Immigration Referendum

corley

Originally posted by irish1
I did

Thats all I'm going to say in relation to his question

While I fully accept that you can hold whatever views you wish to hold, I personally feel that it's a bit rich for someone who is quite happily sitting in a Western European democracy (with residency status) to tell someone else that it's a "personal issue" if they are not going to have access to their own children.

In reality international capital can flow from one side of the world to the other in the blink of an eye but people (who I would (maybe naively) feel are much more important than money, and don't get me going on family relations) are restricted by laws and attitudes that would more correctly relate to a 19th century society.

Villain

Originally posted by corley
While I fully accept that you can hold whatever views you wish to hold, I personally feel that it's a bit rich for someone who is quite happily sitting in a Western European democracy (with residency status) to tell someone else that it's a "personal issue" if they are not going to have access to their own children.

I meant I wasn't going to discuss 1 particular case, especially his.

Read my last post, I have nothing against madsl

MadsL

Strange, a few posts ago you were telling me to get a cheap flight back to the UK.

That felt pretty emotional to me.

It was pretty emotional when my fiance was almost deported.

It is pretty emotional that I have no say in a referendum that affects the future of a country that I might actually consider becoming a citizen of.

It is pretty emotional when close personal friends of mine could be deported because of the change in attitude towards non-nationals in this country.

Screw you and your 'nothing personal'.

Everytime you come out with your classy houses paid for by my relatives bullsh!t, you insult me and every other hard-working immigrant in this country. Every time you label us, you insult us. Grow up and get some sense.

corley

Originally posted by irish1
I meant I wasn't going to discuss 1 particular case, especially his.

Read my last post, I have nothing against madsl

But do you not get it? Government policy (including this referendum) acutally fundamedtally affects life on this little island of ours for so many people. You can't say "I'm not going to get involved in individual cases" because individual cases are affected by government policy.

Villain

Originally posted by MadsL
Strange, a few posts ago you were telling me to get a cheap flight back to the UK.

What I said was "If this country is so bad why don'y you go somewhere else, maybe back to the UK."

Apologies if I offended you

Villain

Originally posted by corley
But do you not get it? Government policy (including this referendum) acutally fundamedtally affects life on this little island of ours for so many people. You can't say "I'm not going to get involved in individual cases" because individual cases are affected by government policy.

Of course I get that, but I'm not going to make this discussion personal.

Now sorry if you don't like that but thats my choice

MadsL

Look Irish1, there are millions and millions of immigrants around the world. One day, you might want to see something of the world and become one yourself.

Think how you would like to be treated, then treat immigrants here with the respect you would like. Simple.

I have a friend who makes it a point of honour to shake the hand of anyone he comes across from a different country and thank them for coming here.

MadsL

and so to bed...

corley

Originally posted by irish1
Of course I get that, but I'm not going to make this discussion personal.

Now sorry if you don't like that but thats my choice

I fully appreciate (and respect) the fact that that's your choice. However, it's exactly that attitude of "Oh, these are policy decisions and we're not going to discuss the impact of these policies" that gives bureaucracies a bad name. It also leads to policies such as the one that prohibits asylum-seekers from working that you disagreed with in an earlier post. In summary, policies (particularly government policies) affect people. You can't divorce policies from their impact on people. Either policies are right or wrong - there's no middle ground where you say that you don't want to deal with a particular policy's impact on individuals.

Meh

Originally posted by MadsL
Have you BEEN to Romania, Irish1? I'd f^cking leave if I were pregnant. Why are you so admiring of your blessed ancestors around the world (that everyone loves of course :rolleyes: ) and so down on these people trying for a better life.

I have every sympathy for them, I'm in favour of immigration, and I agree with you that our current immigration system is horribly broken. But encouraging pregnant women to risk their health and their children's health is the wrong way to go about fixing it. Do you think those pregnant asylum-seekers like giving birth in a strange foreign country away from their families? Do you think they like taking long plane/ferry trips to Dublin in their ninth month of pregnancy?

