Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Immigration Referendum
Options
Comments
-
Originally posted by irish1
I don't think it is a wind up, I know a lot of educated people who say the same.
If anyone calls them racist they simply say, "If wanting to get rid of refugees makes me racist, then I'm racist"
In fairness capistrano it is there opinion, you may not like it but their entitled to it.
I have to say I am begining to get a little annoyed at the amount of refugees getting to have nice big houses in Carlow town, I've been working since I was 14 and I can't afford to get a shabby little house not to mention one worth over €160,000
At least people could give reasons for their opinions. That bloke just said he wanted them out. Also, he clearly wasn't following the issue if he had to ask which way to vote - but I guess that's not a crime.
As regards the house, maybe if you had a dependent wife, 4 kids and no home, then Carlow county council would give you a house too. Not to own mind you, I presume you were talking about buying yourself a house.0 -
lol, I've posted about this before, back a few pages,Originally posted by capistrano
At least people could give reasons for their opinions. That bloke just said he wanted them out. Also, he clearly wasn't following the issue if he had to ask which way to vote - but I guess that's not a crime.
As regards the house, maybe if you had a dependent wife, 4 kids and no home, then Carlow county council would give you a house too. Not to own mind you, I presume you were talking about buying yourself a house.A friend of mine had a child about 2 years ago, she's living with her sister in a small flat, she's been on the council's house waiting list since the child was born she still hasn't got one, a family of immigrants arrived in town about a year ago, they were in a flat for a while then got a council house.
I can understand they need to put in to accomadation, but the houses there been put into is a joke.
I take your point about him not giving reasons or not reading the thread0 -
Ok this may have been covered in the previous 14 pages but I do not have time to trail back thru it.
My personal opinion is this. Ireland is severely lacking a proper immigration policy. I think it is wise to put some kind of proviso in place for granted citzenship. However what I fear is this government are using this referendum as a smokescreen to try and lever a better result in the European and Local Elections, I guess they have now found an alternative to the good old faithfuls divorce and abortion referendums.
What I would like to see is this referendum being held up until there is a proper debate about immigration policy in total and this government present a plan for a co-ordinated immigration policy.
Gandalf.0 -
The ordinary members of the general public have been debating this matter for donkey's years, and should not be forced to wait any longer. The nature of the Irish political system is that with the exception of EU and NI related issues, our main parties in opposition to each other are incapable of putting the national-interest first and putting aside their differences. Iti s very telling that Labour and FG are refraining from criticising the Govt's proposal and are instead concentrating on criticising the timing. They obviously feel privately that criticising the Govt's proposals will alienate voters, including many of their own. maybe electoral considerations are part of the Govt's motivation for holding this vote on the same day as the local and European elections, but that doesn't mean that the substance of the proposed amendment is wrong. I personally will be voting "Yes" and for an Independent so I am obviously capable of decoupling the referendum question from party-political considerations. As such I imagine most people are too.0
-
This item below, coupled with the proposed referendum, might just see the start of a sensible approach to immigration. Its just a pity that the Government seems to deny the obvious until the last minute, and then decide policy on the basis of the last soundbite.
The referendum should proceed, and I will be voting yes. I can’t see any argument leading to the conclusion that citizenship be granted to children of persons entering the country illegally. But we should have an open and welcoming immigration policy, including the granting of citizenship to children of people who have legally entered the country and made their home here.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/04/16/story143141.html
Tánaiste promises new work permits for exploited immigrants
16/04/2004 - 10:53:49 AM
The Tánaiste, Mary Harney, has promised to give new work permits to any immigrants who are being exploited by their current employer in Ireland.
In a radio interview this morning, Ms Harney said: "If there are people out there who are currently unhappy because the pay and conditions or the terms under which they came are not being fulfilled, if they contact my department we will give them a permit to work elsewhere.
"We don’t want anybody here to have a bad experience in Ireland."
