Immigration Referendum

Victor

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Do not think it would discourage the people from coming here?

there is that possibility. However implementing a proper immigration and asylum process would probably be more useful.

arcadegame2004

This referendum is part of the process of implementing such a policy, since you cannot divorce citizenship from immigration without changing the Constitution.

MrPudding

Do you think the US has a proper imigration policy? Most people seem to hold it up as a good if not perfect example of how it can be done. Anyone born there has the right to call themselves an American. This referendum is not a requirement for a good immigration policy.

It is simply a political ploy to appeal to a very large section of Irish people who do not want people from any other country stealing their housed, women & dole. Now let me point out that I believe the people debating this issue on this board have more sophisicated reasons for supporting it, and that is your choice, but I still believe it is aimed more at the people who do not question the figures and curse under their breath everytime they see a colored person. You know they exist.

A suppose what I am trying to say is, this referendum appeals to 2 types of people who are against immigration.

1. Racists
2. Non-racists who genuinly believe immigration control is a good thing

Now. I think most of the pro referendum people on this board fall into the 2nd group, but can you see how it would really appeal to the 1st group?

MrP

vorbis

i don't think its racist to enforce a link between a newborn baby and ireland in order for the child to gain citizenship. If I had happened to be born in say Australia, I wouldn't expect to be an Australian citizen. It s a bit harsh to describe this kind of opinion as racist. Its also what I belive a significant amount of yes voters think.

arcadegame2004

MrPudding, you will be aware that since September 11th, illegal immigration into the Us is not as easy as it once was. But let me add something. The US system is different in that the link between birth and citizenship is not Constitutionally-enshrined. It is constitutionally-enshrined in Ireland. An evolving matter like this should not be subject to a Constitutionally-enshrined link between citizenship and birth. Allowing that enables terrorists, Nigerian criminal ganga, Chinese triads and the Russian mafia to gain a foothold in Ireland by bringing their girlfriends over. We cannot allow that? have you heard of the Nigerian multiple-ID scams whererby many Nigerian asylum-seekers have collected Social Welfare payments multiple times?

Also, asylum-seekers get a MUCH rougher deal in the US when the citizenship question is excluded. They are sometimes banged up in prison, and numerous allegations of torture have been made. I know this because I have seen documentaries on the issue. They certainly don't get the free local-authority houses, taxpayers paying the rent on it for them, and general SW provisions that asylum seekers in Ireland get.

I will be voting "Yes" partly to end the asylum gravy-train in this country. On it's own this referendum is only a part of that process. It is racist against Irish people to force us to wait 3 or 4 years for a local-authority house, while the asylum-seekers are fast-tracked through the system ahead of us. It is racist against Irish people to pay the asylum-seekers' rent for them, and to pay their driving-test fees, as well as paying them free-taxi fares ( I kid you not - this does happen unlike the US).

And you cannot seriously compare the ability of the Irish economy to cope with the cost of large numbers of asylum-seekers. Our economy is the 26th largest in the world. The US is the richest. The US is a 7 trillion dollar economy. We are a 150 billion dollar one. It stands to reason then that the cost per taxpayer is far higher to us than to an American, especially given that asylum-seeking is a gravy-train in Ireland unlike the US, for reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph.


Of the 2 categories of "Yes" voters you specify, I fall into the "Non-racists who genuinly believe immigration control is a good thing." one. I live near some asylum-seekers and while I have nothing against them personally, I resent the fact that while hospital-services are being downgraded across the country, the taxpayer is spending 350 million euro on asylum-seekers. They cannot genuinely argue that they are fleeing persecution, beause 80% of them get her via NI. 66% of them are either Romanian or Nigerian, and both countries are democracies. Listening to the media referring to Romanian asylum-seekers as "Romanian refugees" you could almost be forgiven for thinking Romania was still ruled by Ceaucescu and the Communist Party, which it hasn't been since 1989.

We need changes to the whole concept of being able to claim asylum. A list of "safe countries" should be drawn up , and people from those countries should be barred from claiming asylum on the grounds that their countries are democracies where no famine, persecution, or war is going on, e.g. Romania. If people from the Third World want to come here let them apply for a work-permit, but let them not continue lying to us that they are here to flee from persecution. At least if they got here on work-permits they would be working instead of skiving off the state like the vast majority of current asylum-seekers/illegal immigrants.

"It is simply a political ploy to appeal to a very large section of Irish people who do not want people from any other country stealing their housed, women & dole." (MrPudding).