Wouldn't it be much better if we decided immigration issues based on education, skills and character etc. rather than an accident of birth? I reckon both you and your fiance would most definitely be allowed stay if we used those criteria instead...

MadsL

Thanks Meh,

I just want to point out that over the last 12 years almost 80,000 Irish have emigrated to the US.

I reckon there's room now for a few folk coming in!Source

corley

Originally posted by corley
I fully appreciate (and respect) the fact that that's your choice. However, it's exactly that attitude of "Oh, these are policy decisions and we're not going to discuss the impact of these policies" that gives bureaucracies a bad name. It also leads to policies such as the one that prohibits asylum-seekers from working that you disagreed with in an earlier post. In summary, policies (particularly government policies) affect people. You can't divorce policies from their impact on people. Either policies are right or wrong - there's no middle ground where you say that you don't want to deal with a particular policy's impact on individuals.

I guess Irish1 has gone to bed (as I am just about to) as we've heard nothing from him/her in 30 mins. SoI'm off to sleep myself - but in summary I have yet to see a logical reason expressed here for continuing the Irish government's policy of having a non-realistic immigration policy. In the absence of such a policy I will be voting "No" in this referendum.

flogen

I couldnt be arsed reading through the 6 pages, so firstly this isnt a response to anyones comments in perticular, and it is almost certainly a repetition of something someone has already said:

I will vote yes because there is a loophole in our constitution that needs to be fixed. It is not right for someone to come into the country, have a baby and instantly claim citizenship (or have the child claim citizenship). Nowhere else in the EU has it, so why do we? The amendment will simply mean that to be an irish citizen you must have 1 irish parent, or a parent that has been here 3 years (and so has contributed to the country, thus IMO deserving recognition for that). This will not effect people with grandparents who are irish and all that, that issue will be the same as before (whatever the case in it may be).
There is abuses to the asylum system here, like there is everywhere, its a fact of life, but we must do what we can to block all abuses and ensure that the genuine cases are dealt with as such. the more crap and abuse that comes into the system the longer it takes to help those truely in need.
And this is not a racist bill. it would be if it said anyone of african origan or aisan origan couldnt etc etc. but it stands for everyone, white, black, whatever. It is mearly protecting our country from abuse. All genuine asylum cases will not be effected and these people have no reason to worry about it, as if they arent planning on claiming citizenship due to a child born here, then the law stays the same.

I am struggling to see how this will effect genuine cases.. if its a family looking for asylum and the wife happens to be pregenent on arrival, and has her baby here, whats the problem? they can still apply for asylum, its not as if the immigrants will be thrown out of the country instantly... its only going to effect people that are using their soon to be born child as a means for citizenship.. and thats it

Flogen

arcadegame2004

MadsL, you are wrong to imply that UK citizens living here face any risk of deportation after the passing of this referendum proposal. UK citizens are also EU citizens. The only countries in the EU-25 as of May that will be restricted from coming to the West will be the Eastern Applicant states and that has NOTHING to do with this referendum proposal but rather to the EU Enlargement Accession Treaty under which Western EU states may impose restrictions on Eastern immigration for 7 years while Eastern states may impose restrictions on Westerners buying up land for a while. There is no need for restrictions on UK-nationals coming here as you are still a little richer than us and as your unemployment-rate is actually lower than ours. So cut out that red-herring please.

On your point about your American fiancee being deported I am very sympathetic. But that has nothing to do with this referendum. America is NOT part of the EU remember. Current EU members are unaffected by Minister McDowell's proposals. Ireland is simply trying to restore the status-quo-anti before 1998. If these proposals are "racist" then surely you are saying that Ireland itself was racist prior to 1998. I strongly disagree with that.

Angelfire, your parents are not going to be deported don't be so dozy as to think that!

arcadegame2004

May I correct a minority on this forum who seem to believe that the Supreme Court Judgement from some time ago is the solution and renders a referendum unnecessary.