The Government’s work permit system has been widely criticised as the permit itself is held by the employer, thereby preventing migrant workers from seeking alternative employment if they are unhappy with their existing situation.0 -
Advertisement
-
Has nothing to do with the referendum.Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Furthermore, an asylum-seeker will not be allowed to apply for citizenship unless they have lived here for 3 years.0 -
Early on in this thread, I mentioned that I was undecided, and hoped I'd get a few arguments for or against. I still haven't made up my mind totally, but I'm leaning towards voting 'no'. Please feel free to point out any holes in my thought process (not that you need an invitation...)
Anyway, there seems to be one reason for considering a 'yes' vote; bringing us into line with the rest of Europe. However, this isn't really a valid reason, to my mind; there is no consistent European policy. I wrote to the fine people at Europe Direct, and they pointed me at two pages; here and here. As you can see, each country can decide its own policy, and I don't see why ours should be more restrictive than others'. justice.ie has a partial list of other countries' citizenship requirements, if you haven't read it yet.
The reasons for voting no, I reckon, include the following...
- Yes, 57% of foreigners arrived pregnant. So what? There's no way of knowing how many of those were asylum seekers, no way of knowing how much was due to cultural factors (it's not so long since ten children were common in Irish families), no way of knowing how much of that will go away when word gets out that the parents won't be allowed stay based on their children... I could go on about the flaws in this argument, but others have done that for me.
- As has been pointed out by those for and against, our immigration policy is in a mess. If this were sorted out, there'd be no need for a referendum.
- A figure of €350m was mentioned. I've no idea whether this is accurate, but let's assume it is. Why is this referendum going to change that? What percentage of it went on people who got the money solely because they had a child born in the country? And how much of that is offset by those willing to work, pay taxes and fill jobs no-one already here wants?
- No-one has explained why they're so convinced that the children born in this country are all going to grow up to be spongers, sucking on the EU's bountiful tit. Nor have they explained why such numbers as we're talking about are such a problem in a Europe of over 300 million.
- Finally, the question of citizenship. I find it extraordinary that no-one considers one of the primary reasons for becoming a citizen of a country is that they're born in that country. To my mind, this should be first on any list.
- No-one's considered the Northern Ireland peace process in all this. As Paisley was quick to point out, this is effectively changing the good friday agreement without consultation with our northern buddies.
I've done my best to ignore the torrents of shite coming from some parties, and judge the arguments on their merits, but damn; some of you made it difficult. All in all, the referendum text isn't bad; nor is the bill supporting it. However, I just don't think it's necessary, and the constitution isn't something you should change because of some vocal whiners on a subject that'll probably be forgotten a decade from now.0 -
rde says "Yes, 57% of foreigners arrived pregnant. So what? There's no way of knowing how many of those were asylum seekers.."
Actually rde, the 57% figure relates to asylum-seekers, not non-nationals as a whole. And anyone with a dram of intelligence knows why they are coming here in the late stages of pregnancy. It cannot be mere coincidence when it has happened year after year after year. It is because they know that by having their babies in this country, it A:Gives automatic citizenship to their babies and B:Helps emotionally persuade the judicial establishment to obstruct their deportation and/or grant them citizenship. May I add that many illegal-immigrants are bypassing the asylum-system in the first place and coming here anyway with the intention of having children in the hope of getting citizenship anyway.
You refer to the 350 million euro and argue that voting "Yes" will not reduce this number. However, it may prevent future substantial increases in this bill by deterring illegal-immigrants from coming here. Remember that this bill came about over a relatively short 6 year period. We have to ask ourselves wouldn't this money be better spent on our Health-Service than on illegal-immigrants who have already crossed 6 or 7 perfectly safe, democratic, Western European countries. The Dublin Convention 1981 expressly forbids an asylum-seeker from claiming asylum in multiple EU states or from making asylum-claims in more than the first EU state they enter. If any of these asylum-seekers were genuinely fleeing persecution, then they reached safety when they landed in Italy, Spain, France, or Greece. In relation to Irish immigration to the United States, may I remind certain people that A:When the bulk of Irish immigrants went there in the 1800's, they were most certainly NOT greeted with free housing and generous social-welfare. and B:Unlike Ireland, the USA and the UK have huge populations and thus a taxbase that is far more able to afford large-scale immigration than that of Ireland. So people making that argument are not comparing like with like.
