How will you vote in the Citizenship referendum?

"How will changing the constitution help to deport people who have already had their applications for asylum rejected?" (tommy Vercetti)


I didn't say it would. The point I am making is that it will deter future asylum-seekers who would otherwise hope to strengthen their own asylum-claims by having a child born in Ireland with no Irish parent.


"As it stands, having an Irish born child gives no extra status to potential asylum seekers/immigrants." (Frank Grimes)


Theory and practice do not always coincide. In spite of the 2003 Supreme Court Judgement saying that a non-EU national of an Irish-born child does not automatically qualify for Irish citizenship, there is still a tendency for an asylum-seeker to travel to Ireland in the hope that giving birth to an Irish-born child will cause the authorities to look more sympathetically on that mother's application. Someone here keeps asking me can I give a specific example of a case where this was so. Naturally, a judge is not going to come out and say "I am granting you asylum for emotional reasons". That doesn't stop it happening, however.

The reason we need to bring our citizenship-law into line with the rest of Europe is to prevent Ireland being more attractive as a destination for illegal-immigrants compared to other EU states. The Irish taxpayer is subsidising these people. That is the main issue - not race. I have no objection to a non-EU national being here if it is via a work-permit, as this is LEGAL migration. The problem with asylum-seeking is that on the one hand, the asylum-seeker is not allowed to work, whereas on the other hand, the Irish taxpayer pays for them to be accommodated, as well as othe forms of SW, which, while in terms of direct payments may not be very high per person, need to be seen in the context of the free housing which we are paying for. Not to mention the huge expense to the Health-Service of treating the huge increase in infectious diseases e.g. syphillis, being brought in primarily by immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa (the recent doubling of annual HIV cases in Ireland was reported in the Irish media as being 85% due to immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa). They can get treated in whatever other EU state they entered en-route to Ireland.

The point I was trying to make is that the 350 million Euro a year is a recurring cost per annum, because at the current deportation-rate of 5% per annum, it will take 500 years to deport the current number of asylum-seekers already living here (!). So we dont particularly want to have the burden every year of paying for them AND whatever future asylum-seekers are arriving here.

"Why don't we just stop foreign people coming in altogether. They all have the potential to abuse our systems.
What about all the Irish people that abuse the social welfare system too, what should we do about them?" (Frank Grimes)

The legal-immigrants here on work-permits are working for their pay. As such they lack the kind of incentive an asylum-seeker compulsorily living off the State has to abuse the system. While I agree that some abuse exists among Irish people in terms of the SW system, I simply add that we have enough problems with them without making the problem worse by allowing non-EU nationals the potential to do so.

"Do you not think there are more widespread problems in this country that need to be addressed first?" (Frank Grimes)

It is because there are far more important things to be spending money on than freeloading asylum-seekers that we need to get tough on citizenship/benefit tourism that acts as the main incentive for asylum-seekers to come here. Then we wont forever be having to spend untold of amounts of money on them. We will instead be able to spend it on the Health-Service, School repairs, roads etc.

Dept. of Justice figures on 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 being pregnant on arrival in Ireland hardly constitutes "speculation", not does the expense of 350 million euro to the public-purse.

"Would you like to re-do the maths there? It might make your claims more believeable. 1 year /5% = 20 years

Also, "asylum-seeker" is not the same as "illegal immigrant". You seem to repeat the mistake so often that I can only conclude you either don't understand the meaning of your words or you are deliberately obfuscating."

At 5% per annum, that means 20 years to deport all those that arrived here last year alone. Alright then so that means 100 years to deport all those that have arrived here so far. Sorry about that littlke mix up but thats still demonstrative of how difficult it is to deport the illegals we've already got let alone more, never mind the costs involved.

Actually Victor, the Dublin Convention 1981 alone makes virtually all asylum-seekers here illegal by virtue of the fact that they passed through other EU states before coming here. Remember the DC states you must only claim asylum in the first EU country of entry. Even if they were genuinely fleeing persecution in the beginning, they should only be claiming asylum in the first EU state of entry. Since that cannot possibly be Ireland, that alone renders them virtually all illegal.

The current system effectively grants partial citizenship of ALL 25 EU states by granting Irish citizenship to the children of asylum-seekers who give birth here. I feel that this circumvents the citizenship laws of the other EU states and as such is undemocratic. Not to mention allowing the potential for Chinese triads, the Russian mafia, Nigerian criminal gangs, not to mention Al-Qaeda, to gain a foothold in this state. Certainly Nigerian gangs have already begun doing so.

What I mean is that such gangs could simply bring over their pregnant girlfriend in the hope of getting residency rights here. I am not suggesting that they are going to own up to being a member of a triad! But it stands to reason that such gangs will exploit such loopholes as ours to get a foothold in what Al-Qaeda considers the "Infidel" West.

You are supposed to seek refuge in the FIRST EU state of entry. Only. I refute the argument that we have a responsibility to those which, having already reached refuge, then choose to leave the first refuge to cross through 6 or 7 countries in Western Europe to arrive in Ireland. They had it long before arriving here. And most did not need it anyway. You only have to read the list of countries that the majority of the asylum-seekers come from.

"You also seem to be confusing (once again!) this referendum with the rights of asylum seekers. This has nothing to do with to do with claiming asylum. Please stick to the point of the referendum.

Also you missed an option in the poll.
3. Denied the right to vote (despite paying tax for 7 years) merely an EU citizen..." (MadSL)

This referendum is very relevant to the asylum-seeker issue because our citizenship law encourages many asylum-seekers to come here in the hope that giving birth to an Irish-born child will strengthen their asylum-claim. Last year's Supreme Court Judgement is insufficient deterrant, especially when you consider that over 4,000 non EU-nationals trying to get to Ireland were prevented from doing so last year. As already mentioend an asylum-seeker is not allowed to work. So talk of asylum-seeking benefiting the economy seems peculiar, especially given the exorbitant cost to the taxpayer of buying up accommodation for them.

On the "denied the right to vote" issue, I point out that as an EU citizen, you are entitled to vote in local and European elections. Indeed, if you are born in NI you are also an Irish citizen and as such are entitled to vote in the referendum too. I do not understand what point you are trying to make with that claim. Could you explain please? This is not relevant to the referendum either given the aforementioned sentences.