The numbers still coming to this country including in late stages of pregnancy remain substantial. Even if there is no longer a guarantee of automatic citizenship for the immigrant parents of children born in Ireland, there is still a strong "emotional balckmail" affect whereby "bleeding-heart" judges may (and often do) obstruct the deportation of illegal immigrants who time their arrival in Ireland to ensure they give birth here. The Supreme Court did not say that the immigrant parents of asylum-seekers (from such tyrannies as democratic Romania and Bulgaria lol) MUST be deported. Rather they said there was no longer an automatic right to citizenship from these parents. However, the automatic citizenship right for the children of illegals remains, thereby encouraging left-wing judges to constantly obstruct the actual deportation of the parents aswell, on "bleeding heart" i.e. emotional blackmail grounds.

Someone here asked me do I have any evidence of this emotional-blackmail affect. What more evidence do we need than out of around 8,800 asylum-applications last year, only a number barely in the low hundreds was deported. This is pathetic. I have a cousin who used to work in interview the asylum-claimants. She says that the vast majority make up reasons for claiming asylum. Over 50% of asylum-seekers don't even attend the interview process that is supposed to come after the asylum-claim is made, whererby they justify their prospective right to Irish citizenship. Why is this? Clearly it is because they feel that having thge child here is enough to make it near impossible to get their deportations through the Courts.

Our Health Service is at breaking-point with the doubling of Health spending proving ineffective. The asylum-seeking women cannot claim to be fleeing persecution by the time they reach the Republic of Ireland since 80% of them arrive here via Northern Ireland. The Dublin Convention of 1981 is extremely clear. An asylum-seeker must claim asylum in the FIRST EU country they enter. As such, almost non of the asylum-seekers coming here are genuine.

dglancy

Just scanned the previous pages and my observations are,

There are thousands of ethnic groups in the world but only a few hundred countries. Multi-ethnic cultures ARE the norm.

Irish citizenship is a European issue, not just something for this country to consider. Citizenship should mean something more than just a passport - look at the official secrets act.

It's bollox to suggest that our health service would be grand if it weren't for immigrants - they are going to spend the billions either way.

You should be able to discuss citizenship (which by its very nature implies grouping people together into different slots) without it being branded a racist discussion.

I bet most people don't have a clue what the various citizenship rules are (myself included).

Anybody who feels that Irish citizenship rules are tough/racist should have a go at applying for citizenship of Australia/Canada/US. Do it for a laugh and see how far you get. The vast majority of you will be rejected.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
...there is still a strong "emotional balckmail" affect whereby "bleeding-heart" judges may (and often do) obstruct the deportation of illegal immigrants who time their arrival in Ireland to ensure they give birth here.

Can you give a specific example of when this happened? I'd like to read up on it.

Meh

Originally posted by dglancy
JAnybody who feels that Irish citizenship rules are tough/racist should have a go at applying for citizenship of Australia/Canada/US. Do it for a laugh and see how far you get. The vast majority of you will be rejected.

There are two separate issues here. Our citizenship rules are much easier than in other countries, that's true. But our immigration rules are much harder. It's harder to get a work permit; once you do get a work permit you're tied to a particular employer; if that employer lays you off you're liable to be deported immediately. (See how simple, straightforward and fair the Canadian system is -- you can even take the test online.)

Given this, it's hardly surprising that some people are using our too-easy citizenship rules to get around our too-hard immigration rules. The solution, of course, is to fix both -- stop passing citizenship out based on something as arbitrary as geographical location of birth, and make the rules for legal immigrants easier.

capistrano

Immigration, asylum and citizenship and three separate issues.

We need this referendum to fix a loophole in out citizenship rules.

Right now immigrants can only get work permits tied to a particular employer. We need a proper immigration system, like Canada, Australia, etc.