Well MrPudding, I feel that the most important thing to consider in this referendum is whether the amendment being proposed is correct or not, not the motivation. I readily accept that the Government may have called the referendum to score political points off the Opposition ( though FG looks likely to support a "Yes" vote). However, I will still vote "Yes", because this is an issue that people right across the political-spectrum want addressed.

Victor

Originally posted by vorbis
i don't think its racist to enforce a link between a newborn baby and ireland in order for the child to gain citizenship.

So you are planning to define someone by who their parents (and thereby ancestors) are.... isn't that one of the definitions of racism?

arcadegame2004

Victor, we are trying to define who and who shall and shall not be a citizen of our State. That is not racist. There is a cost issue here - 350 million euro spent on asylum-seekers so far. That cost will multiply if the situation is left unchanged and too many more come here. Don't you care about this issue? Wouldn't that money be better spent on the Health-Service?

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Wouldn't that money be better spent on the Health-Service?

But the health service depends on the crutch that is immmigration to supply enough staff.

arcadegame2004

Yes but that need is being addressed legally via work-permits issued by Mary Harney to Filipino etc. nurses. We do not need illegal migration to fill these gaps.

arcadegame2004

In fact, asylum-seekers couldn't fill this gap anyway because during the years it takes to determine the veracity of their claims, they are forbidden from working and get a comfortable lifestyle thanks to the State paying all their bills.

bonkey

that is not racist. There is a cost issue here

I'm trying to understand something about this post.

Are you saying its not racist because there is a cost issue? Or are you saying its not racist and there's a cost issue to boot?

jc

arcadegame2004

I am saying that it is not racist because the issue is that the Irish taxpayer is being signed up to what is effectively a potential unlimited SW bill by uncontrolled numbers of asylum-seekers. It is literally the case that any non-national (and most non-nationals coming here to claim asylum are non-EU nationals ) pregnant woman arriving here has to achieve citizenship for her child if she gives birth here. The suspiciously high figure of 58% of female asylum-seekers over 16 years of age come here while pregnant illustrates the veracity of what Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo told Bertie Ahern at a recent meeting (according to the Irish Examiner a few days ago) that Ireland's births-for-citizenship rule was widely known about internationally and was being abused. NO other European country allows such a system, and no matter what anyone says, the Irish people never realised that this tule could be used by asylum-seekers just to get citizenship for their child. There is no need for us to let in asylum-seekers. It's just an extra cost at a time when we have other priorities. Paying SW to asylum-seekers is throwing good money after bad. These people can collect their SW in France, Spain or whatever EU state they entered first, but let them stay put and stop abusing the system by simply looking for the most generous SW system (asylum-shopping).

Villain

Does anyone else think that the fact that e-voting will not used in this referednum will affect the result.

I think the fact that e-voting isn't being used will increase the turnout and thereby increase the YES vote.

capistrano

I don't think it will make any difference to turnout. Turnout will be very low and the referendum wil be passed by a margin of 2:1.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I am saying that it is not racist because the issue is that the Irish taxpayer is being signed up to what is effectively a potential unlimited SW bill by uncontrolled numbers of asylum-seekers.

Exaggerating aren't you? Surely allowing tourists here allows for a potentially unlimited number of road accidents. I'm sorry, but we signed up to the refugee conventions a long time ago. Until the government puts legislative and procedural matters in order its not going to change things whole lot.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
and most non-nationals coming here to claim asylum are non-EU nationals

Wouldn't this be because EU nationals have a right to come here and don't need to claim refugee status?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It is literally the case that any non-national .... pregnant woman arriving here has to achieve citizenship for her child if she gives birth here.

I'm not sure what this means?

arcadegame2004

Victor, what I meant by that remark is that regardless of how many pregnant non-nationals arrive in Ireland, the State is obliged to grant their babies citizenship, especially as only 5% of total asylum-seeker numbers got deported last year. The current system exposes the State to a cost of a potentially limitless quantity and that is not responsible economics.

arcadegame2004

" I'm sorry, but we signed up to the refugee conventions a long time ago. Until the government puts legislative and procedural matters in order its not going to change things whole lot.".

Oh yes it is. The refugee conventions DO NOT require us to grant citizenship for the children of non-nationals born here! We have every right to change our own Constitution to being its' citizenship provisions into line with the rest of the EU. Ireland is joint-second in the EU (with Belgium) in terms of the number of asylum-seekers receive per head of population and there must be a link woth our crazy births-for-citizenship laws. Even the Nigerian President admits our citizenship laws are being abused by large number of his citizens (mostly from the Christian south not from Sharia law areas in the Muslim North as claimed by Nigerian women applying for asylum here.). The dogs in the street even know what's going on.

rde

Several hundred posts ago, I asked a few questions in my quest to figure out which way to vote. I've read an awful lot of shite since then, but few answers. To anyone who's so inclined: I'm pretty sure at this stage I'm voting 'no', this is your last chance to convince me otherwise.