You say that bringing Ireland into line with the rest of the EU is insufficient reason to vote "Yes". I disagree. The EU-15 is a free-movement zone, and once you get citizenship in one EU state, that entitles you to EU citizenship throughout the EU. There is currently a ridiculous court-case in Britain of a Chinese women who had a child born in Ireland. She is arguing that she is automatically entitled to British citizenship because her child is an Irish-citizen. Whatever you may think about our right to award citizenship to non-nationals, surely it is not acceptable that our current system goes over the heads of 14 other governments by deciding who shall be citizens of their respective countries too?
I will now address your comments on the supposed "threat" to the GFA from this referendum. Unknown to many NI politicians, the changes to our Constitution under this referendum are to Article 9, not to Articles 2 and 3. Articles 3 and 3 relate to the GFA, whereas Article 9 does NOT. Article 9 will say if this (as seems likely) is passed, that automatic citizenship will only be given to a child if one of its parents are Irish. In addition, Dail Eireann will be returned its pre-1998 democratic-right to make laws on the citizenship issue. I feel that this adequately protects the citizenship-rights of NI Nationalists, because the GFA requires the Southern state to enshrine this in law, and does not specifically link the changes in Articles 2 and 3 (which nowhere contain the word "citizenship") to the citizenship issue. Either the fact that one of the parents of the child were born on this island themselves, or the fact that the Dail will have the power to legislate in accordance with the GFA to enshrine Northerners' citizenship of this state, will, in my firm opinion, suffice.0 -
Oops, so it does. But my other points on this figure remain.Actually rde, the 57% figure relates to asylum-seekers, not non-nationals as a whole.
This 'emotional blackmail' argument has appeared several times in this thread; it's never seemed convincing. Are you aware of any instances where a judge has granted citizenship or blocked deportation solely on the basis of an Irish sprog? If so, how many?It is because they know that by having their babies in this country, it A:Gives automatic citizenship to their babies and B:Helps emotionally persuade the judicial establishment to obstruct their deportation and/or grant them citizenship.
Like I said: we've already got sufficient laws to deal with this; they just have to be acted on. This is a compelling argument against the constitution. If you've got a perfectly good law and aren't acting on it, the correct action isn't to implement another law, especially a constitutional change.The Dublin Convention 1981 expressly forbids an asylum-seeker from claiming asylum in multiple EU states or from making asylum-claims in more than the first EU state they enter. If any of these asylum-seekers were genuinely fleeing persecution, then they reached safety when they landed in Italy, Spain, France, or Greece.
I suspect that case will be thrown out; the EU law on citizenship is outlined in the two docs I referenced previously, and I didn't notice any basis for this claim. But in any case, we shouldn't be changing our constitution on the basis of what other judiciaries may decide.Whatever you may think about our right to award citizenship to non-nationals, surely it is not acceptable that our current system goes over the heads of 14 other governments by deciding who shall be citizens of their respective countries too?
That's a pretty specious argument. As you're well aware, the amendment to article 9 will refer to article 2, with the whole point of changing the effect of the latter. In essence, changing the GFA without consultation. Irrespective of its effect on our Nordy brethern, this is a change, and one that shouldn't be implemented without consultation.Unknown to many NI politicians, the changes to our Constitution under this referendum are to Article 9, not to Articles 2 and 3.0 -
"we've already got sufficient laws to deal with this; they just have to be acted on." says rde about my point on the Dublin Convention 1981.