When both of these issues are sorted out, then the asylum system will be left for cases of genuine asylum requests. Right now every economic migrant is claiming asylum, which is absolutely ludicrous, not to say bogus.

ai ing

Madsl
Heres the link to back up that figure of 57% . I posted it before on the first page of this thread so it doesnt look like you bothered to read it.
http://www.justice.ie/802569B20047F907/vWeb/wpMJDE5WZMEU
quotes:

As regards the number of asylum applicants who arrive in the State while pregnant, the data available from the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner show that over the past year, the number of asylum seekers pregnant at the time of application was almost 60% of the number of female asylum seekers aged 16 years and over.
The rate of pregnancy is largely unchanged, averaging 57% of women aged over 16 years for the 6-month period. This compares with averages of 58% in the period March-December 2002 and 61% in January-June 2003.
However, recent trends have indicated that the scale of the problem is even greater outside of the asylum seeker framework, with very large numbers of non-EEA nationals now coming to Ireland to give birth. The Minister has been informed of the growing concern among health care professionals about the rate of non-nationals coming to Ireland to give birth and the strains which this is placing on services. Data supplied by the Masters of the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals show that those hospitals alone have had 2,816 births to non-nationals in the first six months of last year.
The feature of Irish citizenship law which grants an entitlement to citizenship to all persons born on the island of Ireland is unique in the European Union, and unusual world-wide. Most other countries have laws whereby citizenship is acquired by descent from an existing citizen, with place of birth either wholly or largely irrelevant. This makes Ireland an attractive target destination for persons wishing to establish residence in the EU and with no other basis, or a less certain basis, for doing so elsewhere. All other Member States of the EU either provide citizenship to the child of a citizen or permanent resident only or else provide citizenship to a child born on its territory only after a period of residence in the state concerned and / or after attaining a certain age.
It should also be noted that a number of other states have amended their law to exclude the possibility of the children of illegal immigrants obtaining citizenship by birth on the territory of the state (UK 1981, Australia 1986).
SO madsl it hasnt been that long since your own country brought in this exact same law.

Victor

Originally posted by irish1
Irish people travelled abroad when work was not here, but by god did they work, and if they didn't they ended up on the street. You talk about Ireland as if it's the only country that takes such measures, have a look at your country and every other country in Europe before you go on a rant about Ireland.

Aren't you blaming an individual for his country's policies?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"bleeding-heart" judges may (and often do) obstruct the deportation of illegal

Nice of you to label people. The reason a judge may delay a deportation is because it can then be reviewed - given due process. If someone is already deported, that cannot happen.

Look at them bleeding-heart liberal judges that postpone the death sentence in some countries. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Over 50% of asylum-seekers don't even attend the interview process that is supposed to come after the asylum-claim is made, whererby they justify their prospective right to Irish citizenship.

There is no right, never has been for the parent to gain citizenship, no one has looked for it, no one has discussed it. What is your point?

arcadegame2004

Victor, I am aware that as part of the process of claiming asylum, an asylum seeker is supposed to attend interviews so that the veracity of their claim can be decided upon. The point I am making is that with the majority choosing not to abide by this requirement, the conclusion that must be drawn is that they either have no excuse or else, that they are trying to drag the process out so that they can put down roots and possibly have children so that they can emotionally pressure the system, political and judicial, to let them stay. This is unacceptable to me and evidently from this and other polls in newspapers, my opinion is shared by most people.

Victor

You fail to answer why you included the word "citizenship" if it is irrelevant to the parent, who may be seeking either "leave to remain" or residency.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/04/10/story142249.html

Civil liberties group challenges referendum on citizenship
10/04/2004 - 8:49:36 AM

The Council for Civil Liberties says the public is being misled over the need to change the constitutional right to citizenship.

If the June 11 referendum is passed, citizenship will only be granted to babies who have a parent who is already a citizen.

Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, claims Ireland is vulnerable to abuse from citizenship tourists.

But the Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Aisling Reidy, said our constitution is far from unique, with 40 other common law countries around the world having the same citizenship rights for those born in the country.