In an attempt to actually get an answer, I'll ask these one at a time; here's number one:

The inane '5% of asylum seekers have been deported last year' comment has been made time and time again, but without reference to the asylum process. Have the other 95% been given asylum? If not, then why is a referendum that has nothing to do with asylum a better solution than fixing the asylum process?

capistrano

Originally posted by rde
The inane '5% of asylum seekers have been deported last year' comment has been made time and time again, but without reference to the asylum process. Have the other 95% been given asylum? If not, then why is a referendum that has nothing to do with asylum a better solution than fixing the asylum process?

This referendum is not an attempt to fix the whole asylum process; less still the immigration process. It is simply to close a loophole in our citizenship rules. The only link with asylum is that the current citizenship rules may encourage some people to come to Ireland to seek asylum/leave to stay.

arcadegame2004

rde, the reason only 5% got deported last year is because of two reasons:

A:Asylum-seekers tear up their travel documents before arrival in Ireland, to try to prevent us discovering their country of origin.

B:The appeals procedure. At least 75% of those claims decided upon are found to be illegal-immigrants but they have numerous avenues for appeal and the wheels of justice move VERY slow on this issue. Why would they tear up their documents if they are genuinely fleeing unsafe countries? I didn't know France was an "unsafe" country!!! LOL

C: Insufficient resources afforded to the Garda National Immigration Bureau..


The Dept. of Justice has repeatedly said over recent years that approximately 90% of asylum-claims are by illegal immigrants. BTW rde, I don't think your vote will determined the overall referendum result. You are clearly part of the politically-correct segment of the electorate that equates restricting immigration with racism.

rde

The Dept. of Justice has repeatedly said over recent years that approximately 90% of asylum-claims are by illegal immigrants.

The fact that they came into the country illegally doesn't mean they're not entitled to asylum.

BTW rde, I don't think your vote will determined the overall referendum result.

It's a referendum. If you thought that I was under the impression that one vote would change the result, you're a bigger idiot that you're trying to be.

You are clearly part of the politically-correct segment of the electorate that equates restricting immigration with racism.

That's the second time you've implied that I call people racist. You were talking out of your arse the first time; I see no difference on this occasion. Or are you assuming that everyone who votes 'no' thinks you're a racist?

gandalf

If I see anymore personal abuse on this thread there will be bannings. Now behave like adults or stop posting

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
rde, the reason only 5% got deported last year is because of two reasons:

A:Asylum-seekers tear up their travel documents before arrival in Ireland, to try to prevent us discovering their country of origin.

B:The appeals procedure. At least 75% of those claims decided upon are found to be illegal-immigrants but they have numerous avenues for appeal and the wheels of justice move VERY slow on this issue. Why would they tear up their documents if they are genuinely fleeing unsafe countries? I didn't know France was an "unsafe" country!!! LOL

C: Insufficient resources afforded to the Garda National Immigration Bureau..


The Dept. of Justice has repeatedly said over recent years that approximately 90% of asylum-claims are by illegal immigrants. BTW rde, I don't think your vote will determined the overall referendum result. You are clearly part of the politically-correct segment of the electorate that equates restricting immigration with racism.

And this referendum deals with which of your points above? The question I asked you before was "how many people have not been deported because of a child born in Ireland since last years ruling?" And also, how or why will this referendum increase the number of persons being deported?

I'm sorry but this referendum smacks of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Actually thats not right, it smacks of saying you need to get a sledgehammer to crack a nut only to find out that it ain't a nut at all. How will this referendum fix the immigration system? I don't want to hear "it will bring us into line with Europe." I don't care about that. You say it is to fix out immigration problem. Tell me how it will. Or do you think that simply being in line with europe will magically fix the problems? You keep saying theat the problem is immigration and illegal immigrants. I really don't feel that the numbers involved warrant a change in the constitution.

If and when this is passed you are still going to be whinging about the numbers of illegals coming to our shores. Get over it.

MrP

arcadegame2004

"The fact that they came into the country illegally doesn't mean they're not entitled to asylum.".

Not true. The Dublin Convention 1981 directly contradicts this. Under the DC, they can claim asylum in the first EU country they enter. Which isn't Ireland. But other EU states are ignoring their obligations under this agreement, because they want to shunt their obligations onto us in terms of the cost of providing SW for these migrants. If you are making a moral rather than a legal point, i.e. that despite the DC, ANYONE who comes here, even from a liberal democracy like Romania (which is not yet an EU member) should be allowed to apply for asylum, then I strongly disagree.