rde, the reason it is not being implemented is more than likely because the first countries of entry of these asylum seekers do not want to hold onto the burden of paying them all social-welfare, free-housing etc. That argument of yours doesn't wash. They have no real incentive to do anything about this. The remaining EU states do. Like us. So we should vote "Yes" to deal with it. The actual implementation of treaties tends to be down to the individual signaturies and unless they all get their act together, this treaty itself will count for nothing.0 -
Advertisement
-
No. She was arguing for a right to remain in the UK, not citizenship. You fail to note her claim was declined. You and others are presistently equating the two ("right to remain" and "citizenship") despite having been notified of the discrepancy in your arguments. Unless you can come up with some way to explain this discrepancy, I can only deduce that this decption is deliberate.Originally posted by arcadegame2004
There is currently a ridiculous court-case in Britain of a Chinese women who had a child born in Ireland. She is arguing that she is automatically entitled to British citizenship because her child is an Irish-citizen.0 -
That's why we have such bodies as the European Court of Justice. I'll concede that there'd be a point in the referendum if those courts ruled against Ireland (or rather, in favour of the countries of first entry). But as far as I'm aware, there's been no such ruling. Or even a court case. So why are we trying to change the constitution when other avenues could easily accommodate your concerns?the reason it is not being implemented is more than likely because the first countries of entry of these asylum seekers do not want to hold onto the burden of paying them all social-welfare, free-housing etc. That argument of yours doesn't wash. They have no real incentive to do anything about this.0 -
What other avenues could solve this problem?0
-
Did you read anything other than the last few words of my previous post? Particularly the words 'European', 'Court' and 'Justice'?What other avenues could solve this problem?
Unless, of course, you're implying that the Irish and/or British government has taken the countries in question to the ECJ, and were ruled against. If that's the case, how about pointing to the ruling?0 -
I hate the attitude most Irish people seem to have that the consitution is some sort of sacrosanct document that we should change only rarely and with extreme caution. In my opinion the constitution is a very flawed document, full of DeValera principles and values. We would probably be better off with a whole new consitituion, one that could be changed with a two-thirds majority in the oireachtas. Asking the people to vote on consitutional changes if very crude. Let's face it, most people who will vote will not understand the issues.Originally posted by rde
So why are we trying to change the constitution when other avenues could easily accommodate your concerns?0 -
quote:
Originally posted by arcadegame2004
There is currently a ridiculous court-case in Britain of a Chinese women who had a child born in Ireland. She is arguing that she is automatically entitled to British citizenship because her child is an Irish-citizen.
quote:
Originally posted by Victor
No. She was arguing for a right to remain in the UK, not citizenship. You fail to note her claim was declined. You and others are presistently equating the two ("right to remain" and "citizenship") despite having been notified of the discrepancy in your arguments. Unless you can come up with some way to explain this discrepancy, I can only deduce that this decption is deliberate.
*****************
Her claim might have been denied but she is currently appealing to the European Court of Justice.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independ...&issue_id=10683
"THE controversial issue of Irish citizenship has taken a new twist, as voters in the Republic indicate strong support for the plan to remove automatic citizenship from Irish-born children of foreign nationals.
A Chinese woman whose baby was born in Northern Ireland, on the advice of English-based lawyers, is arguing in the European Court of Justice that the child is an Irish citizen and is entitled to residence in the UK under EU legislation. Man Levette Chen claims she too is entitled to residency in the UK with her dependent child Kunqian Catherine Zhu, born in Belfast on September 16, 2000.
Their European Court case challenges an order of the British Home Secretary refusing them the right to reside in Britain.
This new legal move by non-nationals claiming Irish citizenship and follow-on EU residency rights, comes as the results of a Sunday Independent/Millward Brown IMS opinion poll shows a clear majority backing the move to withhold automatic citizenship to the children of non-nationals born here."
*****************
Even if her challenge fails, her child's children and grandchildren will be entitled to Irish citizenship. Does that sound right to you?0 -
Why is this such a problem? Why is everyone so convinced that these possible descendents - who are as Irish as someone born in Ireland to two Irish parents but living abroad most of their lives - are going to be such a massive drain on society that we need to enact a constitutional change to keep them out?Even if her challenge fails, her child's children and grandchildren will be entitled to Irish citizenship. Does that sound right to you?
Going back a post or two...
Simple. The constitution is the basis for our law, and as such is the only instrument available to the great unwashed to have their say (I don't want to hear 'that's why we elect governments' from anyone who's ever, ever complained about reneging on election promises). The constitution provides limits on what governments can and can't do, and once we change the constitution to let governments decide on a certain policy, we lose control over that area forever.I hate the attitude most Irish people seem to have that the consitution is some sort of sacrosanct document that we should change only rarely and with extreme caution. In my opinion the constitution is a very flawed document, full of DeValera principles and values. We would probably be better off with a whole new consitituion, one that could be changed with a two-thirds majority in the oireachtas.