Ms Reidy said that in the past Ireland has opted out of the chance to harmonise citizenship laws with the rest of the EU, and that there is no requirement for us to do so now.

She said that changing the constitution is the wrong approach and that Ireland needs a proper immigration policy in place before voting to change the constitution on this issue.

dglancy

I got 71 on the canada score ... see ye all in Toronto!

Phil_321

Originally posted by Victor

quote:

---

Civil liberties group challenges referendum on citizenship
10/04/2004 - 8:49:36 AM
The Council for Civil Liberties says the public is being misled over the need to change the constitutional right to citizenship.
The Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Aisling Reidy, said our constitution is far from unique, with 40 other common law countries around the world having the same citizenship rights for those born in the country.

40, eh? Out of 191 countries in the world. And not one of them in the EU. The U.S.A. and Australia aren't one of 40 countries either. So that is a poor argument.

This referendum is not aimed at kicking all immigrant workers out of Ireland(which is what some of you seem to think), it's to stop the blatant abuse of the system by asylum seekers.

corley

Originally posted by Phil_321
40, eh? Out of 191 countries in the world. And not one of them in the EU. The U.S.A. and Australia aren't one of 40 countries either. So that is a poor argument.

Phil_321, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from but you are incorrect to state that the U.S.A. does not grant citizenship on the basis of being born there. It does. (If you have a copy of The Irish Times from last Saturday (the 3rd) you'll see that it states this is the case.) In fact, so too do Canada, New Zealand, India and large parts of the Caribbean and Latin America. Citizenship on the basis of birth is actually quite common in republics.

Eoin P the Dub

In this thread in the last few hours, many posters are making claims for which they have no facts and thereby playing into the hands of the politicians in the Dail seeking to foist this upon an unsuspecting electorate.

The nature and extent of alleged abuse of our flawed immigration system is unclear: Mullah McDowell has provided little by way of evidence.

People voting yes to this referendum might want to ask themselves some simple questions: does the Constitution get changed fundamentally to prevent a few hundred people from claiming citizenship? Is our immigration system currently in place capable of meting out equality and justice to those who require it? Are all who come here to seek asylum under UN convention still entitled to due process? Are those without the right to work and for the most part without the vote to be blamed for decisions not of their making, i.e. running down public services?

Some context: passports of Irish nationals were this week confiscated before they were deported. Families are being separated before deportation, Gardai are mishandling people at every stage of this process.

Answers please?

Phil_321

Originally posted by corley
Phil_321, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from but you are incorrect to state that the U.S.A. does not grant citizenship on the basis of being born there. It does. (If you have a copy of The Irish Times from last Saturday (the 3rd) you'll see that it states this is the case.) In fact, so too do Canada, New Zealand, India and large parts of the Caribbean and Latin America. Citizenship on the basis of birth is actually quite common in republics.

O.K. Corley, I stand corrected. The U.S.A. does offer citizenship on the basis of being born in that country.


In regards to the other countries you mentioned.... look at their locations. It is practically impossible for asylum seekers from Nigeria and Romania, the main sources of our asylum seekers, to travel to these countries to gain asylum. Except for India, but I doubt they'd get much help there.

And we're a member of the EU so I don't see why we should have a different immigration policy from the rest of the unioin.

Originally posted by Eoin P The Dub

People voting yes to this referendum might want to ask themselves some simple questions: does out Constitution get changed fundamentally to prevent a few hundred people from claiming citizenship?

Quite a lot more than a few hundred actually. From ai ing's post above:
"Data supplied by the Masters of the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals show that those hospitals alone have had 2,816 births to non-nationals in the first six months of last year."

MadsL

MadsL, you are wrong to imply that UK citizens living here face any risk of deportation after the passing of this referendum proposal. UK citizens are also EU citizens.

I'm not implying that. What I actually said was that if not for the accident of my holding an EU pasport, I could be facing deportation and never see my kid again. Don't forget that an unmarried father has very little rights in this country.

