User wrote: » If I recall correctly I think the number of children born to non EU nationals actually went up after that referendum not down. Whilst there was obviously people taking advantage of the practice - I'm willing to bet it was also quite overblown similar to the 'Crisis' at the US southern border. Either way - the referendum aside, that kid is Irish and I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise. He didn't do anything other than be born and sending him to China is an extreme punishment for someone that is entirely innocent in the circumstances. If that means the mother has to stay here then so be it - but we need to amend the law to facilitate these kinds of situations. It's hard to stay off the grid for any length of time and also legitimately prove you've been in the country or were born here. We can legislate for the outliers - it will almost always turn out to be cases like this or the kid in Sligo.
troyzer wrote: » Lads, we can't allow this. We're all on the internet and seem to agree on the bleeding lefty side of the issue. This isn't right. Think I'll dip into 4chan for a bit.
Dave_The_Sheep wrote: » It's the Home Office, they're a law unto themselves. Politics trumps actual laws there.
CatFromHue wrote: » To play Devil's Advocate, as we're all getting on so well, that was an interesting case. It was the Mam, I don't know the Father situation, who was being deported and as he was her dependent he would be too. It wasn't the case that he was being sent off by himself, though it did sound like that from what you read. As the Mam was not an Irish citizen it's safe to assume she was Chinese and as he was her son would be entitled to Chinese citizen citizenship and not being the person of no country you would be led to believe he would from what you read. I assume this so could be wrong. It's easy to see why it would have gotten some people's back up as we voted, whether you agree with it now or not, directly for this to happen. We didn't vote ages ago for it either, only 14 years. Then you had so many TDs and talking heads saying we should break the law and even Matt Cooper's The Last Word officially backed the kid too with any dissent deemed racist. Even though it's directly what is the law. Michael McDowell was on Newstalk Breakfast to discuss why the referendum was held in the first place and fairly handed Kieran Cuddihy's arse to him with what was happening at the time regarding, this isn't a nice phrase but it is the one used, anchor babies.