Let's assume that the 'no' voters are right, and that this constitutional change won't result in any change in immigration numbers. What's to stop the government introducing another bill, one that says you can only be a citizen if you're born in the country, live here for ten years and have two fully-employed parents earning at least €80k a year? That's an extreme example, but one that I think illustrates my point.
QED.Asking the people to vote on consitutional changes if very crude. Let's face it, most people who will vote will not understand the issues.0 -
I would like to put forward another aspect of the argument for a "Yes" vote and for tighter controls on illegal-immigration generally. A humanitarian case. I want to debunk the myth that the Left has a myth on compassion and humanitarianism.
The Left (oe hard-left anyway) argue that a "No" vote is unhumanitarian by keeping some from having a better life than in the Third World. They also argue that we can benefit from the fact that many of immigrants from the Third World are higgly-skilled.
I argue however that by encouraging mass-migration of skilled-labour from the Third to the First World, we are actually encouraging a "brain-drain", which will actually hamper the prospects for economic-growth in the Third World. To do this would be a new form of Western imperialism in their countries. Another resource stolen from them, after Western states stole their lands and resources, now we would be stealing their people, many of whom end up working in sweat-shop and low-pay conditions in the West. A double injustice surely.
The Filipino Government is reported now as trying to discourage Filipino nurses from emigrating to work in the West. The large-scale flows of Filipino nurses has caused a severe shortgage of nurses in the Phillipines. This is not exactly helpful to a country ravaged by the scourge of AIDS.
Another reason to vote "Yes".0 -
I argue however that by encouraging mass-migration of skilled-labour from the Third to the First World, we are actually encouraging a "brain-drain", which will actually hamper the prospects for economic-growth in the Third World.
This is a particular problem in the nursing sector; the UK is drafting in nurses from all over the world and a lot of countries - India in particular - are suffering because of it.
But let's face it. If you've got a skill that's needed, you can get in to any European country without a problem. This referendum won't have the slightest effect on the the immigration of a skilled workforce.0 -
I disagree. A "Yes" vote will deter immigrants including skilled immigrants, meaning they are more likely to stay in their own countries and contribute there. How are the Third World ever going to progress economically and in other ways if we poach all their skilled workers?0
-
Advertisement
-
Why? It seems to me a salary that can be as much as an order of magnitude higher is a bigger draw to a country than citizenship for any children they may decide to have.I disagree. A "Yes" vote will deter immigrants including skilled immigrants, meaning they are more likely to stay in their own countries and contribute there.0 -
The referendum is not really about immigration, and probably irrelevant to the choice of destination of high skilled workers from third world countries. If I was emigrating from the third world I’d probably prefer a location with less ambient hostility to outsiders than Ireland, notwithstanding the possibility of citizenship for my children.
What the referendum is about, pure and simple, is closing an unintended loophole in the constitution. For all the shouting over the impact on the Good Friday Agreement, the Government’s have been able to point to the Annex to the British-Irish Agreement below as showing there is no conflict. We just have a dumb wording in the Constitution which needs to be changed. It has nothing to do with our policy on immigration, which is also shoddy, or with our lack of openness as a nation to other races, which would make you weep on occasion.
However, if we get this issue settled it might be possible to address those concerns in a clearer light.
ANNEX 2 Declaration on the Provisions of Paragraph (vi) of Article 1 In Relationship to Citizenship
The British and Irish Governments declare that it is their joint understanding that the term "the people of Northern Ireland" in paragraph (vi) of Article 1 of this Agreement means, for the purposes of giving effect to this provision, all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.0 -
Interesting Irish Independent article which seems to vindicate Minister McDowell:
"Non-national births 'demand another maternity hospital'
THE Masters of Dublin's three major maternity hospitals were so concerned about the number of non-nationals giving birth that they felt the projected numbers would warrant a fourth major maternity facility.
Documents and records seen by the Irish Independentalso show that the Master of the Rotunda hospital said it was "surprising that there had not been a major catastrophe within the maternity services as yet".