As far as my fiance is concerned, I find it ironic that a highly skillled IT knowledge worker who was brought to this country a part of a drive to fill a skillsgap, is then told to feck off once the economy hits a downturn three years later. Especially ironic when her country has accepted 70 odd thousand Irish 'citizenship tourists', in the past decade. When her President (for all his other faults) is pushing to give legal status to illegal immigrants. (including the many illegal Irish immigrants and visa overstayers) and when the 'special relationship' means that whilst the US offers all kinds of special visa programs and access to the Green Card lottery - the Irish government couldn't care less when Americans wish to reside here.

As far as the statistics that have been quoted, I admit that I was wrong about the percentage and stand corrected (It was late last night, and I was p*ssed off with Irish1) but I will say this. There may be 58% showing up pregnant, but in terms of numbers this is a very small percentage of the population. I wish the Gvt would stop talking about non-nationals in the way that equates to non-national = asylum seeker. Talking about the numbers of children that are born to non-nationals is confusing, alarmist and inaccurate. Very many of the children that are born here to non-nationals are born to legally resident EU and non-EU citizens.

This referendum is being touted as a solution to the 'problem'; the reality is there is no problem - just a slow trickle of immigrants who wish to have a better life for their children. Put in place a decent scoring system for admission in the first place, speed up the asylum process, clear the backlog and the 'problem' will disappear.

MadsL

Let's take a look at some independant measures at how much of a problem this is;
Foreign population - Ireland's ranking in europe

Net migration rate vs Europe
Net migration

Refugees

Phil_321

Madsl, look at ai ing's post:
"Data supplied by the Masters of the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals show that those hospitals alone have had 2,816 births to non-nationals in the first six months of last year."

2,816 births to non-nationals in six months is not a slow trickle.

There may be 58% showing up pregnant, but in terms of numbers this is a very small percentage of the population

No it's not when the country has a population of 4 million. For each of those 2816 births in that 6 month period you can count at least 2 people, the mother and father, and probably more children that will have to be supported by the state.


What would happen if the numbers of asylum-seekers started to rise dramatically? Is the onus on us to grant asylum to everyone who comes from Nigeria? Every Nigerian could probably say they're being persecuted in their home country(even if they're not, there's no proof) and therefore do we have to take them in?

Victor

Originally posted by Phil_321
Quite a lot more than a few hundred actually. From ai ing's post above:
"Data supplied by the Masters of the three Dublin Maternity Hospitals show that those hospitals alone have had 2,816 births to non-nationals in the first six months of last year."

Out of 60,000+ births .....

silverside

More like 10000 (60000 births per year, 1/3 of population in dublin x 1/2 a year).

Eoin P the Dub

Phil: 2,816 births to non-nationals in six months is not a slow trickle.

Let's not play a big numbers game but 2,816 in 6 months includes all EEA nationals, Americans, Oceanics, Russians, Indians, and of course some East Europeans and West Africans. Some perspective for ya!

QUOTE]

Phil_321

That's correct. From the offical proposal for the Constitutional amendment:

"The percentage of such births was between 20% and 25% of the total number of births in public hospitals in the Dublin area. The Minister has been informed that this trend has not substantially abated since the Supreme Court decision in the L&O cases.When births in other hospitals, in particular, Drogheda, are taken into account, the national figures are likely to be even higher. "

Phil_321

You're right Eoin. It's a bigger problem than just asylum seekers.

Also from the offical proposal for the Constitutional amendment:
"However, recent trends have indicated that the scale of the problem is even greater outside of the asylum seeker framework, with very large numbers of non-EEA nationals now coming to Ireland to give birth. The Minister has been informed of the growing concern among health care professionals about the rate of non-nationals coming to Ireland to give birth and the strains which this is placing on services."


These people are as Irish as Saddam Hussein. They're just exploiting the loophole in our Constitution. No other country in the EU would grant their children citizenship, thereby securing their stay in the country. Why should we?