The whole idea of being able to apply for asylum was originally grounded on the concept that people fleeing war or persecution were entitled to seek refuge in a safe country. The Refugee Convention 1951 was signed in the Cold War era - an era of defections from the Eastern Bloc and when the main motivation for immigration probably was persecution war and famine etc.

It is for this reason (previous paragraph) that allowing Romanian or other citizens from a safe liberal democracy to claim asylum here, before then paying them the SW benefits (free housing, free driving test, free taxi-fares, all courtesy of the Irish taxpayer so far to the cost of 350 million Euro) is effectively rewarding someone who is deceiving the State. A Romanian coming here cannot be telling the truth if claiming persecution by the State, or to be fleeing famine, or to be fleeing war. There is no war in Romania, nor is a famine going on there, nor is there any longer a dictatorship there. The same applies to a Nigerian asylum-seeker. Contrary to some peoples' opinions, the majority of Nigerian migrants to Ireland actually come from the Christian south. This point is important because some would have you believe that most are from the Muslim North, where strict Sharia law applies. Even if there were migrants fleeing the latter system, they only have to cross to the South of that country to reach safety. A journey to Ireland is definitely not necessary.

MrPudding disputes that this referendum will deal with the problems I indentified. I have never said that ALONE, the issue will be resolved at a stroke by this referendum. This should be seen as a start to the process of incremental measures. The reason why I stress the importance of bringing Ireland's asylum and citizenship laws into line with the rest of Europe, is because the current system makes Ireland disproportionately attractive to illegal immigrants by guaranteeing their children citizenship if they are born here. And with that, comes a disproportionate and unnecessary cost borne by the Irish taxpayer, at a time when hospitals around the country are being downgraded. 350 million Euro could certainly be better spent on the Health Service. Common sense is what tells me that the fact that an asylum-seeker has a child born here will make many judges sympathetic and reluctant to allow their deportation.

The "sledgehammer to crack a nut" argument is not borne out by official Dept. of Justice figures. I urge you to read the link placed by ai_ing on page 2 of this debate to these figures. If you go to the page referred to in the link, and then go under the heading that is something like "Figures for Pregnant Asylum Seekers", and then read the grids shown, you will see that 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 who arrived in the Republic of Ireland in 2003 were already pregnant upon arrival here - a figure equating to 1,893 persons. This figure of 1,893 persons is specifically mentioned in the grids. I urge you strongly to read this if you want evidence that a problem exists. Arguments should be based on evidence. Emotional arguments of the "Irish people went to America during the Famine" cannot act as a substitute for this, for the simple reason that the vast majority of asylum-seekers arriving here are not fleeing a famine-stricken land, unlike the Irish in the 19th century. Furthermore, the vast majority of Irish immigrants leaving Ireland in the 19th century faced extremely bad living conditions on arrival in the United States, in sharp contrast to the generous SW provisions awarded modern-day asylum-seekers arriving in Ireland ,who are fastracked to the front of the local-authority housing-list, have the Irish taxpayer paying their rent for them, and having free-driving-tests and free taxi-fares awarded to them. Having a child born in Ireland also awards asylum-seekers child-benefit. Those pregnant at the time of arrival in our State clearly have citizenship on their minds. They know that their child is CERTAIN to get citizenship, and that this alone will, according to common sense, strengthen their own claims to citizenship. It stands to reason.

If this referendum passes, then clearly this is only STEP 1 of solving the problem of illegal immigration. Next we will need to have a debate on the unfairness of Irish people having to wait 3 or 4 years to get a local-authority house, while asylum-seekers get it quickly. This too is agaisnt the principles of equality. Illegal-immigration harms not just Ireland. It also harms the the countries of origin by encouraging a brain-drain. Nigerian Presiden Obasanjo has spoken of this problem to Bertie Ahern, expressing concern of abuse of Irish citizenship law by Nigerian citizens. What should "asylum" mean? In my opinion it should mean a safehaven from persecution, famine and war. The DC makes it clear that the first country of entry in the EU must be the only haven in the EU. That alone makes Ireland an impossible candidate for genuine asylum-seekers. But even if it weren't, the fact that the vast majority arriving here come from safe (albeit poor) countries contradicts the concept that these people need "asylum".

ixoy

Okay, at this juncture I recommend everyone try and watch the latest South Park episode, 8x06 - Goobacks. This isn't me trolling (or drunk or somesuch). The episode in question is perfectly relevant to this thread (in the way that South Park always has a moral message).