Records of a meeting between Justice Minister Michael McDowell and two of the three masters of Dublin maternity hospitals show the Master of the Rotunda, Dr Michael Geary, saying that the high rate of infectious diseases among non-nationals had huge cost implications for the maternity hospitals.
An official note of the meeting held in the Department of Justice on October 18, 2002, also confirms that the masters and the ministers discussed the legal and constitutional position of the immigration laws.
A record of the meeting shows that the minister accepted their view that the situation had become untenable and he was concerned it would fuel racism among the Irish population if the situation wasn't addressed.
It also emerged from a record of a meeting the following July that "the masters went on to say that the projected number of non-national giving birth in Dublin is sufficient to warrant a fourth major maternity facility in the city".
The detailed correspondence and records of meetings fully support Mr McDowell's claim that the Dublin maternity hospitals were urgently and deeply concerned about the increasing numbers of pregnant non-national women turning up to give birth.
Although some of the masters were reported as saying they had sought resources from the Minister for Justice, the record of a meeting of the Joint Hospital Committee of the three major Dublin maternity hospitals in July 2003 shows they were seeking to "tighten up controls in the immigration". "0 -
Or were born on Dublin's southside to "suitable" parents, attended a private school, voted for the right candidates ....Originally posted by rde
What's to stop the government introducing another bill, one that says you can only be a citizen if you're born in the country, live here for ten years and have two fully-employed parents earning at least €80k a year?
This is why the Dublin convention doesn't work (aside from breaching the refugee treaties).
http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/3044345?view=EircomnetAfghans disband team after asylum bid
From:Reuters
Tuesday, 20th April, 2004
KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan has disbanded its national soccer team after nine players disappeared from a training camp in Italy last week, an official says.
Six of the players have been arrested in Germany, where they sought asylum, and Italy has promised to hand them over to Afghan authorities soon, the official said, adding they would be punished for "damaging Afghans' honour".
"We have scrapped the team and plan to bring in new players instead after their shameful act," Halim Kohistani, head of Afghanistan's football federation, told Reuters on Tuesday.
"Italy has promised to hand over to us six of them who were arrested in Germany and we will punish them 100 percent when they return, after consulting the police and the court."
A series of games planned in Italy, the Afghan team's first appearance in Europe for 20 years, was aimed at raising money for Afghan orphans, Kohistani said.
Football is a popular sport among Afghans.
Although nearly 25 years of war and occupation ended with the collapse of the Taliban in 2001, the country remains impoverished and racked by violence from militants and warlords.
The last time an Afghan athlete sought asylum was in 1996 during the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Boxer Mohammed Jawid Aman was granted asylum.0 -
Originally posted by Victor
quote:
Originally posted by rde
What's to stop the government introducing another bill, one that says you can only be a citizen if you're born in the country, live here for ten years and have two fully-employed parents earning at least €80k a year?
Or were born on Dublin's southside to "suitable" parents, attended a private school, voted for the right candidates ....
Whatever you say lads.:rolleyes:0 -
quote:
Originally posted by rde
What's to stop the government introducing another bill, one that says you can only be a citizen if you're born in the country, live here for ten years and have two fully-employed parents earning at least €80k a year?
rde, at least then it would be our elected government and parliament making that decision rather than being lumbered with a system designed in 1998 which was intended to protect NI Nationalists but which has instead benefited illegal-immigrants.
As I have said, the Dail lost its power in 1998 to decide laws on citizenship. In 1998 we were at the very early stages of the mass-migration of immigrants to this country. The world has changed since September 11th 2001, Bali and Madrid. We can no longer afford to take the chance that terrorists will not use our asylum-systems to infiltrate our country and plan attacks on other states. It is known that some of the September 11th hijackers, including Mohammad Atta, had Irish passports. We have long since discovered that the September 11th attacks were planned in Europe, and tha tthe Madrid attacks were apparently planned in Britain. With Sellafield just 150 miles from the Irish capital we do NOT need terrorists abusing our system to plan an attack on Britain. Newspaper reports have put Sellafield at the top of Al-Qaeda's target-list.