Victor

Originally posted by silverside
1/3 of population in dublin

Well I would suspect 50%+ of the relevant population lives in Dublin.

MadsL

Stop it! I'm SICK TO DEATH of Non-national = asylum seeker.

How many births to asylum seekers last year - 3270. This is a trickle compared to the 1.3 million refugees accepted by Germany.

In the same year 20,000 Irish LEFT THE COUNTRY!

http://www.cso.ie/publications/demog/popmig.pdf

Phil_321

Originally posted by Victor
Well I would suspect 50%+ of the relevant population lives in Dublin.

Try travelling around the country, and having a look. They're not all in Dublin, they're all over the country. When I was living in Galway I saw more of the "relevant population" than I do in Dublin.

silverside

any way you want to look at it around 25% of the births in dublin are to non-nationals, some of them may to be legal long term residents, but a lot are to citizenship tourists. This cannot be allowed to continue because of the effect on our economy and society. We either allow unrestricted immigration or we dont. I think most people dont want unrestricted immigration so this referendum is the obvous way to solve it.

MadsL

Can someone explain to me why you all feel that 17,000 non EEC immigrants a year is such a big deal to you.

1. They are not taking jobs, but stimulating demand for good and services, therefore creating jobs.
2. They provide diversity.
3. They cook, serve, clean, do the nasty jobs you don't want to do.
4. We need good, heathy working indivuals and families to pay tax to shore up a health service burdened by an aging population.

silverside

I have no problem with skilled immigrants once we can decide who we want, and not have it based on whoever can sneak in 8 1/2 months pregnant, we get a lot of people from certain countries which are associated with scamming and begging, if we had a points based immigration system we would get more skilled people who could work instead of living off the government.

MadsL

unrestricted immigration

Bullsh!t. Immigration is most certainly resistricted. Go take yourself off to the Garda immigration office for an hour...most people are being refused any leave to remain.

silverside

so are you in favour of unrestricted immigration, or not?

MadsL

scamming and begging...work instead of living off the government.

Sorry I thought we were talking about immigrants, you seem to have confused it with most of West Dublin...:D

Eoin P the Dub

MadSL, you are right. Too many here confuse non-national with asylum seeker. Unfortunately, we are going to have a very unintelligent debate over the next 9 weeks about this.

In many people's minds herte in this country, they, them, those people means people from Africa and near Asia, not the vast numbers of immigrants from north America and the EU. In addition, the Government is exploiting this ambiguity to push through this thorough abuse of the Constitution.

A numbers game is not the way here. The debate is broader than numbers and goes to the core of what we are as a democratic republic with due process, justice and a set of laws which protect minorities. Those voting no against this, I think, should broaden the debate out to other issues like: why are we not getting a referendum on land prices and private property - absolutely necessary when 50% of Dublin residents cannot afford a house.

Leave Phil to it, he's hell bent on the minutiae of the numbers game, which is thoroughly detestable and ultimately unsustainable.

silverside

yeah them too...
some foreigners are skillld and work hard, some are just chancers same as some irish people, but who we let stay shouldnt be based just on where they were born.

Eoin P the Dub

Originally posted by silverside
so are you in favour of unrestricted immigration, or not?

This is such a red herring Silverside: the debate is not about unrestricted immigration but immigration. Can we please have a mature discussion on what we want as Ireland's immigration policy. No one is asking us to put forward a law allowing unrestricted immigration. Questions like this are the last resort of the indefensible.

Victor

Originally posted by silverside
I have no problem with skilled immigrants once we can decide who we want

Actually no, we need workers at all levels.

http://www.cso.ie/publications/demog/popmig.pdf 50,500 people immigrated last year, the minister appears to have a problem with 1,600 of them :rolleyes:

Trebor

Originally posted by Eoin P the Dub
why are we not getting a referendum on land prices and private property - absolutely necessary when 50% of Dublin residents cannot afford a house.

maybe because it's not in the Constitution?

anyway issues like that will have to wait to the next general election before we can vote on them.