I ask this question and I ask for an answer and please no more rhetorical questions in answer to factual ones. Yes or No. Do you believe that the rest of Europe is racist because, unlike Ireland, it does not allow citizenship solely on the basis of birth? And do you believe the Ireland was racist before 1998 when our democratically elected parliament had the right to decide on citizenship itself? Because like it or not, this is the conclusion which the "No" side are aiming towards when they label this amendment "racist".0 -
Are you suggestign by omission that it only benefits illegal-immigrants to the exclusion of NI Nationalists and others?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
a system designed in 1998 which was intended to protect NI Nationalists but which has instead benefited illegal-immigrants.
Sorry, but the people are sovereign, not the Dáil. Previously the Dáil has voted to give FF a permanent majority (by abolishing PR-STV), only the constitution and having to have a referend prevented them.Originally posted by arcadegame2004
As I have said, the Dail lost its power in 1998 to decide laws on citizenship.
Has it? Really? Or is it just some people's perception of the world?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
In 1998 we were at the very early stages of the mass-migration of immigrants to this country. The world has changed since September 11th 2001, Bali and Madrid.
Your search - "Mohammad Atta" "Irish passport" - did not match any documents. How were these obtained? Would they be stopped from obtaining them by the proposed referendum?Originally posted by arcadegame2004
We can no longer afford to take the chance that terrorists will not use our asylum-systems to infiltrate our country and plan attacks on other states. It is known that some of the September 11th hijackers, including Mohammad Atta, had Irish passports.
I can see the headlines now "Sellafield blown up because Ukranian baby born in Rotunda" :rolleyes:Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Newspaper reports have put Sellafield at the top of Al-Qaeda's target-list.0 -
A slight mix-up. Even so, one of Mohammad Atta's co-plotters (if not co-hijackers) did have an Irish passport and our state may way have been used for some of the plotting. Read:
"Sunday Business Post: > 2004/03/14 > Spanish bombs: Irish al-Qaeda suspects to be investigated.....a leading al- Qaeda figure in Spain has an Irish passport and was reportedly linked with a defunct Dublin charity formerly used as a fundraising operation for Osama bin Laden's organisation.
Special Branch officers said more than 30 people in Ireland were suspected of involvement with al-Qaeda.
``It is very difficult to take action against them. The legislation is still not effective in terms of arresting people on suspicion of being involved in these groups,'' a branch source said.....In 2002, it emerged that a man with an Irish passport had attended a meeting with six of the hijackers of the two airliners that crashed into New York's World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
The meeting took place in July 2001 in Tarragona in Spain, according to the Spanish daily El Pais.
The paper quoted Spanish intelligence sources as saying that the two pilots, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhand, and four others plotted the attacks during the meeting.
It said a 44-year-old Arab with an Irish passport met with Atta at the Diana Cazadora hotel near Madrid airport. The details are said to form part of 700 pages of evidence in two reports prepared by Spanish authorities for US counterparts into al- Qaeda's pre-September 11 meetings in Spain.
Spanish authorities have charged 18 people with supporting Islamic militants. One is a man named Mohamed Belaziz, whose diary, Spanish police say, showed he had contacts with a Europe-wide network, including people in Ireland.
Belaziz was accused of having phoned Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who was arrested in Belgium two days after the September 11 attacks with bomb-making material that suggested he was planning suicide attacks against US interests in Europe. "
A lax immigration-policy makes the establishment of this "Europe-wide network, including people in Ireland" a lot easier for the terrorists.
I did not say anything was "at the expense of NI Nationalists" by the way. But the current system sure is at the expense of the Irish taxpayer.0 -
And Victor, I do believe that Al-Qaida would sink to any tactic to get their people into our country, including possibly using the baby-rule. And how many of the 40 countries (all outside of the free-movement EU and of Europe generally) that the "No" side claims have "similar" citizenship-for-birth systems as ourselves have that position enshrined in their Constitutions?0
-
Advertisement
-
Ah, yes new headline "Al-Qaida signing up foetuses". :rolleyes:Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And Victor, I do believe that Al-Qaida would sink to any tactic to get their people into our country, including possibly using the baby-rule.0
Advertisement